Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 14:33:29 -0800 From: Brian Nelson <brian@pocketscience.com> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Let 3.x die ASAP? Message-ID: <38E284B9.8A14D1D2@pocketscience.com> References: <Pine.BSF.3.96.1000329080220.7123A-100000@omnix.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This message can be summed up with: "I am a whiner, and I just want to complain. I don't have any real issues I want to brung up, but I'll 'not stable' a bunch of times. Granted I have never read the docs on keeping up with -STABLE, and I hardly know what /usr/src/etc is for, but all these machines I have pgraded form 3.1 to 3.4 sucks." Didier Derny wrote: > > why dont you call freebsd freebsd2000 freebsd2001.... > > freebsd seems running version after version and not stability... > > I think that during 1994-1998 I made the right choice to choose FreeBSD > instead of linux. > > in 1999 (3.x) I was not so sure at all, no stability too many problems. > > In 2000 it's getting worse, for me FreeBSD is not stable at all > the future of FreeBSD is not so clear, version follow after version but > I still have no support for my sound board, realplayer, oracle... > The clients are telling me to install Linux instead of FreeBSD (for > oracle)... > I've just finished uprading the machines to 3.4-release and you are > telling me that there is no future for 3.X... > > I'm about to buy a smp machine but I see so many horror stories on > the mailling lists that I'm not sure at all that I should use a smp > machine (or install linux instead of FreeBSD)... > > one of our client is running a smp machine with 3.2-BETA without any > probleme... > > another client is running 3.4-RELEASE and his machine is rebooting on > heavy load... > > with all these problemes the end of 3.x will probably be the end > of FreeBSD for me! > > -- > Didier Derny > didier@omnix.net > > On Tue, 28 Mar 2000, Martin Cracauer wrote: > > > A bit of a controvesical question, for sure. > > > > I am so impressed with the results of upgrading my more important > > machines to 4.0 or 4-stable that I could imagine not to produce any > > more 3.x releases. > > > > Let us consider what happens when we release 3.5 before or at the same > > time as 4.1: > > - People will publish reviews based on 3.5 instead of 4.1. As usual, > > an unadaequate number of them running on SMP machines. > > - People will run into inferious hardware support, especially they > > will have trouble with large IDE disks and/or IDE PCI controller. > > Similar issues for Laptop users. > > - People will continue to run with inferiour NFS, Linux emulator etc. > > The same applies to networking fixes against attacks, especially > > DOS. > > - People will choose 3.5 over 4.1 and will later go through an > > 3.x->4.x upgrade for no good reason. > > - The remaining issues in 4.x (especially hardware) aren't addressed > > as fast. There will be some issues with "unclean" usage that the > > core userbase doesn't use that don't come up until the masses jump > > on them. > > > > For me, the real reason is that I now hate the latest 3.x after seeing > > the improvements. It is near to junk, IMHO. > > > > Several machine of mine had gone instable while moving from 3.[01] to > > 3.4-stable and I suspected hardware trouble. I didn't debug it because > > I didn't want to mess with 3.x anymore. Now after upgrading to 4.x the > > same machines are rock-stable again. It is my impression that the 3.x > > branch lost the required testing when the core committers moved to > > 4.0-current. Higher releases of 3.x are just not polished/tested > > enough anymore, beside the undoubted concrete bug fixes. > > > > Speaking of testing by committers, I also hate to have machines for > > three branches running to develop bugfixes that apply to more than > > -current. In fact my last 3.x machine (besides a 3.1 machine that > > doesn't have the IDE troubles I have with 3.4-stable) is now a > > production machine of my employer that I'd like to upgrade as well. I > > couldn't think of a good reason to delay that upgrade for 3 or 6 > > months if my boss asked me. When i upgrade, I had to commit userland > > bugfixes to 3.x with only testing them on a newer branch. Kernel > > bugfixes would be impossible unless I find someone to test them for > > me. > > > > I assume that I'm not alone here. That many bug-fixing committers will > > not move with 3 machines along the current branches and that 3.5 will > > not be a worthy successor to our previous *.5 releases. > > > > Opinions? > > > > Martin > > -- > > %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% > > Martin Cracauer <cracauer@cons.org> http://www.cons.org/cracauer/ > > Tel.: (private) +4940 5221829 Fax.: (private) +4940 5228536 > > > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > > with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message 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?38E284B9.8A14D1D2>