Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 08:32:25 +0100 From: Cliff Sarginson <cls@raggedclown.net> To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD: Server or Desktop OS? Message-ID: <20021117073225.GA862@raggedclown.net> In-Reply-To: <3DD6F4A0.124A3322@ene.asda.gr> References: <3DD6F4A0.124A3322@ene.asda.gr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 03:45:04AM +0200, Lefteris Tsintjelis wrote: > Reading helps for sure, I can't argue with that. However, a name such > as -to-become-stable would help most to realize what really is with > the first look). > This hangs on a badly chosen name. Maybe "INTERIM" would be better. From my experience "STABLE" has been for the most part worthy of it's name, although certainly bugs have crept in sometimes. But I have a small network, although often a fairly stressed one. The issue of someone providing a service for 1000's of online users is of course quite different. They are going to be hitting resource problems etc. in a big way. I guess there is little opportunity for the developers to actually emulate that kind of stress. I think the documentation does make clear you run a risk with -STABLE. Of course I could say that you get a responsiveness from the FreeBSD team that greatly exceeds that of any of the many commercial versions of UNIX and other OS'es I have worked on. Those of you who used to work on DEC systems may remember what became their notorious response to problem reports: "Your problem has been noted and may be fixed in a future release". -- Regards Cliff Sarginson The Netherlands [ This mail has been checked as virus-free ] 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?20021117073225.GA862>