Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 16:44:29 EST From: TM4526@aol.com To: thad.butterworth@hp.com Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: difference between releases Message-ID: <1f3.2319f2b.2ec2943d@aol.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In a message dated 11/8/04 4:46:24 PM Eastern Standard Time,=20 thad.butterworth@hp.com writes: >By the way, I=E2=80=99ve tested our competitions printers. HP=E2=80=99s pri= nters are far=20 better >designed than anything else I=E2=80=99ve worked with. The point is p= rogramming=20 and >computer technologies are very young fields. You=E2=80=99re going to fi= nd problems=20 >whether it=E2=80=99s closed or open source. Just don=E2=80=99t get bitter a= bout it. Work=20 instead to >make it better instead of complaining about everything. Like I s= aid=20 previously, let=E2=80=99s >see some helpful suggestions Two words: Paper Paths. Feeding has always been an issue. Your post script sucks wind too. But I digress... The "technologies" are not in question, its the controls and the methods. An= d=20 I'm not sure why you keep harping on open source, because this thread has nothin= g to do with it. BSDi vs FreeBSD is a good example. BSDi had a set of features= =20 and objectives, and when they were "done" (ie fully tested) they released it.=20 Personally I think BSDi took it to extremes by making releases way too comprehensive an= d would have preferred sub-relreases rather than their annoying patch system,=20 but it illustrates the difference between having a meaningful, documented releas= e=20 structure rather than just slapping out a snapshot because its "time". At so= me point you have to stop working on stuff, hammer out a release, and then star= t working again. It shouldn't just be a moment in time of -current, with all=20 the=20 uncertainty that entails. I'm not saying that's how it works, but when this=20 thread started, that's how it was depicted.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1f3.2319f2b.2ec2943d>