From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Apr 20 08:08:12 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id IAA25522 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 20 Apr 1997 08:08:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mole.mole.org (marmot.mole.org [204.216.57.191]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA25517 for ; Sun, 20 Apr 1997 08:08:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from mail@localhost) by mole.mole.org (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA10446; Sun, 20 Apr 1997 15:06:48 GMT Received: from meerkat.mole.org(206.197.192.110) by mole.mole.org via smap (V1.3) id sma010443; Sun Apr 20 15:06:42 1997 Received: (from mrm@localhost) by meerkat.mole.org (8.6.11/8.6.9) id IAA11828; Sun, 20 Apr 1997 08:06:23 -0700 Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 08:06:23 -0700 From: "M.R.Murphy" Message-Id: <199704201506.IAA11828@meerkat.mole.org> To: james@wgold.demon.co.uk, skynyrd@opus.cts.cwu.edu Subject: Re: Price of FreeBSD (was On Holy Wars...) Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > 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 > To: Chris Timmons > 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