Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 15:51:13 -0700 From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> To: Brett Taylor <brett@peloton.physics.montana.edu> Cc: Bill Fumerola <billf@chc-chimes.com>, Adam Turoff <aturoff@isinet.com>, freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: bsd vs. linux and NT chart Message-ID: <4.1.19990302154522.03fb3730@localhost> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9903021459280.19399-100000@peloton.physics.m ontana.edu> References: <4.1.19990302132445.040f6d40@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 03:00 PM 3/2/99 -0700, Brett Taylor wrote:
>There's a reason we now have 3.1-STABLE. The 2.2.* branch is dead and
>eventually (probably fairly quickly) ports will stop compiling correctly
>for the 2.2 branch even if they have the ports updates correctly
>installed.
Sorry, but recent releases that are used in existing mission critical systems
are NOT "dead limbs" to be sawn off within only a couple of months of
release. I can see the Linuxoids ranting now: "See? The FreeBSD team doesn't
even provide ports for a release that's less than 6 months old! So much
for their 'great ports collection.' That's the kind of support you'll get if
you use FreeBSD."
Sad to say, they'll have a point. Conservative users who lag behind a version
or two to ensure stability are the LAST people the FreeBSD team should want
to disenfranchise. ("The power to serve," remember?) The ports had BETTER keep
working for AT LEAST a year after release. To do anything less is to hurt
users and damage FreeBSD's reputation beyond repair.
--Brett
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.1.19990302154522.03fb3730>