Stability is important to me but I also recognize that even the best project can become stale if one does not choose to develop the right aspects of it. A weakness in DragonFly is that it took a while to get to the more interesting things, like HAMMER, and will take yet longer to get to SSI. One of FreeBSD's strengths is that its brute-force method of development tends to pull in more interest simply by the sheer number of projects being worked on parallel. One of its weaknesses is a lack of stability.
I far prefer our low level infrastructure. Our abstractions are an order of magnitude cleaner: VFS, timers, schedulers, cpu messaging, threading, namecache, VM paths, virtualization, PRNG, network drivers, network protocols, route table, and the list goes on. I am also very happy that all that infrastructure work is now basicaly done and I can focus on the more interesting aspects of the project. How do I explain to a lay person why moving the responsibility for namespace and I/O atomicy (range locking) into the kernel was important? It's hard. -Matt