Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 13:23:56 +0200 From: Martin Cracauer <cracauer@cons.org> To: David Holloway <davidhol@windriver.com> Cc: Martin Cracauer <cracauer@cons.org>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: BSD VS BDS Message-ID: <20000330132355.A1815@cons.org> In-Reply-To: <200003301119.DAA14184@papermill.wrs.com>; from davidhol@windriver.com on Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 03:19:31AM -0800 References: <20000330121644.B1022@cons.org> <200003301119.DAA14184@papermill.wrs.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In <200003301119.DAA14184@papermill.wrs.com>, David Holloway wrote: > Oh I completely disagree. > Many serious orgnanizations and people concerned > with stability work with 3.x and plan on sticking with > 3.x until many of the serious changes to 4.0 have proven > themselves. > > The gcc (2.9.x -- 3.x) compiler for example, has only just recently become > as rock solid as the standard gcc 2.7.2.3 for freebsd 3.x Um, yes, I would also like the compiler do move a little more conservativly, and there is some hardware that doesn't work in 4.x, but other than that I don't like 3.4-STABLE and don't think it is wise to update on older 3.x release to it due to stability. See the discussion on -stable and let us not get into the same flamewar here. Martin -- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 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-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000330132355.A1815>