Re: Interview with Matt on bsdtalk about 1.6

[Dimitri Kovalov <dimitri_kovalov@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- Matthew Dillon <dillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> :On Thu, July 13, 2006 10:01 am, Dimitri Kovalov wrote:
> :
> :> I listen to this. Very interesting. I only challange
> one
> :> thing. You say that 1.6 is more stable than FreeBSD
> 4.x.
> :> How can you make this claim? FreeBSD 4.x is installed
> in
> :> 1000s of servers and network devices for many years,
> and I
> :> don't hear of anyone using Dragonfly for more than a
> :> corporate server or firewall. So how can you claim
> such
> :> stability before it is battle tested?
> :
> :Because a good number of the issues fixed date back to
> FreeBSD 4.x?
> 
>     Because I'm an optimist.  It's definitely more of a
> gut feeling then
>     anything specific, from having used and worked on
> FreeBSD almost
>     exclusively until I started the DragonFly project.
> 
>     In anycase, I really do think that DragonFly is now
> more stable then
>     FreeBSD-4 ever was.  And, yes, a good chunk of the
> bugs that have been
>     fixed, in particular to the buffer cache and
> softupdates, but also 
>     issues with IPSEC, the tcp stack, and a few others,
> were all present
>     in FreeBSD-4.
> 
> 					-Matt

OK. I understand what you mean. But with that logic, all
versions are more stable than the previous, because some
bugs have been fixed, which of course is not true.

Stability is about not crashing under load, not  how many
bugs there are. You fix old bugs and you create  new ones,
and you probably have lots of bugs you don't know about
yet. So stable is not the right word. You can't possibly
know with so few installations.

Dimitri

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com