On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 6:41 PM, Kimmo Paasiala <kpaas...@gmail.com> wrote: > If it works for 99.99% percent of the users and fails for the > remaining miniscule percentage because they have a very peculiar > hardware, very small amount of ram etc, should the release called > buggy and unstable? I really don't think so.
Hey hey :-) Its rather a matter of organization, not to rush towards a release (see "do we get 9.1 before christmas"), if there are known issues (see security, etc). I also started to use RC myself as I found some stuff suprising on 9.0. But when I consider someone to use FreeBSD while there are release made before release, or rarely used stuff added by default that takes 1000% of standard kernel RAM usage, or similar - this does not look serious, this makes people think "i will use linux, things like this happens there all the time but i have more drivers", etc, etc. Even for FreeBSD enhousiast it is hard to discuss with people on better organization of FreeBSD over Linux in that case. From what I read there are people working hard to make a release, but we should not rush them at cost of quality. I am still with FreeBSD and I really like it more than Linux, this is why I think quality is more important than bleeding-edge here :-) Best regards :-) Tomek -- CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"