At 10:15 AM 9/12/2006, Karl Denninger wrote:
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 09:06:15AM +0200, Bj?rn K?nig wrote:
> Karl Denninger schrieb:
>
> >This is not cool folks.
>
> I think you misunderstood what -STABLE means. (Or maybe I do?)
>
> -STABLE is still a development branch without guarantee of a stable and
> working operating system. -STABLE guarantees that interfaces remain
> stable. If you want reliability then jump from release to release.
>
> Regards
> Bj?rn
You've never been able to get reliability by jumping from release to release,
I think FreeBSD does not work for everyone with every setup, but
works really well for some number of people. For me, I am in b). In
fact it works really well for me and the some 250 boxes I look after
of varying age and configs... There have been some unfortunate bugs,
but I take that as part of what FreeBSD is-- a volunteer project. If
FreeBSD releases have *never* worked for you (I will take your word
you are not being childish and exaggerating here), why on earth are
you using FreeBSD ? Also, what are you comparing FreeBSD to, where
the RELEASE works for everyone out of the box for ever and ever
? You cant mean Windows, as they release monthly updates-- some of
which after having gone through tens of thousands of dollars of
regression testing (FreeBSD does not have an army of employees to do
planned regression testing let alone tens of thousands of dollars),
and manage to introduce BIGGER bugs than they were fixing like they
did last month with Win2k. You cant mean LINUX as they seem to be
doing a kernel a month (or more) recently. Which OS are you talking
about that is so perfect from release to release ?
---Mike
_______________________________________________
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
