On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 11:11:05PM +0800, william wong wrote: > 2008/1/24, Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > "william wong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Thanks for enlightening me on different aspects. Actually I found there > > > are > > > many exciting network stack projects/overhaul happening in FreeBSD 8. I > > > just > > > want to gear up myself and see what I can do. I have got 6.3 installed and > > > tweaking some of the kernel modification and compilation process so that i > > > can get myself acquainted to the software development process. > > > > You should really, really upgrade to 7. Nobody is doing any serious > > work on 6 (beyond merging bug fixes back from 7); all the exciting work > > happens in 8, and kernel patches against 8 will very rarely apply > > cleanly to 6. > > > > > It seems that Juniper favors the even number FreeBSD's. > > > > Only because 5 was a dog. They probably stuck with 4 for a while, then > > switched to 6 once they had ascertained that it was significantly more > > stable than 5. I would be surprised if they skipped 7. > > Please pardon my ignorance of the jargons. Does that mean 5 is not > stable or does not perform or what?
STABLE in this context is a bit of a misnomer. What it's talking about is not stability in the sense of "it doesn't crash as much as current" but stability in the ABI sense. This is often a cause of confusion for people new to FreeBSD. While it is generally true that stable does not crash as much as current, it is not a promise. There have been times when a stable branch would not build or has serious bugs in it. However, it is my experience that these are rare (even in current), and the developers do their best to ensure they don't happen. -- WXS _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
