Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 00:56:53 +0800 From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> To: Simon <simon@optinet.com> Cc: johan Hendriks <joh.hendriks@gmail.com>, "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: 4.x era Message-ID: <CAJ-VmonV7EAN1qZut90p_7VnU_upDGv-igHyk=mowb0K2veNAw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20110911161228.EE0F5106564A@hub.freebsd.org> References: <4E6C829A.2080007@gmail.com> <20110911161228.EE0F5106564A@hub.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I've heard this many times, and here's my (paraphrased) stock response: People remember FreeBSD 4.x fondly. They likely don't remember 3.x fondly. They remember 2.x fondly - because it was rock stable for a lot of users. Then 3.x came along, with (new!) softupdates, and VM changes, and some other stuff I was too young to understand. It was stable for me, but unstable for a lot of much more serious and larger users. 4.x was when that matured. People see 8.x as stable. Not in all situations, but in a lot of them. 9.x may not be as stable for some, but there's a lot of good stuff going into it. If the developers play their cards right, 9.x will be the cycle where those bugs are shaken out and later 9.x releases will be rock solid. The only way that (and hopefully, 10.0) is going to be rock stable and be remembered like 4.x was remembered is if users actively use it, report bugs and work with developers to fix it. Rather than, you know, staying on FreeBSD-4.x :-) Adrian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ-VmonV7EAN1qZut90p_7VnU_upDGv-igHyk=mowb0K2veNAw>