Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 04:21:16 +0900 From: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com> To: David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> Cc: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au>, Sergey <serge69@nym.alias.net>, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: [Q] How stable is FreeBSD 3.X ? Message-ID: <374AF82C.2ED50D57@newsguy.com> References: <000001bea672$dce52580$021d85d1@whenever.youwant.to>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
David Schwartz wrote: > > Have you stopped to consider that users may just want to _use_ FreeBSD > without having to follow the development? Have you considered that bad > releases affect them? This is yet another piece of the 'Open Source' versus > 'company supported' puzzle. There is no real different between company supported and Open Source in this respect. When people claimed, way back, that Microsoft were releasing Beta-2 quality products as releases, they were just stating facts. Anyway, feel free to "just use". If you have a bug, though, upgrade first, and only *then*, if the bug persists, complain. What's the point of complaining about something fixed already? And if it is not fixed, how are we supposed to tell the difference between it, and something that *has* been fixed, if you are not using the latest stable? And don't come with the "company supported" stuff. Default procedure for technical support of any software house is to first get the user to apply fixes, and only then consider the possibility of new bug. -- Daniel C. Sobral (8-DCS) dcs@newsguy.com dcs@freebsd.org "If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you." 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?374AF82C.2ED50D57>