On Saturday, 24 September 2011 at 23:09:09 -0400, Allen wrote: > On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 11:47:38 -0600, Brett Glass wrote: > >> Indeed it was. Back in those days, they didn't jump a major version >> number every three or four releases. They polished and polished and >> POLISHED each version of the OS. The 4.x branch reached >> 4.11-RELEASE before it was shut down, and 5.x was nowhere near as >> good. Wish they'd pick a branch (8-STABLE or 9-STABLE) and do this >> again.
As you (Brett) should have known, the reason we did that was because of the enormous upheaval that 5.x represented. And we knew in advance that we'd have problems with 5.x as a result. We had already recognized the folly of keeping the same release too long with 2.x. For more background look at http://www.lemis.com/grog/diary-jun2000.php#15 > I remember those times too. In fact I still have my 4.0 - 4.11 CDs > in my BSD binder. I too Hope that they go back to those Ultra-Stable > super OSs. At least that's the way I think of it; a Super OS; That's > exactly what I think of when I think of FreeBSD 4.0. Do you find 8.x less stable? But if you want 4.x again, take a look at DragonFly. That grew out of Matt Dillon's disagreement with the direction we took for 5.x (and thus all subsequent FreeBSD releases). Greg -- Sent from my desktop computer Finger g...@freebsd.org for PGP public key. See complete headers for address and phone numbers. This message is digitally signed. If your Microsoft MUA reports problems, please read http://tinyurl.com/broken-mua
pgprtwD9bjJbh.pgp
Description: PGP signature
