On Sunday 08 June 2008 07:49:35 am Andy Kosela wrote:
[ much snippage.. ]
there is time to rethink FreeBSD overall strategy and goals. Major
companies using FreeBSD in their infrastructure like Yahoo! or Juniper
Networks would definetly benefit from such moves focused on long term
support of
Robert Watson wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008, Anton - Valqk wrote:
I fully agree with the lines below.
As noticed below there is more attention to developing new features,
than making releases rock solid stable.
...
Ah, another thing,
I'm waiting for virtualization networking layer for jails
Just my 5cents (some thoughts),
I fully agree with the lines below.
As noticed below there is more attention to developing new features,
than making releases rock solid stable.
As mentioned in reply posts the 3 branches 6.X 7.X and 8.X takes too
many resources and
is very hard to support.
I,
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008, Anton - Valqk wrote:
I fully agree with the lines below.
As noticed below there is more attention to developing new features,
than making releases rock solid stable.
...
Ah, another thing,
I'm waiting for virtualization networking layer for jails for quite long.
I've
Gary Palmer wrote:
I think a large part of the shortcomings of the ports infrastructure when
it comes to security releases could be mitigated if there was a rapid
building and availability of packages on FTP mirrors to prevent everyone
from doing portupgrade -P and then having to wait for the
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 3:25 PM, Jo Rhett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 8, 2008, at 3:27 PM, Freddie Cash wrote:
Like I said, you have to define what you mean by stable and
unstable before the discussion can continue.
stable can mean many things to many people. You talk about feature
On 6/7/08, Jo Rhett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The question I raised is simply: given the number of bugs opened and
fixed since 6.3-RELEASE shipped, why is 6.3 the only supported
version? Why does it make sense for FreeBSD to stop supporting a
stable version and force people to choose between
On 6/8/08, Freddie Cash fjwcash at gmail.com wrote:
On 6/7/08, Jo Rhett jrhett at netconsonance.com wrote:
The question I raised is simply: given the number of bugs opened and
fixed since 6.3-RELEASE shipped, why is 6.3 the only supported
version? Why does it make sense for FreeBSD to stop
Andy Kosela wrote:
... a really beutiful and elaborate post on the subject ...
However, being an ordinary user with few machines running FreeBSD, i
have seen on my limited sample that 2 machines worked better with 6.3
than 6.2 (two old Athlon machines, which work perfectly OK in fact) and
one
--On June 8, 2008 1:49:35 PM +0200 Andy Kosela [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
FreeBSD has always been known for its legendary stability and mature
code base which is why many commercial companies depend on it every
day. The anomaly as someone said of long term support for 4.x releases
only helped to
--On June 8, 2008 5:49:20 PM +0200 Michel Talon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I think it is very unreasonable for end users to ask maintaining, e.g.
6.2 ad vitam eternam. The real stable branch is now 7.* and diverting
effort to polish the 6.* is a waste of time. People wanting a very
stable system
On 2008-Jun-08 17:49:20 +0200, Michel Talon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
and it is now working perfectly well without any trouble. The only
gotcha is the slowness of X problem when compiling, but i live with that.
Have you tried SCHED_ULE? In my experience, it does a better job of
scdeduling than
On Sun, 8 Jun 2008, Andy Kosela wrote:
Define the terms stable and unstable, how you measure said stability
and instability, and what you are comparing them against.
This whole discussion is really interesting as it clearly showcases two
common trends in computing (rapid development vs
On Mon, Jun 09, 2008 at 06:55:06AM +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote:
On 2008-Jun-08 17:49:20 +0200, Michel Talon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
and it is now working perfectly well without any trouble. The only
gotcha is the slowness of X problem when compiling, but i live with that.
Have you tried
On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 4:49 AM, Andy Kosela [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/8/08, Freddie Cash fjwcash at gmail.com wrote:
On 6/7/08, Jo Rhett jrhett at netconsonance.com wrote:
The question I raised is simply: given the number of bugs opened and
fixed since 6.3-RELEASE shipped, why is 6.3 the
On Sun, 8 Jun 2008, Freddie Cash wrote:
Define the terms stable and unstable, how you measure said stability
and instability, and what you are comparing them against.
This whole discussion is really interesting as it clearly showcases two
common trends in computing (rapid development vs
(Top posted because I didn't want to snip what you said)
Bruce, all of what you said below is well known. I understand and
don't have any problem with this. You seem to be trying to address
something I wasn't asking about -- certifications, etc and such. Not
a concern.
The question I
On Jun 5, 2008, at 5:51 AM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
If the exact regression between 6.2 and 6.3 can be tracked down,
great.
If it's in a specific driver, CVS commit logs or cvsweb will come in
handy. Otherwise, if it's some larger piece of code (ohai i revamped
the intrupt handlar!), chances
On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 12:53:10 -0700
Jo Rhett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why does it make sense for FreeBSD to stop supporting a stable
version and force people to choose between two different unstable
versions? Is this really the right thing to do?
NO, it's not.
But you can't change that. The
On Jun 7, 2008, at 12:59 PM, Dick Hoogendijk wrote:
I still think your questions are legitimate.
You won't win the battle however.
Obviously I got a battle, but that wasn't what I wanted. I wanted to
understand the issues involved and from that determine how I might be
able to help.
On Sat, Jun 07, 2008 at 12:53:10PM -0700, Jo Rhett wrote:
...
The question I raised is simply: given the number of bugs opened and
fixed since 6.3-RELEASE shipped, why is 6.3 the only supported
version? Why does it make sense for FreeBSD to stop supporting a
stable version and force
Jo Rhett wrote:
I am suggesting that given that the current bug list for 6.3-RELEASE
is both (a) too large and (b) breaks things that work fine in 6.2 ...
that I think pushing 6.2 (the real stable release) into EoL is a bit
rushed. I sympathize with the development costs of maintaining old
On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 01:03:04PM +0100, Bruce M. Simpson wrote:
Jo Rhett wrote:
I am suggesting that given that the current bug list for 6.3-RELEASE is
both (a) too large and (b) breaks things that work fine in 6.2 ... that I
think pushing 6.2 (the real stable release) into EoL is a bit
Hi, all,
On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 05:51:05AM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 01:03:04PM +0100, Bruce M. Simpson wrote:
Jo Rhett wrote:
I am suggesting that given that the current bug list for 6.3-RELEASE is
both (a) too large and (b) breaks things that work fine in
On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 05:51:05 -0700
Jeremy Chadwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Offering monetary compensation is not a solution, and I believe that's
because the core problem isn't lack of pay -- it's lack of time.
That's one which is really hard to solve, no matter what the
conditions of an
Torfinn Ingolfsen wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 05:51:05 -0700
Jeremy Chadwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Offering monetary compensation is not a solution, and I believe that's
because the core problem isn't lack of pay -- it's lack of time.
That's one which is really hard to solve, no matter what
On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 10:01:40 -0700
Doug Barton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Torfinn Ingolfsen wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 05:51:05 -0700
Jeremy Chadwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Offering monetary compensation is not a solution, and I believe
that's because the core problem isn't lack of
I'm going to be offline for a week starting now, so please don't read
my lack of answers as anything other than out of town. Sorry.
For clarity: I'm not asking for anyone to fix anything. I honestly
believe most developers are addressing problems as fast as they can.
I'd help them in
28 matches
Mail list logo
