John's trying to manage risk. Switching from RELEASE to CURRENT adds
a lot of risk and churn, when most folks in this class of use case
just need a few very specific drivers and bugfixes (what some OSes
call "hotfixes".)
John sounds willing to trade a little bit of local risk (and testing
time) i
On 1/16/12 11:28 PM, John Kozubik wrote:
>
> Friends,
>
> I was disappointed to see that 8.3-RELEASE is now slated to come out in
> March of 2012. This will be ~13 months since 8.2-RELEASE and is typical
> of a trend towards longer gaps between minor releases.
>
> I also see that undercutting
on 17/01/2012 00:28 John Kozubik said the following:
> we going to run RELEASE software ONLY
My opinion: you've put yourself in a box that is not very compatible with the
current FreeBSD release strategy. With your scale and restrictions you probably
should just use the FreeBSD source and roll yo
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012, Yuri wrote:
On 01/16/2012 17:03, Atom Smasher wrote:
i bought myself a LENOVO T510 when it first came out, around early
2010. it's got an i5 CPU and Arrandale GPU. it's two years old and on
freeBSD i STILL can't run xorg properly with it. linux has run fine
with it sinc
(answering out of order)
On 16/01/2012 23:28, John Kozubik wrote:
2) Having two simultaneous production releases draws focus away from
both of them, and keeps any release from ever truly maturing.
This isn't how things work. The -CURRENT always has (and probably always
had and always will ha
On 17/01/2012 07:20, John Kozubik wrote:
as wonderful as ZFS on FreeBSD is (and we are
deploying it this year) it is only now (well, in March) with 8.3 that I
feel it is finally safe and stable enough to bet the farm on. I'm not
the only one that feels this way.
I must remember to ask you abo
Kostik Belousov wrote:
> The patch misses compat32 bits and breaks compat32 ps/top.
Right, thank you for pointing it out! I missed it because
I only have i386 for testing.
I've created new patch sets for releng8 and current. These
include compat32 support and an entry for the manual page.
Wo
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Ivan Voras wrote:
> I've concluded very early that because of what I've said above, the only way
> to run FreeBSD effectively is to track -STABLE. The developers MFC-ing stuff
> usually try hard not to break things so -STABLE has become a sort of
> "running RELEAS
On 17 January 2012 13:02, Tom Evans wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Ivan Voras wrote:
>> I've concluded very early that because of what I've said above, the only way
>> to run FreeBSD effectively is to track -STABLE. The developers MFC-ing stuff
>> usually try hard not to break things
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012, richo wrote:
This would be a different argument if all the devs were paid a salary.
==
what percentage of linux devs are on salary to develop linux?
--
...atom
http://atom.smasher.org/
762A 3B98 A3C3 96C9 C6B7 582A B88D 52
On 17/01/2012 07:32, Atom Smasher wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012, richo wrote:
This would be a different argument if all the devs were paid a salary.
==
what percentage of linux devs are on salary to develop linux?
Apparently, 3/4: http://apcmag.com/linux-now-75-corporate.htm
On 17 January 2012 13:44, Ivan Voras wrote:
> On 17/01/2012 07:32, Atom Smasher wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 17 Jan 2012, richo wrote:
>>
>>> This would be a different argument if all the devs were paid a salary.
>>
>> ==
>>
>> what percentage of linux devs are on salary to develop linux?
>
>
On 17 January 2012 14:49, Igor Mozolevsky wrote:
> On 17 January 2012 13:44, Ivan Voras wrote:
>> On 17/01/2012 07:32, Atom Smasher wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 17 Jan 2012, richo wrote:
>>>
This would be a different argument if all the devs were paid a salary.
>>>
>>> ==
>>>
>>> what
On 17 January 2012 14:20, Ivan Voras wrote:
> On 17 January 2012 14:49, Igor Mozolevsky wrote:
>> On 17 January 2012 13:44, Ivan Voras wrote:
>>> On 17/01/2012 07:32, Atom Smasher wrote:
what percentage of linux devs are on salary to develop linux?
>>>
>>> Apparently, 3/4: http://apcma
Why is everyone so afraid of running -STABLE? Plenty of stuff gets MFC'd.
Yeah, I agree -- running -RELEASE is difficult. Hell, it's frustrating to
us that VMWare only supports -RELEASE and it took until ESX 5 to
officially support 8.2!
More releases / snapshots of -STABLE helps people on p
On 17 Jan 2012 13:38, "Atom Smasher" wrote:
>
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2012, richo wrote:
>
>> This would be a different argument if all the devs were paid a salary.
>
> ==
>
> what percentage of linux devs are on salary to develop linux?
>
You're not comparing like with like.
Linux is not a
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 7:32 AM, Igor Mozolevsky wrote:
> Actually, I don't think it's cash that's the problem. I think it is
> more to do with the lack of common goal: the way that releases are
> perceived, at least by me, are that a bunch of people "play" in
> current then at some point someone
On 17 January 2012 16:48, Freddie Cash wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 7:32 AM, Igor Mozolevsky
> wrote:
>> Actually, I don't think it's cash that's the problem. I think it is
>> more to do with the lack of common goal: the way that releases are
>> perceived, at least by me, are that a bunch of
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 02:28:09PM -0800, John Kozubik wrote:
>
> Friends,
>
> I was disappointed to see that 8.3-RELEASE is now slated to come out in
> March of 2012. This will be ~13 months since 8.2-RELEASE and is typical
> of a trend towards longer gaps between minor releases.
>
> I also
On 1/17/12 4:39 PM, Mark Felder wrote:
> Why is everyone so afraid of running -STABLE? Plenty of stuff gets
> MFC'd. Yeah, I agree -- running -RELEASE is difficult. Hell, it's
> frustrating to us that VMWare only supports -RELEASE and it took until
> ESX 5 to officially support 8.2!
>
> More rel
On 17 January 2012 15:39, Mark Felder wrote:
> FreeBSD is increasingly becoming a third world citizen thanks to
> virtualization efforts being focused on Linux, so I feel that more
> frequent releases won't help as many people as you think.
I would guess that for folks like VMWare, the choice of
Ivan,
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012, Ivan Voras wrote:
2) Having two simultaneous production releases draws focus away from
both of them, and keeps any release from ever truly maturing.
This isn't how things work. The -CURRENT always has (and probably always had
and always will have) the focus of dev
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012, Tom Evans wrote:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Ivan Voras wrote:
I've concluded very early that because of what I've said above, the only way
to run FreeBSD effectively is to track -STABLE. The developers MFC-ing stuff
usually try hard not to break things so -STABLE
Hi Ivan,
Thanks for the insights below ... see my comments inline:
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012, Ivan Voras wrote:
Ability to use freebsd-update. It would be better to have more
frequent releases. As a prime example, ZFS became much more stable
about 3 months after 8.2 was released. If you were waitin
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012, Mark Felder wrote:
Why is everyone so afraid of running -STABLE? Plenty of stuff gets MFC'd.
Yeah, I agree -- running -RELEASE is difficult. Hell, it's frustrating to us
that VMWare only supports -RELEASE and it took until ESX 5 to officially
support 8.2!
More releases
On 1/16/12 10:20 PM, John Kozubik wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012, Steven Hartland wrote:
I was disappointed to see that 8.3-RELEASE is now slated to come
out in March of 2012. This will be ~13 months since 8.2-RELEASE
and is typical of a trend towards longer gaps between minor releases.
...
On 1/16/12 10:29 PM, Atom Smasher wrote:
so i guess that means that i'm tougher than a typical laptop user...
and instead of making things easier, freeBSD is getting harder.
thing is, when people don't "play" with freeBSD on laptops and
desktops, then they grow up, get real jobs, and don't k
On 1/17/12 10:08 AM, John Kozubik wrote:
Hi Ivan,
[...]
Fair enough. Is it the case that if funds or manpower were made
available, more releases would be workable ? Or are there some
deeper cultural leanings toward having fewer minor releases ?
sure
if you or someone is willing to cu
On 1/17/12 7:39 AM, Mark Felder wrote:
Why is everyone so afraid of running -STABLE? Plenty of stuff gets
MFC'd. Yeah, I agree -- running -RELEASE is difficult. Hell, it's
frustrating to us that VMWare only supports -RELEASE and it took
until ESX 5 to officially support 8.2!
More releases / s
On 01/17/12 12:42, Ivan Voras wrote:
On 17 January 2012 13:02, Tom Evans wrote:
Almost certainly yes. The current release process involves src, ports
and docs teams. Would you and other RELEASE users be happy with simple
periodic snapshots off the STABLE branches, not much different from
trackin
On 1/17/12 9:36 AM, Damien Fleuriot wrote:
On 1/17/12 4:39 PM, Mark Felder wrote:
Why is everyone so afraid of running -STABLE? Plenty of stuff gets
MFC'd. Yeah, I agree -- running -RELEASE is difficult. Hell, it's
frustrating to us that VMWare only supports -RELEASE and it took until
ESX 5 to
- Original Message -
From: "John Kozubik"
It's amazing how many people are in the exact same boats - waiting for
8.3, getting locked out of new motherboards because em(4) can't be
"backported" to even the production release...
This is not true, only last week did we take the version
On Thu, 2012-01-12 at 07:45:34 +, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
> Hey,
>
> after two years I had the opportunity to run the build option survey,
> initially done by phk, again. The number of options seems to have grown
> quite a bit it felt. I have not even looked at the results yet but here
> they
On Tuesday 17 January 2012 20:54:51 Steven Hartland wrote:
> boot time fixes (disable memtest),
Hi,
Another noticeable part is that ufsread.c in boot2 uses very small block sizes
to read the file system data. If that could be fixed boot times would drop too
!
--HPS
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012, Chris Rees wrote:
> what percentage of linux devs are on salary to develop linux?
>
You're not comparing like with like.
Linux is not an OS; FreeBSD is.
Are you talking about Linux? Debian? Red Hat?
linux is, in fact, an operating system.
debian, red h
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 14:30:20 -0600, Atom Smasher wrote:
linux is, in fact, an operating system.
debian, red hat, ubuntu, gentoo, etc are distributions of that OS.
It's not really worth getting into this argument, but I'll reiterate that
no, it's not an OS -- it's a kernel. Without the user
Here are My 2 Cents ,
1. Support each release longer, or develop a better way to MFS ( Merge
from Stable ) bug fixes, and driver updates to RELEASE. It always
seams that there are a number of things in X-STABLE I would love to
have in X.3-RELEASE and X.4-RELEASE, and I do not want all of X-STABLE
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 12:59:44 -0600, Julian Elischer
wrote:
On 1/17/12 9:36 AM, Damien Fleuriot wrote:
having run -stable on production systems, the way to do it is:
* follow -stable..
* pick a time that IN RETROSPECT (from 1 month later) looks as though it
was good.
* take a snapshot fro
On 17 January 2012 20:30, Atom Smasher wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2012, Chris Rees wrote:
>
>> > what percentage of linux devs are on salary to develop linux?
>> >
>>
>> You're not comparing like with like.
>>
>> Linux is not an OS; FreeBSD is.
>>
>> Are you talking about Linux? Debian? Red Hat?
>
>
On Jan 17, 2012, at 11:12 AM, John Kozubik wrote:
> Again, I'm not suggesting more snapshots - I am suggesting more real, bona
> fide releases. This will help people.
I tend to agree with you. Our release engineering process isn't serving the
needs of users as much as it once did. When Walnu
Thanks Bjoern!
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-freebsd-hack...@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-
> hack...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Bjoern A. Zeeb
> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 11:46 PM
> To: FreeBSD current mailing list
> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
> Subject: Build Option
On Tue, 2012-01-17 at 10:56 -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
> If it came to that maybe all the people who are currently saying they
> need better
> support of the 8.x branch could get together and together, support
> someone
> to do that job for them..would 1/5th of a person be too expensive
> for
On 17 Jan 2012, at 21:09, Warner Losh wrote:
>
> On Jan 17, 2012, at 11:12 AM, John Kozubik wrote:
>> Again, I'm not suggesting more snapshots - I am suggesting more real, bona
>> fide releases. This will help people.
>
> I tend to agree with you. Our release engineering process isn't serving
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Mark Blackman wrote:
> On 17 Jan 2012, at 21:09, Warner Losh wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jan 17, 2012, at 11:12 AM, John Kozubik wrote:
>>> Again, I'm not suggesting more snapshots - I am suggesting more real, bona
>>> fide releases. This will help people.
>>
>> I tend to
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 02:50:08PM -0600 I heard the voice of
Mark Felder, and lo! it spake thus:
>
> I've seen several other things hit -STABLE right after the freeze
> ended early January which surprise me that they weren't included in
> -RELEASE and we didn't have another RC.
You mean the 9
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 12:02:29PM + I heard the voice of
Tom Evans, and lo! it spake thus:
>
> You say that snapshots of STABLE are stable and effectively a
> running release branch, so why can't more releases be made?
>
> Is the release process too complex for minor revisions, could that
>
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 06:57:19PM + I heard the voice of
Hugo Silva, and lo! it spake thus:
>
> Come to think about it, those days are pretty much gone since 4.x
> (incidentally, many of us who've stuck with FreeBSD for this long
> think of 4.x as an epic series).
Having been a FreeBSD user
On 16 January 2012 18:21, Igor Mozolevsky wrote:
> On 17 January 2012 01:02, richo wrote:
>
>> This would be a different argument if all the devs were paid a salary.
>
> Isn't this a bit of a cyclical argument: developers don't work because
> they are not paid a salary, the end-user base shrinks,
On 16 January 2012 22:32, Atom Smasher wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2012, richo wrote:
>
>> This would be a different argument if all the devs were paid a salary.
>
> ==
>
> what percentage of linux devs are on salary to develop linux?
That's the wrong question.
The question is "what is a
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:27:24 +
Mark Blackman wrote:
> I'd have thought PC-BSD and iXsystems are the natural people to to
> take over that role in any case. The FreeBSD foundation seems less
> interested in the "for end-users" angle as well.
If that's the case, is there any reason for cutti
.. I'm replying to the OP because honestly, this thread has gotten a
bit derailed.
If you'd like to see:
... more frequent releases? then please step up and help with all the
infrastructure needed to roll out test releases, including building
_all_ the ports. A lot of people keep forgetting that
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-freebsd-hack...@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-
> hack...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Garrett Cooper
> Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 4:07 PM
> To: wbent...@futurecis.com
> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: FreeBSD has serious problems with
On 17 January 2012 23:01, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> If you'd like to see:
>
> ... more frequent releases? then please step up and help with all the
> infrastructure needed to roll out test releases, including building
> _all_ the ports. A lot of people keep forgetting that a "release" is
> "build all
on 17/01/2012 23:46 Ian Lepore said the following:
> Now, before we're even really completely up and running on 8.2 at work,
> 9.0 hits the street, and developers have moved on to working in the 10.0
> world. What are the chances that any of the patches I've submitted for
> bugs we fixed in 8.x ar
on 18/01/2012 01:01 Adrian Chadd said the following:
> .. I'm replying to the OP because honestly, this thread has gotten a
> bit derailed.
>
> If you'd like to see:
>
> ... more frequent releases? then please step up and help with all the
> infrastructure needed to roll out test releases, includ
Atom writes:
> i bought myself a LENOVO T510 when it first came out, around early 2010.
> it's got an i5 CPU and Arrandale GPU. it's two years old and on freeBSD i
> STILL can't run xorg properly with it.
I have a machine from 2005-08 that FreeBSD still doesn't support properly
in 2012. After much
On Wed, 2012-01-18 at 01:17 +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 17/01/2012 23:46 Ian Lepore said the following:
> > Now, before we're even really completely up and running on 8.2 at work,
> > 9.0 hits the street, and developers have moved on to working in the 10.0
> > world. What are the chances that
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012, Mark Felder wrote:
linux is, in fact, an operating system. debian, red hat, ubuntu,
gentoo, etc are distributions of that OS.
It's not really worth getting into this argument, but I'll reiterate
that no, it's not an OS -- it's a kernel. Without the userland utilities
the
First, let's do away with the whole, "If you step up to help, your help
will be accepted with open arms" myth. That's only true if the project
leadership agrees with your goals.
We also need to take a step back and ask if throwing more person-hours
at the problem is the right solution, or if redes
Hi Devin,
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012, Devin Teske wrote:
I brought this up in last weekend's BAFUG meeting...
We're _very_ interested in replicating the long-lifecycle of the 4-series with a
newer series. But which one?
Right now, we're jumping to the 8-series, but after seeing that one of the majo
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 16:25:12 -0600, Matthew D. Fuller
wrote:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 02:50:08PM -0600 I heard the voice of
Mark Felder, and lo! it spake thus:
I've seen several other things hit -STABLE right after the freeze
ended early January which surprise me that they weren't included
Hi Doug,
Thanks a lot for these comments and insight - response below...
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012, Doug Barton wrote:
I tried to make the point back in June that there was no reason to cut
9.0-RELEASE yet because we don't have solid support for clang in either
the base, or ports (amongst several o
on 18/01/2012 01:36 Ian Lepore said the following:
> On Wed, 2012-01-18 at 01:17 +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>> on 17/01/2012 23:46 Ian Lepore said the following:
>>> Now, before we're even really completely up and running on 8.2 at work,
>>> 9.0 hits the street, and developers have moved on to work
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012, Igor Mozolevsky wrote:
On 17 January 2012 23:01, Adrian Chadd wrote:
If you'd like to see:
... more frequent releases? then please step up and help with all the
infrastructure needed to roll out test releases, including building
_all_ the ports. A lot of people keep forg
On 18 January 2012 00:00, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> Just a note: the next best thing you can to _not_ have a patch committed is to
> just open a PR and stop at that. The best thing being not sharing the patch
> at
> all :-)
[snip]
> Some things that help:
> - send a problem description and a patc
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-freebsd-hack...@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-
> hack...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Julian Elischer
> Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 10:56 AM
> To: Mark Felder
> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: FreeBSD has serious problems with focus,
- Original Message -
From: "Hans Petter Selasky"
On Tuesday 17 January 2012 20:54:51 Steven Hartland wrote:
boot time fixes (disable memtest),
Hi,
Another noticeable part is that ufsread.c in boot2 uses very small block sizes
to read the file system data. If that could be fixed
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Igor Mozolevsky wrote:
> Seriously, WTF is the point of having a PR system that allows patches
> to be submitted??! When I submit a patch I fix *your* code (not yours
> personally, but you get my gist). No other project requires a
> non-committer to be so ridiculo
Hi John,
> -Original Message-
> From: John Kozubik [mailto:j...@kozubik.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 3:52 PM
> To: Devin Teske
> Cc: 'Garrett Cooper'; wbent...@futurecis.com; freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
> Subject: RE: FreeBSD has serious problems with focus, longevity, and lifecy
On 18 January 2012 01:11, Eitan Adler wrote:
> It takes time to review and test patches. There are a lot of people
> that think "it only takes 30 seconds to download the patch, apply, and
> commit." This is just not true.
I fully understand that and it is not what I was saying, what I was
sayin
Can someone please take a look at 3 patches I've filed against tzsetup(8)?
bin/164039:
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=bin/164039
"[PATCH] tzsetup(8): Don't write /var/db/zoneinfo either when "-n" is passed or
when install_zoneinfo_file returns failure"
bin/164041:
http://www.freebsd.o
Looking at bin/164192...
I'm left wondering to myself...
How on Earth did a regression-by-typo introduced in SVN r214735 go 14 months
without being noticed?
Effected branches include:
RELENG_9_0_RELEASE
RELENG_9_0
affected for 2 months and 1 week
RELENG_9
RELENG_9_0_BP
affected
On 1/17/12 12:11 PM, Mark Saad wrote:
Here are My 2 Cents ,
1. Support each release longer, or develop a better way to MFS ( Merge
from Stable ) bug fixes, and driver updates to RELEASE. It always
seams that there are a number of things in X-STABLE I would love to
have in X.3-RELEASE and X.4-REL
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 6:21 PM, Devin Teske wrote:
> Looking at bin/164192...
>
> I'm left wondering to myself...
> How on Earth did a regression-by-typo introduced in SVN r214735 go 14 months
> without being noticed?
Very carefully. I've seen it happen before on paid products (in
fact I've
> -Original Message-
> From: Garrett Cooper [mailto:yaneg...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 6:29 PM
> To: Devin Teske
> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: 14 month old regression (how?)
>
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 6:21 PM, Devin Teske
> wrote:
> > Looking at bi
On 1/17/12 3:36 PM, Ian Lepore wrote:
On Wed, 2012-01-18 at 01:17 +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 17/01/2012 23:46 Ian Lepore said the following:
Now, before we're even really completely up and running on 8.2 at work,
9.0 hits the street, and developers have moved on to working in the 10.0
world.
On 1/17/12 2:41 PM, Matthew D. Fuller wrote:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 06:57:19PM + I heard the voice of
Hugo Silva, and lo! it spake thus:
Come to think about it, those days are pretty much gone since 4.x
(incidentally, many of us who've stuck with FreeBSD for this long
think of 4.x as an epi
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 01:41:53AM + I heard the voice of
Igor Mozolevsky, and lo! it spake thus:
>
> The problem, however, lies in the time between a patch is submitted
> and is "picked up", if the latter ever occurs!.. That is where the
> discouragement occurs.
Quite. For instance, we're n
On 1/17/12 3:50 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
First, let's do away with the whole, "If you step up to help, your help
will be accepted with open arms" myth. That's only true if the project
leadership agrees with your goals.
"leadership" doesn't really control development here. action does.
We also nee
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 06:49:02PM -0800 I heard the voice of
Julian Elischer, and lo! it spake thus:
>
> 5 was not out on a limb for so long because it was a clusterfun, it
> was out there because it was a rework of how almost everything in
> the kernel worked.
I'm not saying it was a cluster bec
On Jan 17, 2012, at 7:05 PM, "Matthew D. Fuller"
wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 06:49:02PM -0800 I heard the voice of
> Julian Elischer, and lo! it spake thus:
>>
>> 5 was not out on a limb for so long because it was a clusterfun, it
>> was out there because it was a rework of how almost ev
On 1/17/12 7:12 PM, Devin Teske wrote:
On Jan 17, 2012, at 7:05 PM, "Matthew D. Fuller"
wrote:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 06:49:02PM -0800 I heard the voice of
Julian Elischer, and lo! it spake thus:
5 was not out on a limb for so long because it was a clusterfun, it
was out there because it w
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012, Mark Felder wrote:
To be fair, it could be worse -- OpenBSD secretly wants you to run
snapshots and CURRENT as the RELEASEs are mostly unmaintained outside of
the most extreme security concerns. Even the packages are kept at the
exact version of the time of release.
=
On 18/01/12 10:07 +1300, Atom Smasher wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012, Mark Felder wrote:
To be fair, it could be worse -- OpenBSD secretly wants you to run
snapshots and CURRENT as the RELEASEs are mostly unmaintained
outside of the most extreme security concerns. Even the packages
are kept at the
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 15:07:56 -0600, Atom Smasher wrote:
and how many corps are running openBSD?
Works amazingly well as an edge router. You get pf, openbgpd, openspfd
much higher performance that 50K cisco gear. The bugs we've hit have been
fixed promptly as well. Pretty decent littl
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 07:20:15PM -0800 I heard the voice of
Julian Elischer, and lo! it spake thus:
>
> the trouble with 5 was that it had to be all-or-nothing.
>
> [...]
>
> the size of the "giant pile of stuff" was not of our choosing.
As may be, it's beside my point. Whether due to malice,
On 01/17/2012 19:20, Julian Elischer wrote:
> the trouble with 5 was that it had to be all-or-nothing.
>
> there is no such thing as a partly SMP system. (well, not one that you'd
> want to run).
>
> the size of the "giant pile of stuff" was not of our choosing.
... again, with all due respect t
Devin Teske wrote:
[...]
We could adopt a cycle similar to the Linux Kernel...
Odd numbered releases are "experimental" while even numbered releases are
"stable"
I do not know the current state things in Linux kernel, but as far as I
know 2.6 branch was
not "stable". It was branch with a l
88 matches
Mail list logo
