why 4.X instead of 5.X

Hiten Pandya hmp at FreeBSD.ORG
Fri Jul 18 04:05:17 PDT 2003

On Thu, Jul 17, 2003 at 11:09:28PM -0700, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> :If nothing else, it has the older gcc so buildworlds will go
> :faster...  :-)   </joke>
> :
> :I like the idea of starting out with the very-stable branch
> :(both abi and api), even though there are some things about
> :5.x that I would miss.  5.x is still very much a rapidly
> :moving target.  He couldn't go with 5.0 for sure (too many
> :problems), and even 5.1 was shaky.  By going with the very
> :stable branch, it will be much easier to re-sync userland
> :when it's time to.  It should also be easier to pull in any
> :critical security fixes, should something pop up.
> :
> :-- 
> :Garance Alistair Drosehn            =   gad at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> :Senior Systems Programmer           or  gad at xxxxxxxxxxx
>    That is my feeling.  Most of the initial work I did prior to the 
>    announcement was as much to prove to myself that I could start with
>    a 4.x base.  There were a couple of days where I almost didn't think
>    I could do it, changing procs to threads in VFS and fixing ucred was
>    a nightmare!  But I buckled up and slogged through it.  Getting that
>    all done and the light weight kernel threading system actually working
>    proved it out for me and I am now *very* comfortable with using 4.x
>    as a base.  I believe I have made the right choice.  Even if 5.x were
>    more stable the mutex model it uses is so complex that ripping it out
>    (and stabilizing what was left) would have taken far longer.

	Another thing, I am sure people like me will be ready to
	backport some of the FreeBSD 5.x features into this OS, such as
	Zero-Copy Sockets, and various other improvements that will also
	apply to DragonFly; with time of course...

		-- Hiten (hmp at xxxxxxxxxxx)

More information about the Kernel mailing list