Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 12:26:12 -0800 From: "Kevin Oberman" <oberman@es.net> To: Helge.Oldach@atosorigin.com Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, lofi@freebsd.org, petefrench@ticketswitch.com Subject: Re: Possibility for FreeBSD 4.11 Extended Support Message-ID: <20061222202612.CD1D645055@ptavv.es.net> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 22 Dec 2006 17:09:40 %2B0100." <39AFDF50473FED469B15B6DFF2262F7A0273C975@DEHHX001.deuser.de.intra>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--==_Exmh_1166819172_38285P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline > Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 17:09:40 +0100 > From: <Helge.Oldach@atosorigin.com> > Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org > > Pete French <> wrote on Friday, December 22, 2006 2:44 PM: > >> Because everybody knows that odd numbered releases aren't stable. > > > > I've been 20 years in electronics & comouting and thats the first > > time I have ever heard anyone say that! Steer clear of '.0' releases > > is well known, but suspecting something just because of the odd or > > evenness of it's numbering scheme seems like pure superstition. > > The odd/even rule is just over-generalization, derived from the Linux > kernel numbering scheme. It's actually fairly common over the past few years on many high-profile projects. Gnome and Xemacs stable releases are always even. Those are just two projects that I tend to pay attention to. But these are an even or odd number AFTER the point, so I don't know why people would get the idea that odd FreeBSD major version numbers are unstable other than 5.0 and 5.1 were clear less than stable (and so announced) and V3 was a bit rough, too, although not unstable for me. People may just have noticed this and decided it was the way things were. From what I see of CURRENT (which I run on my laptop and one desktop system), V7 looks to be a pretty good flavor, although there is lots of time for things to go wrong over the next year. In any case, while I can't see many reasons to run 5.5 when you can run 6.2 or 6.2RC, I have seen a couple of odd issues with specific hardware, so there are a few cases. And, if you have an SMP system, 6 is the only way to go for effective use of the added CPUs. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: oberman@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634 Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751 --==_Exmh_1166819172_38285P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (FreeBSD) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 06/03/2002 iD8DBQFFjD9kkn3rs5h7N1ERArOlAKCzhKqwquQemaGrJFD6OwXbewi9bQCfU778 K9nuO7TiSKHp7EYmGhEsJ6w= =Ml7Z -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_1166819172_38285P--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20061222202612.CD1D645055>