Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 08:06:23 -0700 From: "M.R.Murphy" <mrm@Mole.ORG> To: james@wgold.demon.co.uk, skynyrd@opus.cts.cwu.edu Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Price of FreeBSD (was On Holy Wars...) Message-ID: <199704201506.IAA11828@meerkat.mole.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> From owner-freebsd-hackers@freefall.freebsd.org Sun Apr 20 04:44:33 1997 > Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 20:09:17 +0100 > From: James Mansion <james@wgold.demon.co.uk> > To: Chris Timmons <skynyrd@opus.cts.cwu.edu> > CC: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: Price of FreeBSD (was On Holy Wars...) > > Chris Timmons wrote: > > > > Are you trying to win the "Works with eDns!" stamp of approval for > > rhetorical acrimony? > > > > You've seen how FreeBSD releases are constructed by breaking off branches > > from -current and stabilizing them over a period of time. Feature sets > > appear in -current well before ever making it into a release, so there is > > planning time. As for FreeBSD-SMP, it is no secret that it exists and has > > been loosely targeted for 3.0, what more do you want? > > Well, personally I think the problem is that if I say 'FreeBSD does not > have > SMP support', then I mean 'finished and working' and by implication > given the > way the (admirable, IMHO) release process works, this means that stable > releases > don't have it. > > Trouble is, people pop up and say 'yes it does have SMP support'. > > This is confusing, to say the least. Personally I think its a big > mistake - if > someone has a real need for an SMP enabled production system and tries > to build it > at the moment with FreeBSD then she'll be sorely disappointed, similarly > with > Linux. I have a 2xP6200 3.0-SMP system in a production environment. I'm delighted with it. No crashes (yet :-). It's certainly not as easy to get it going as a release, but, it's a far cry from "sorely disappointed." > > Personally, I'd say that FreeBSD is defined by what's on the current > stable > release available on ROM. > > What it may/will be defined by is -current. I'd say it's neither of the above, but rather a _very_ interesting collaborative development process. > > I would hate to see the professionalism of the release management be > threatened by > indicipline about what is/is not in the product (yet). > > (That there has been SMP code in there for a long time is largely > irrelevant, > until it works properly) > Are these comments from practice of experience or from theory of experience? ;-) -- Mike Murphy mrm@Mole.ORG +1 619 598 5874 Better is the enemy of Good
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199704201506.IAA11828>