From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 18 02:48:05 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE3C01065672; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:48:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Received: from vps1.elischer.org (vps1.elischer.org [204.109.63.16]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87E7D8FC18; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:48:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from julian-mac.elischer.org (c-67-180-24-15.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [67.180.24.15]) (authenticated bits=0) by vps1.elischer.org (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q0I2lxQL098386 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 17 Jan 2012 18:48:00 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Message-ID: <4F16331E.4000702@freebsd.org> Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 18:49:02 -0800 From: Julian Elischer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X 10.4; en-US; rv:1.9.2.25) Gecko/20111213 Thunderbird/3.1.17 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Matthew D. Fuller" References: <4F15C48F.7020302@barafranca.com> <20120117224123.GC509@over-yonder.net> In-Reply-To: <20120117224123.GC509@over-yonder.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Tom Evans , freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Ivan Voras , Hugo Silva Subject: Re: FreeBSD has serious problems with focus, longevity, and lifecycle X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:48:05 -0000 On 1/17/12 2:41 PM, Matthew D. Fuller wrote: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 06:57:19PM +0000 I heard the voice of > Hugo Silva, and lo! it spake thus: >> Come to think about it, those days are pretty much gone since 4.x >> (incidentally, many of us who've stuck with FreeBSD for this long >> think of 4.x as an epic series). > Having been a FreeBSD user for a very long time, I don't think of 4.x > as epic. I think of 5.x as a clusterf...un. 4.x didn't last such a > long time because everyone thought it was awesome, it was because the > next version was still so broken it was the only thing we had to > release. > 5 was not out on a limb for so long because it was a clusterfun, it was out there because it was a rework of how almost everything in the kernel worked. Everything written since 1978 had to be rewritten to some extent. >