FreeBSD9 and the sheer number of problem reports

Erich Dollansky erichfreebsdlist at
Sun Feb 26 11:32:28 UTC 2012


On Sunday 26 February 2012 18:16:53 Chris Rees wrote:
> On 24 February 2012 01:35, Erich Dollansky <erichfreebsdlist at> wrote:
> >
> > On Friday 24 February 2012 01:25:01 Damien Fleuriot wrote:
> >>
> >> This is NOT a troll.
> >> This is NOT a flame.
> >> Do NOT hijack this thread to troll/flame.
> >>
> > allow them some fun too.
> >>
> >>
> >> Now, I find the number of problem reports regarding 9.0-RELEASE alarming
> >> and I'm growing more and more fearful towards it.
> >>
> >> In the current state of things, I have *absolutely* no wish to run it in
> >> production :(
> >>
> > Did you read deeply into the strategy behind the releases? If I remember right, the odd numbers are a little bit more experimental compared to the even numbers. For myself, I try to stick with even numbers whenever possible. If I install FreeBSD on a serious machine, I never use x.0. It must be at least x.1.
> There's no such odd/even number policy with FreeBSD-- I think you're
> thinking of another OS ;)
maybe something got stuck in my head with the move from 4 to 5.

How easy was the move to 6 then?

Independent of this, it is still true that there is always the older branch available when a new one opens at .0.

> You're right that x.0 is slightly more experimental in general though
> (by its nature, it must be).

And has nothing to do with FreeBSD as such.


More information about the freebsd-stable mailing list