Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 11:39:51 +0200 From: Martin Cracauer <cracauer@cons.org> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com> Cc: Martin Cracauer <cracauer@cons.org>, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Let 3.x die ASAP? Message-ID: <20000329113951.A9935@cons.org> In-Reply-To: <10681.954314958@zippy.cdrom.com>; from jkh@zippy.cdrom.com on Tue, Mar 28, 2000 at 11:29:18PM -0800 References: <20000328113633.A28085@cons.org> <10681.954314958@zippy.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In <10681.954314958@zippy.cdrom.com>, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > > I am so impressed with the results of upgrading my more important > > machines to 4.0 or 4-stable that I could imagine not to produce any > > more 3.x releases. > > That may be, but we've already promised one more "capstone" for the > 3.x branch and I think an equal or greater number of people would be > upset not to get this. The 3.x branch will end with 3.5 in May 2000. I now :-) I ask you/core/WC to reconsider this decision. I want to turn public visibility from 3.x to 4.x before any new 3.x release. I am not against a new 3.x release as such, but "The FreeBSD" as seen by the public must be 4.x, not 3.x. New users seeking for their first FreeBSD release (and I count reviewers here, too) must be directed to 4.x and we can't do that when a 4.0 and 3.5 are in stores, they will for sure choose those release that seems more stable. If 3.5 goes out before or around 4.1, we will get lots of reviews for 3.5 not showing the real strength of FreeBSD, lots of new users on a 3.x system, not getting all the improvements and being forced to go through an ugly update soon. The improvements of the Linux emulator alone are worth the effort, since so much new Linux software comes out these days. Just look at the games Loki has into annoucement today. People can run most of them on FreeBSD, but inly when they choose the right release. (BTW, Loki doesn't seem against native FreeBSD stuff as well, you know whether someone is in contact with them?). As another datapoint, it seems that all committers taking part in this discussion would like to stop maintaining 3.x, for one reason or another, and those are the people doing RELENG_3 commits. I see my opinion supported that 3.5 will not be a substancial -if at all- improvement over earlier 3.x releases. Of course, we cannot ignore that WC earns a lot of money from the stable releases and that there are quite some users who just want 3.x and just want it on a CD, but I think that are several compromises available: - Release 3.5 quite some time after 4.1 and maybe name it 3.4.1 or such so that it is marked only as a slight upgrade for the hardcode 3.x users. - Release 3.5 in the lighter packaging like a snapshot CD. - Clearly visible recommendations on the front of the CD inlet regarding 3.5 versus 4.1. I don't think that WC will loose sales that way and since 3.5 will be the last 3.x release most people won't mind a September release, IMHO. P.S. To the other commenters in this discussion. I know that there are a lot of very stable 3.x machines (with SMP too), I didn't doubt that. I just say that enough parts of the system are rotten that a substancial number of machines that runs fine unter 4.0 (and 3.[12] for me) doesn't run well on 3.4+. Hence I think it is a must for our reputation to turn public attention from 3.x to 4.x. Now. -- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 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-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000329113951.A9935>