Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 09:49:37 -0800 (PST) From: Keith Woodman <keith@lightningweb.com> To: Ted Spradley <tsprad@set.spradley.tmi.net> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Confusion Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.990319093254.20358A-100000@nefertiti.lightningweb.com> In-Reply-To: <199903191709.LAA04093@set.spradley.tmi.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Thank you much for this mail. This mail makes perfect sense. And is the way people should have responded to my original posting. I have had no problem with 3.0 as of yet. I was mearly fearful of it's ability to withstand time on it's own for a while. My concern came from all the rush of people clammering about to get 3.2 out to fix all the 3.1 problems. Which prompted me to question. "Um, geesh, if 3.1 is so broken to the point of people rushing towards 3.2. How bad off am I sitting here with 3.0". That in turn lead me to question the name scheme of the OS. As of now due to the clammering to bash me by a lot of people sending personal mail to me and not posting to the list. I still have no clear understanding as to where 3.0 stands. Not every person that installs an OS has the choice in the OS that is being installed. The person who suggested someone be fired on the spot for not reading the .txt is being a bit harsh I think, even though for the most part, I agree with the coment. Telling your boss that it would be best not to install the first version of a SMP kernel, after he just spent 10k on a dual proc system is what get's you fired. When it comes down to it. His title out ranks my lowly title. Regardless of what I have read or have to say about it. Keith ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Keith Woodman Technical Coordinator Keith@lightningweb.com Lightningweb LLC pid 7962 (sniffit), uid 0: exited on signal 10 (core dumped) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- On Fri, 19 Mar 1999, Ted Spradley wrote: > > > It was never mater of somthing not working. It was a question as to the > > stability of something called RELEASE, and if it could be trusted on a > > critical system. > > Well, what does "stability" mean? Do you mean "unlikely to fall" or "likely to endure"? "Likely to fall" implies that it doesn't work right. No FreeBSD version is likely to endure long without being replaced, but 2.0.5 is still as durable now as it was in June 1995, and isn't going to change by itself. If you had started testing it then maybe by now you could trust it "on a critical system". If you want the benefit of other users' experience and testing, ask about 2.1.7 and 2.2.2. > > How "critical" is this system if you choose what software to use based on the name somebody else gives to it? > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.990319093254.20358A-100000>