On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 08:08 -0600, "Ted Roby" <ted.r...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 7:53 AM, Brad Tilley <b...@16systems.com> wrote: > > > > > Nor am I, but I do that often with base installs and have not had any > > major issues. There would be security concerns (especially with ports if > > you're using a full blown desktop). You can follow -current if you have > > the time and ability to keep-up or just occasionally install snapshots > > and update them periodically. > > > > > OpenBSD-current is unique in respects to all other -current or DEVEL > or UNSTABLE projects. As Theo said, this is a forward-moving project, > and Secure by Default. It is not a model where sucurity and bugfixes > get handled "later". Unique to OpenBSD is the fact that you can listen > in on just a few mailing lists (ports-changes, src-changes, etc) and > you will end up with explanations one what is being updated, and maybe > even why it was changed. The most interesting part is when a Developer > makes a change indicating many larger changes to come down the road. > > See, these guys do their homework and prepare the way. > > In my opinion the best way to operate OpenBSD is to run -current, and > keep a fresh eye on changes. To me, stable is nothing more than a > snapshot in time for those who don't have time to investigate the > past and future of the project. You can take any given CD set and it'll > "just work" with plenty of accurate documentation. The newer the > release the more likely your newer hardware will be supported... > > So, why do you want stable?
I did not say anything about -stable. Occasionally installing snapshots has nothing to do with -stable. Not sure why you bring it up? Brad
