Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 14:35:56 -0500 (CDT) From: Bruce Albrecht <bruce@zuhause.mn.org> To: chris@calldei.com Cc: FreeBSD-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: -current build fails Message-ID: <14363.18588.45487.54695@celery.zuhause.org> In-Reply-To: <19991030133851.I535@holly.calldei.com> References: <XFMail.991030141059.andrews@TECHNOLOGIST.COM> <Pine.BSF.4.05.9910301114260.344-100000@venus.GAIANET.NET> <19991030133851.I535@holly.calldei.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Chris Costello writes: > On Sat, Oct 30, 1999, Vincent Poy wrote: > > Well, I try to stay up to date but there are times when I am busy > > so things do get behind... I've ran -current since 1993. There is no > > real reason to use -STABLE. > > Give me one single reason why there is on real reason to use > -STABLE and I'll give you 10 reasons to use -STABLE. Can -STABLE run applications that use shared memory on an SMP kernel? No? I didn't think so. I think a lot of the people who run older versions of -current, and upgrade sporadically, have done so because there are particular things missing out of -STABLE that they need (or want). For various reasons, they're not inclined to install a new version of -current daily, or even weekly, and wait until they feel that -current is relatively stable. Most of them have no interest in doing major OS internals development, but are capable of generating kernel dumps after a panic. They also know that nobody's going to spend a lot of time on any problems they encounter unless they're running a very current -current. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?14363.18588.45487.54695>