Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 09:49:21 -0400 From: "Antoine Beaupre (LMC)" <Antoine.Beaupre@ericsson.ca> To: Chris BeHanna <behanna@zbzoom.net> Cc: FreeBSD-Stable <stable@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Why is the STABLE branch not so stable anymore? Message-ID: <3B261DE1.5020706@lmc.ericsson.se> References: <Pine.BSF.4.32.0106112247580.32911-100000@topperwein.dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Let's also not forget that most commercial OS give updates by binary patches and do not give even the slightest possibility of compiling from source. AFAIK, the only thing that "broke" on -stable recently were the builds. You can't expect a CVS branch to always compile, period. A. Chris BeHanna wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Pete Fritchman wrote: > > >>When you report a problem, remember this isn't a commercial entity, >>but a volunteer project and that a 6-hour turnaround time is pretty >>decent. >> > > A 6-hour turnaround time is pretty frigging *AWESOME*, actually. > I never cease to be amazed at the level of support there is for most > open source software, given that no formal support agreement exists > with the user base. > > By way of contrast, it took one of the larger software companies > in the world more than three days to verify the sev. 1 I demonstrated > to them (only after I handheld one of their engineers through porting > the test case from HP-UX to their reference platform), and another 36 > hours to deliver a fix, and that support literally cost a fortune. > > -- -- La sémantique est la gravité de l'abstraction. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3B261DE1.5020706>