Volker wrote:
This should be documented somewhere clearly then, as my understanding was that -STABLE
meant that anything MFCd back to it *was* tested and deemed stable ... and yes, I do run
stable, and yes, I do expect to hit the occasional 'oopses', but "blantant and
obvious bugs due to insufficient testing", IMHO, doesn't classify as an 'oops' ....
Guys,
we're talking about software. Have you ever seen a piece of software
which has been really bug-free? Not the hello-world, I'm talking
about real software.
Also, you should never go with -STABLE on a production server. I'm
sure this has been made clear in the handbook. If it's really a that
import server in production use, go with a RELEASE. -STABLE is not a
technology playground as CURRENT but should be seen as a BETA
testing system. If that's not the case, then why use RELEASE at all?
Pardon me, but I do have to interject a very large laugh here. What's the
first recommendation that's made _every_ time someone posts a problem
with a -RELEASE installation? It's "Well, go update to -STABLE and then
we will might be able to help you."
Simply put, running a -RELEASE means that you _are_ running software
with _known_ problems.
I'm very thankful for all the work that people put into FreeBSD. However,
that doesn't blind me to problems with the current setup. It may be the
best
that we have, it may be better than the Linux world, but that doesn't
mean that
it solves all our problems and that we can't improve it.
John (FreeBSD since 2.0.x on an AMD K5-100 with 16MB of ram...)
------------------------------------------------------------------
John T. Farmer Owner & CTO GoldSword Systems
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 865-691-6498 Knoxville TN
Consulting, Design, & Development of Networks & Software
_______________________________________________
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
