Possibility for FreeBSD 4.11 Extended Support

Mike Patterson mpatters at cs.uwaterloo.ca
Fri Dec 22 18:42:48 PST 2006

Hash: SHA1

Pete French wrote on 12/22/06 8:43 AM:
>> Because everybody knows that odd numbered releases aren't stable.
> I've been 20 years in electronics & comouting and thats the first
> time I have ever heard anyone say that! Steer clear of '.0' releases
> is well known, but suspecting something just because of the odd or
> evenness of it's numbering scheme seems like pure superstition.
> Especually since we are Unix people, and the two of the
> 'biggies' in history are Version 7, System 5 ;-)

I guess you never had the misfortune of Solaris 2.5 and 7.

Fortunately I mostly avoided 2.5, but I danced a jig when I upgraded the
last of my 7 boxes to 8 (or surplussed the hardware after relieving
myself on it).  Now I'm trying to get rid of 8, and not having a very
good go of it... our department skipped 9 for the odd-numbered-release
version superstition, much to my chagrin.

Personally, I've run every single release of FreeBSD since 4.2 on
production servers (albeit nowhere near as heavy a load as many see) and
never had a single hiccup.  If dropping support for 4.11 means 7 will be
that much better, I'm all for it.

Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


More information about the freebsd-stable mailing list