From owner-freebsd-stable Fri Mar 19 3:40:42 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from peach.ocn.ne.jp (peach.ocn.ne.jp [210.145.254.87]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C42115519 for ; Fri, 19 Mar 1999 03:40:39 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dcs@newsguy.com) Received: from newsguy.com by peach.ocn.ne.jp (8.9.1a/OCN) id UAA02155; Fri, 19 Mar 1999 20:40:05 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <36F23541.FCCF8497@newsguy.com> Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 20:30:09 +0900 From: "Daniel C. Sobral" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: pt-BR,ja MIME-Version: 1.0 To: chris@tci.com Cc: dan@dna.tsolab.org, mmercer@ipass.net, jkh@zippy.cdrom.com, me@T-F-I.freeserve.co.uk, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Confusion References: <199903190540.WAA07008@lazlo.tci.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG chris@tci.com wrote: > > Look, the NT admins I know who are getting their feet wet are doing it > of their own free will - they're wanting to check out what all the hype > about OSS and the like is about. They go to retail stores, check out > the packaging, and buy what they think is the "better" product. I'm > happy as Hell they're doing this, but do we really want to be confusing > people from the very start. Remember the Betamax? All .0 versions of all softwares are more unstable than the previous older version (btw, 2.2.8 was released after 3.0, but that is *way* beside the point :). That is a *fact*. Sure, you might be able to come up with a handful of exceptions, but that's all they are: exceptions. More important to this thread, *NONE* of these exceptions came from Microsoft. Whatever .0 version you buy from Microsoft, that is going to be more unstable than the former highest version. So, FreeBSD is perfect in line with MS on this one . This is not a policy decision. It is intrinsic to the whole concept of a .0 release. So, it comes down to this: we are doing no worse than anyone else. We *certainly* are doing no worse than the environment you say this people came from. And, just to hammer it down, that 3.0 is more unstable than 2.2.8 will most likely go unnoticed by then. Unless they actually get down to learn more about FreeBSD, start asking questions, and then are told 2.2.8 would have been better for them. At which point they can be enlightened about all these fine points. The only possible complain is about the *quality* of 3.0. 3.0 had it's problems, and they are mentioned in the errata, which is mentioned on the back of the cd case. It was not exactly a "bad" product, though. Just by *our* standards... -- Daniel C. Sobral (8-DCS) dcs@newsguy.com dcs@freebsd.org "What happened?" "It moved, sir!" To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message