Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 21:18:03 -0500 From: Mike Patterson <mpatters@cs.uwaterloo.ca> To: Pete French <petefrench@ticketswitch.com> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Possibility for FreeBSD 4.11 Extended Support Message-ID: <458C91DB.402@cs.uwaterloo.ca> In-Reply-To: <E1Gxkgk-0009V0-0j@dilbert.ticketswitch.com> References: <E1Gxkgk-0009V0-0j@dilbert.ticketswitch.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Pete French wrote on 12/22/06 8:43 AM: >> 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. > > Especually since we are Unix people, and the two of the > 'biggies' in history are Version 7, System 5 ;-) I guess you never had the misfortune of Solaris 2.5 and 7. Fortunately I mostly avoided 2.5, but I danced a jig when I upgraded the last of my 7 boxes to 8 (or surplussed the hardware after relieving myself on it). Now I'm trying to get rid of 8, and not having a very good go of it... our department skipped 9 for the odd-numbered-release version superstition, much to my chagrin. Personally, I've run every single release of FreeBSD since 4.2 on production servers (albeit nowhere near as heavy a load as many see) and never had a single hiccup. If dropping support for 4.11 means 7 will be that much better, I'm all for it. Mike -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFjJHbrqw9H9F0mCQRAjAJAJ9GN0HR0QPaMYLDo/gAdTuAp0hnKwCdEqUi lyYBzgeEtDOnBH0q+hO5hWI= =S6ZE -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?458C91DB.402>