Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 20:28:01 +0200 From: Vallo Kallaste <kalts@estpak.ee> To: Eugene Grosbein <eugen@grosbein.pp.ru> Cc: Kenneth Mays <kmays2000@hotmail.com>, scrappy@hub.org, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: -STABLE was stable for long time (Re: FreeBSD: Server or Desktop OS?) Message-ID: <20021117182801.GB1131@tiiu.internal> In-Reply-To: <20021117224945.A806@grosbein.pp.ru> References: <F32yELid1epQzz4IXQp00019522@hotmail.com> <20021117224945.A806@grosbein.pp.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 10:49:45PM +0700, Eugene Grosbein <eugen@grosbein.pp.ru> wrote: > > Your question brings up an issue that was talked about several > > times, and it was addressed in the docs and the newsgroup. > > -STABLE is an engineering development branch that is 'more > > stable' than -CURRENT, but not more stable than -RELEASE. > > -STABLE is NOT for end users/customers for official production > > use (i.e. do so at your own risk). > I wonder why no one says that -STABLE really WAS stable and WAS intended > for end users less than 2 years ago. Moreover, Hanbook said you > need -STABLE if you are using FreeBSD in production environment > and you need stability, Handbook said it even 15 months ago. > And it has been assetring so for long time, that's where the name > of this branch came from. Anyone can see that in CVS. Exactly my point. The stability of FreeBSD is slowly but definitely deteriorating. The more the OS is gaining complexity, more bugs will be introduced or old bugs surface. As I understand it's very hard to support ever changing hardware, growing needs of userbase and hold the OS quality (in this context stability) on the track. -- Vallo Kallaste kalts@estpak.ee 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?20021117182801.GB1131>