From owner-freebsd-current  Sat Sep  9 16:13:33 1995
Return-Path: current-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id QAA05533
          for current-outgoing; Sat, 9 Sep 1995 16:13:33 -0700
Received: from xenon.chromatic.com (xenon.chromatic.com [199.5.224.1])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id QAA05527
          for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>; Sat, 9 Sep 1995 16:13:31 -0700
Received: from localhost (jdl@localhost) by xenon.chromatic.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id QAA28456; Sat, 9 Sep 1995 16:13:12 -0700
Message-Id: <199509092313.QAA28456@xenon.chromatic.com>
X-Authentication-Warning: xenon.chromatic.com: Host localhost didn't use HELO protocol
To: John Capo <jc@irbs.com>
cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: sig 11 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 09 Sep 1995 14:51:22 EDT."
             <199509091851.OAA16895@irbs.irbs.com> 
Reply-To: jdl@chromatic.com
Clarity-Index: null
Threat-Level: none
Software-Engineering-Dead-Seriousness: There's no excuse for unreadable code.
Net-thought: If you meet the Buddha on the net, put him in your Kill file.
Date: Sat, 09 Sep 1995 16:13:12 -0700
From: Jon Loeliger <jdl@chromatic.com>
Sender: current-owner@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

John Capo scribbled:
> These kinds of problems are all part of running -current.  Current
> is a development tree and is quite often broken for one reason or
> another.  Like the docs say, "The bleeding edge".
> 
> Sounds like you should be running -stable rather than -current.

Hmmm.  Is the problem here that people always think they want
to be running "the latest release" and they equate that to
the "current" system and get it wrong?  Should we maybe rename
the -current as like, -development, -devel, -bleed or something?
To make it *really* obvious.  I mean, I had to actually *read*
FAQ to find this out... :-)

jdl