Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 08:31:34 +0200 From: Martin Cracauer <cracauer@cons.org> To: C J Michaels <cjm2@earthling.net> Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Let 3.x die ASAP? Message-ID: <20000330083133.A23540@cons.org> In-Reply-To: <NDBBILKDCLLECBCLPMBICEBJCAAA.cjm2@earthling.net>; from cjm2@earthling.net on Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 08:54:34PM -0500 References: <Pine.BSF.3.96.1000329145706.13503A-100000@omnix.net> <NDBBILKDCLLECBCLPMBICEBJCAAA.cjm2@earthling.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
You're summary is a bad one at least as my attributions are concerned. I don't care for "sexy" branches, I just don't want want to maintain *three* branch-tracking machines and the other developers seem to think on the same line. It doesn't really matter whether that 3.x-untested symptom already affected 3.4, it will for sure affect every 3.x work after the creation of RELENG_4. I'm an idiot I even started the thread, shooting an already dead CD release of 3.5, but I didn't know that. I think my summary is better that the way things turned out is not only a good compromise but make most people happy. In <NDBBILKDCLLECBCLPMBICEBJCAAA.cjm2@earthling.net>, C J Michaels wrote: > Ok, I'm sorry if this is long, and off topic for the list, this will be my > only posting. I've condensed all of my replies to this discussion into this > one message, so please skim through the whole thing. > > ===== Didier (and others): > I for one, have been running 3.x-STABLE since it came out. I have had _1_ > kernel panic in that whole time, and that kernel panic was _my_ fault. I > have had nothing but stability with my 3.x-STABLE system. You'll find that > there are MANY people who have had nothing but stability from their > 3.X-STABLE systems. > > Judging the stability of 3.x by the postings in this list is inaccurate. > The purpose of this list is to help with problems/questions/etc... Of > course people aren't going to post daily "my 3.x system works great, > thanks!". It's a waste of bandwidth. > > You're complaining that a given release of 3.x isn't stable, but yet you > complain that it is in constant development. If a given release of -STABLE > has a genuine stability issue, it gets fixed, and committed. So yes it is > constantly developing. Would you prefer that bug fixes were just boxed up > and released only once a year? Would you prefer that they were not fixed at > all? > > There are several small points that several people in this discussion need > to come to terms with: > 1. No OS is ever 100% bug free. It's not humanly possible. > 2. STABLE != STATIC. Given #1 -STABLE needs to be in a constant state of > change because as bugs are found, they are fixed and committed. This > doesn't mean untested developmental code, just (mainly) fixes. > 3. -CURRENT is where the new and developmental code goes. It is a > testing ground for new features and developements, it is not for those > looking for stability. > 4. No one is forcing anyone to do anything. If you are happy with 2.1.2 > then keep running it. If your 3.2-BETA is as solid as a rock, keep running > it. If you install an x.0 release of _ANY_ software and expect it to be > perfect in every way, you are deluding yourself. > > ===== Developers: > Yes, this is a FREE OS, that is FREEly available, and is developed (mainly) > by people giving their FREE time. Despite that, if 90% of users want the > log messages in pig-latin, but the core team feels it's a stupid idea, how > do you think users will react? They will eventually find an OS that allow > them to have log messages in pig-latin. Just shrugging your shoulders and > saying "The OS is FREE, so deal with it" isn't going to keep that user base > around. > > > ===== Martin: > An addendum to the above note. I realize that developement on the 3.x > branch many not be interesting or exciting anymore, and you would like to > move on. You do need to consider your users here as well. It stands to > reason that a good number of active FreeBSD users are still on the 3.x > branch. I would venture to guess more than 50%. When I say active, I do > not mean those people that are still running 2.2.x on a production machine > that hasn't been rebootedn 2 years. > > Do you truly expect the majority (50% or more) of said users to jump to 4.0 > as soon as it's released? Just because someone (anyone) says it's good. I > realize that 4.0 is probably one of the most stable x.0 releases of ANYTHING > in the world (I've read Jordan's posts). But it's still a x.0 release, and > shouldn't (in my mind) hold the title of -STABLE until the shake down > leading up to 4.1. Until such time 3.x-STABLE should be actively supported. > If you force people down a path they don't want to go, they will resist. > You will be driving more people away than you will be helping. > > ===== > Please don't take this as a complaint, just a comment. I am very happy with > the direction FreeBSD is going right now and actively promote it. For the > record I am running 3.4-STABLE on my "production" machine and am currenlty > playing/learning/testing/beating/breaking RELENG_4 on a spare machine. I > may move to 4.x before 4.1 comes out, I may not, only time will tell. > > -Chris > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG > [mailto:owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG]On Behalf Of Didier Derny > Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2000 10:14 AM > To: Jordan K. Hubbard > Cc: Martin Cracauer; freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG > Subject: Let 3.x die ASAP? > > > > the problem is really simple, I' WORKING with FreeBSD not PLAYING > you are like 3 years boys you are trowing their old toys each time > they have an new one. > > I can't an many people can't upgrade the system on their machine > at the actual rythm of FreeBSD version (each one supposed to be the best > one and solve most of the problems :-))) ) > > without a real stability (like the one with 2.x) this product > has no more value than linux or solaris, sco... > > even If I have a great hope for FreeBSD 4.x, I consider that actually > 4.0 is just bullshit (I mean a developper's toy but I wanted a strong > word [perhaps too strong I fear]) and you are already > throwing the old one (3.x). > > A I told you before, I'm preparing a way to be able to choose between > FreeBSD and something else (netbsd, openbsd, linux...) but not before > next year. > > perhaps that the abandon of FreeBSD 3.x is simply the first effect > of what I was saying in my previous mails ? > > +-----------+ > | | > | FreeBSD | > | RIP | > | | > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > -- > Didier Derny > didier@omnix.net > > > On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > > > I thought the end came for you after you started spreading the FUD the > > last time. As Winston Churchill said to Neville Chamberlain after > > his highly successful trip to Munich: "For god's sake man, GO!" > > > > - Jordan > > > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message -- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Martin Cracauer <cracauer@cons.org> http://www.cons.org/cracauer/ Tel.: (private) +4940 5221829 Fax.: (private) +4940 5228536 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?20000330083133.A23540>