Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 03:21:51 -0800 (PST) From: Haikal Saadh <wyldephyre2@yahoo.com> To: Scott Lambert <lambert@cswnet.com>, FreeBSD-STABLE@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: 4.3-BETA Message-ID: <20010322112151.24918.qmail@web11806.mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20010320235411.B23244@laptop.os2warp.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--- Scott Lambert <lambert@cswnet.com> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 19, 2001 at 11:09:02PM -0600, Andrew > Hesford wrote: > > Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 23:09:02 -0600 > > From: Andrew Hesford <ajh3@chmod.ath.cx> > > To: Matt Martini <martini@invision.net> > > Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG > > Subject: Re: 4.3-BETA > > > > This is not what I pointed out. > > > > -CURRENT is what you get for the bleeding edge. > > > > -STABLE is what you get for stable code. > > > > The changes in -STABLE are minor and well-tested; > in contrast, there is > > no guarantee that -CURRENT will even build on a > given day. > > > > The big source of confusion on this list is the > distinction between > > BETA, STABLE, RC and RELEASE. As long as people > understand that all are > > the same code branch, there should be no trouble. > > Or to put it another way, -RELEASE is what Sun will > sell you as > Solaris x.x, IBM will sell you as OS/2 x, Microsoft > will sell you as > (insert screwed up nameing scheme here). -STABLE is > Solaris x.x with > the cumulative patchset installed, OS/2 with the > latest fixpack installed, > or Microsoft's next earth shatterringly original > product that you get to > pay for. > > Don't let the fact that we get the source code > confuse you. How many > people run the vendor supplied rev of any OS without > downloading patchsets, > fixpacks (OS/2), or service packs (Microsoft)? The > same ones who only > run -RELEASE on FreeBSD. > > I'm running OS/2 Warp 4 with Fixpack 14 installed. > Which now tells me > it is OS/2 Warp 4.5. Some fixpacks are good, others > really *suck*, > especially now that the user community has convinced > IBM to release the > fixpacks without worrying so much about quality > control. > > On average FreeBSD-STABLE is definitely no less > stable than your average > patchset, fixpack, or service pack you get from > other vendors. > > -CURRENT is the vendors next rev. FreeBSD stable is > about as stable > as other versions next major rev. You just can't > get your hands on > IBM's next version of OS/2 unless you are one of the > OS/2 developers. > You can't get Microsoft's next rev of Windows > unless... well it doesn't > really apply to Microsoft does it? > > -- > Reading my message, I *like* that explanation (other > than the -CURRENT > paragraph), anybody else? > Scott Lambert > lambert@os2warp.org I Like it...the -current bit aside...maybe -current could be analogous to a 'leaked' copy of windows2001 (or whatever?) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ 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?20010322112151.24918.qmail>