Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2005 16:41:43 +0100 From: Michael Nottebrock <michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Chris <chrcoluk@gmail.com> Subject: Re: 5.x concerns Message-ID: <200502061641.47454.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> In-Reply-To: <3aaaa3a05020607013bff630e@mail.gmail.com> References: <3aaaa3a05020607013bff630e@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Sunday, 6. February 2005 16:01, Chris wrote: > 4 - compatiblity, I remember using 5.2.1 and pretty much all software > worked well in that and then they did the bind defaulting to base and > libs version jump, why wasnt this done in 5.0 I personally told lots and lots of people to NOT use 5.2.1-Release and wait for 5.x to become a stable branch instead, but it still got installed far more often than it really should have. 5.2.1 was still a Technology Preview release - it was a snapshot of FreeBSD 5-CURRENT, just as 5.0-RELEASE, 5.1-RELEASE and 5.2-RELEASE were before. In retrospect, there probably should have been more warning signs on the website and the documentation to point out that fact. Also, there probably should have been more feature and driver backports to FreeBSD 4, so less people would have been tempted by the better hardware support and general friendlyness of FreeBSD 5-CURRENT. Too late to change now, but perhaps something that should be remembered for the next time FreeBSD goes through a similar transition period. -- ,_, | Michael Nottebrock | lofi@freebsd.org (/^ ^\) | FreeBSD - The Power to Serve | http://www.freebsd.org \u/ | K Desktop Environment on FreeBSD | http://freebsd.kde.org [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBCBjq7Xhc68WspdLARAmqbAKCNmUYz8CdLU9H4Xmx+eqxWs1t3aACfYCd2 vGc2Y0OztvM4jVFXiS9XuoE= =EfEh -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200502061641.47454.michaelnottebrock>