Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 10:00:48 -0800 From: Danny Howard <dannyman@toldme.com> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Cc: Bob Johnson <fbsdlists@gmail.com>, John Fox <jjf@mind.net>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Status of 6.0 for production systems Message-ID: <20051110180048.GB23887@ratchet.nebcorp.com> In-Reply-To: <20051110081424.GA46702@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <20051110012313.GB22149@mind.net> <54db43990511091749h7b7c0753vbf7adbce94eff6cc@mail.gmail.com> <20051110081424.GA46702@xor.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 03:14:25AM -0500, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > As I understand it, 6.0 is primarily concentrating on improving some > > of the major stuff introduced in 5.x, and shouldn't take nearly as > > long to become a "stable" platform. Even so, conventional wisdom > > generally warns against using any X.0 release for critical > > applications, but that depends on your definition of "critical" and > > your level of tolerance for excitement. > > You really shouldn't think of 6.0 as "like a usual .0 release, so > handle with care", but more like "5.4 plus extra optimization and > stability fixes". We spent nearly 6 months during the release cycle > on stress-testing and fixing stability bugs, and that hard work > resulted in a lot of fixes to long-standing bugs that have existed > since FreeBSD 5.x. In addition to the improved stability, performance > is much better than 5.4 in several areas. > > Naturally there may be some regressions, but in the average case 6.0 > seems to be an outstanding release of FreeBSD no matter what version > number you give it. So ... I am genuinely curious ... if 6.0 is basically 5.4 plus improvements, why isn't it called 5.5? -danny -- http://dannyman.toldme.com/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051110180048.GB23887>