From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 11 23:02:20 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E628A16A4CE for ; Mon, 11 Oct 2004 23:02:20 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail.cableone.net (scanmail2.cableone.net [24.116.0.122]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A86D943D31 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 2004 23:02:20 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from v.velox@vvelox.net) Received: from vixen42.24-119-122-191.cpe.cableone.net (unverified [24.119.122.25]) by smail2.cableone.net (SurgeMail 1.9b) with ESMTP id 21392797 for multiple; Mon, 11 Oct 2004 16:01:23 -0700 Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 18:01:32 -0500 From: Vulpes Velox To: TM4525@aol.com Message-ID: <20041011180132.58d8ac7a@vixen42.24-119-122-191.cpe.cableone.net> In-Reply-To: <1dc.2daa3fdc.2e9bf0b8@aol.com> References: <1dc.2daa3fdc.2e9bf0b8@aol.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 0.9.12b (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.10) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Server: High Performance Mail Server - http://surgemail.com cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD Release Question X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 23:02:21 -0000 On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 10:20:40 EDT TM4525@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 10/9/04 6:25:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > wmoran@potentialtech.com writes: > >> 1. By Sep 2005, do you think 5.x performance will be optimized > >and be > comparable to today's 4.x stable versions ? > > >5.3 is supposed to be stable, and it's expected to be on part with > >4.x > performance, and it's supposed to release before the end of the > month. > > >>From what I've seen and heard, it looks like all that is going to > happen. > > >> 2. By Sep 2005, do you think 5.x will be as stable as today's 4.x > > > >> released versions ? > > >Yes. > I hope you're not betting your business on these questions, because > the reality is that 1) they're not very good questions and 2) the > people who are answering them can't really know the answers. > "stable" requires time, and since 5.2.1 and 5.3 are substantially > different, I can't see how one can predict the level of stability a > year from now. Following this logic any thing can be claimed to not be stable.