From owner-freebsd-questions Sat May 13 1:36: 1 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from home.offwhite.net (home.offwhite.net [156.46.35.30]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F06F237B644 for ; Sat, 13 May 2000 01:35:54 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from brennan@offwhite.net) Received: from localhost (brennan@localhost) by home.offwhite.net (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA51367; Sat, 13 May 2000 03:35:51 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 03:35:50 -0500 (CDT) From: Brennan W Stehling To: Mark Huizer Cc: Alfred Perlstein , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 5.0 already? In-Reply-To: <20000513101952.A589@dohd.cx> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG This makes more sense. I have only been running FreeBSD systems for about 2 years now and when I started it seemed like development from 2.2.x to 3.x and up was very much geared towards fixing bugs and producing a solid system. It appears that things have accelerated in the last year. With a longer term view it may look different. With Linux, they have moved slowly with version numbers and have added a few features here and there. (I do not follow that closely) So that seemed to be more conservative. And when I tried 4.0 STABLE I had major problems which encouraged me to run back to 3.4 STABLE where I feel STABLE. Perhaps it was the upgrade routine that was flawed and not the system and the kernel. I would have to wipe my system and start with a nice 4.0 cdrom, but I think I will wait for a 4.1R cd before I do that. My personal policy is to stay about 6 months behind the release and stable for the systems I need to have very stable. I have been safe with 3.x, but am worried about 4.x for all the above reasons. I think 3.4 is very solid very solid. I could not imagine using Linux again as I tried that out a for a while (Caldera, SuSE and Redhat) and did not like them very much. So I am not a FreeBSD hater, I think it is the best you can get. Sorry if I do not seem to like FreeBSD, I am just having a tough time gauging if I can use 4.0 STABLE or not. Sometimes STABLE is relative to your experience with it and my luck with the newer stuff was not great, despite the STABLE classification. Brennan Stehling - web developer and sys admin projects: www.greasydaemon.com | www.onmilwaukee.com | www.sncalumni.com Microsoft: Will you get a macro virus today? On Sat, 13 May 2000, Mark Huizer wrote: > On Sat, May 13, 2000 at 03:10:32AM -0500, Brennan W Stehling wrote: > > I did not mean to start anything. It just seems to be getting ahead of > > the game developing 5.0 when there is no 4.1 or 4.2 yet. I realize it is > > a development version, but the fundamental reasons are not documented in > > anything I have read. > > Have you read the handbook on the website about this? It explains all > your questions. 5.x is -current, 4.x is -stable. For at least 2 years > we've had these trees available, with the stable branch only getting the > bugfixes and part of the new stuff after it has been seriously put to > the test. So there will be 4.1, there might be 4.2, dunno. And there > will be development in the -current branch. There is no 5.0 release. > It's just development. And if you call Linux more conservative for > that... I seem to recall a thing about odd and even numbered kernel > releases... > > > Mark > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message