Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.development
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!utnut!torn!uunet.ca!uunet.ca!wildcan!alexd
From: alexd@system9.unisys.com (Alex Dumitru)
Subject: Re: Call for 386BSD Rel.1.0 SIG (Special Interest Group)
Message-ID: <1994Aug23.170100.7763@system9.unisys.com>
Organization: Unisys GIS (Toronto)
References: <3319ti$7rl@agate.berkeley.edu> <JKH.94Aug20133237@time.cdrom.com> <jmonroyCuwt5o.Cpw@netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 17:01:00 GMT
Lines: 36
Jesus Monroy Jr (jmonroy@netcom.com) writes:
>Jordan K. Hubbard (jkh@time.cdrom.com) wrote:
>: This doesn't make us great, nor even as brilliant as Bill, it
>: just makes us a lot more RELIABLE, which was the substance of my point.
>:
> You'll have to answer to questions before you
> get a respond from me on this.
>
> #1 What is it that you consider the must be
> *reliable*?
>
> #2 How do you measure reliability?
Well, I don't know if Jordan will answer these two questions, but I
will take a stab at them.
#1.
Reliability, from the end-user viewpoint, is a supported product. That
means that the developers actively fix bugs, work on new releases,
and deliver updates on a timely basis. Now, we are talking about
a free OS, so no *expects* the developers to do these things. We
all appreciate their effort, and understand that sometimes 'day jobs'
interfere...
#2.
Track record...
386BSD = 0.1
NetBSD = 0.8 -> 0.9 -> 1.0 (planned)
FreeBSD = 1.0 -> 1.0.2 -> 1.1 -> 1.1.5 -> 1.1.5.1 -> 2.0 (planned)
Linux = .95 -> .96 -> ... -> 1.0 -> (I'm not really current on Linux)
Note that {Free|Net}BSD have had numerous interim alpha/beta releases that
I never even mentioned...
cheers
alex