On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 02:37:53PM -0400, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> [ On Saturday, June 21, 2003 at 07:07:55 (-0500), Richard Rauch wrote: ]
> > Subject: Re: libpthread
> >
> > -current has always been known to me as the "version" that is not even
> > guaranteed to *compile* on a given day.  It compiled?  It compiled!
> > Great.  So it crashes, what did you expect?
> 
> The problem is that there are often so many highly desirable features in
> -current, and such a long time between formal releases, that running
 [...]

Yeah, I know.  When I was first starting to use NetBSD, I seem to recall
asking "is such-and-such supported?" and being told "Yeah, no problem."
(I can't remember if it was a specific device, or something general like
audio or USB.)

Well...the person *should* have said, "No, it's not.  But there's some
development code in -current that seems to work."  At least, that's
my opinion of what they should have said.  It was quite some time before
I was able to enjoy this feature that I had been told was supported,
sans -current.

This kind of ties into another comment that someone made about NetBSD
importing native thread support so that NetBSD could claim to support
this, when it doesn't.  IMHO (again), until it's in a release, it
isn't "supported by NetBSD".

Confusing "support" with "code in -current" causes problems, I think,
both for -current users and for non -current users.  The feature may
be there, and someone may be supporting it, which is close to the same
thing, but...one shouldn't treat it quite the same.

I do understand why some may choose to run -current just for the
latest goodies.  And I understand exasperation when it turns out
sometimes to only be as good as it was promised, not as good as it
has usually been...

(Hm.  What is this box I'm standing on?  It says "xoqdeos", or maybe
that's umop-ap!sdn?  (^&)

(climbs down)


-- 
  "I probably don't know what I'm talking about."  http://www.olib.org/~rkr/