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?
