From owner-freebsd-questions Mon Nov 9 10:32:58 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA04231 for freebsd-questions-outgoing; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 10:32:58 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from ralf.serv.net (ralf.serv.net [205.153.153.77]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA04226 for ; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 10:32:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mcglk@ralf.serv.net) Received: (from mcglk@localhost) by ralf.serv.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA06518; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 10:31:58 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 10:31:58 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199811091831.KAA06518@ralf.serv.net> From: Ken McGlothlen MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: VEGA , Steve Friedrich CC: FreeBSD Questions Subject: Re: Plea to core team References: <199811091737.MAA31468@laker.net> X-Mailer: VM 6.33 under Emacs 19.34.1 Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG vega@d132-h017.rh.rit.edu (VEGA) writes: | On Mon, 9 Nov 1998, Steve Friedrich wrote: | | > I wonder if anyone subscribed to -questions besides me thinks that the 3.0R | > shouldn't have been made generally available. It is allowing total morons | > to destroy FreeBSD's reputation due to their incompetence. [...] | | i have to agree. would i be wrong to assume that it was released only to | appease the masses who would be outraged if it hadnt been released on october | 15th? it seems to me that the release was just rushed, to meet a | pseudo-deadline. it's usable, provided you have experience with problems that | may occur, but newbies should definitly NOT be using 3.0. I'd say most experienced system administrators know that no matter how much bugtesting a major revision to the operating system undergoes, some things only come out after it gets released. I, for one, would never use a fresh x.0.0 release on a production system, because I know issues will get discovered over those first few months. It's the same reason I didn't upgrade to NT 4.0 on my NT-box-what-just-sits-there-most-of-the-time until SP2 came out. (Not that that made it any better; I should have waited until SP3.) 3.0 was ready to move to the -RELEASE cycle---you can't betatest forever. And it's turning up some issues that will get fixed in 3.0.1 on and so forth. For myself, I'll probably wait until 3.1.1 before I really upgrade my system. I think perhaps simply making it clearer what -RELEASE and -STABLE mean on the home page would help a lot, along with having links to each installation. But I don't think that restricting 3.0 is the answer. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message