From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 10 18:00:49 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CE5916A421 for ; Thu, 10 Nov 2005 18:00:49 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from djh@nebcorp.com) Received: from ratchet.nebcorp.com (ratchet.nebcorp.com [205.217.153.72]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5988143D48 for ; Thu, 10 Nov 2005 18:00:49 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from djh@nebcorp.com) Received: by ratchet.nebcorp.com (Postfix, from userid 1014) id 14510D982E; Thu, 10 Nov 2005 10:00:49 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 10:00:48 -0800 From: Danny Howard To: Kris Kennaway Message-ID: <20051110180048.GB23887@ratchet.nebcorp.com> References: <20051110012313.GB22149@mind.net> <54db43990511091749h7b7c0753vbf7adbce94eff6cc@mail.gmail.com> <20051110081424.GA46702@xor.obsecurity.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20051110081424.GA46702@xor.obsecurity.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-Loop: djhoward@uiuc.edu Cc: Bob Johnson , John Fox , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Status of 6.0 for production systems X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 18:00:49 -0000 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/