Fast releases demand binary updates.. (Was: Release schedule for 2006)

[Jo Rhett]

> > I just know that core has either struck it down or been Silent.
 
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 05:32:26PM -0600, Mark Linimon wrote:
> The latter is an entirely different case from the former, and you've been
> claiming core has done the former.  This, and the above, tell me that
> you're not interested in checking your facts before making an accusation.
> (And, as well, that you do not even understand the role the core plays
> in the project.  Hint: it is not primarily technical in nature.)

I agree with most of what you said here.  This was known and understood.
Agreement on direction is what I was expecting, er, dreaming about. Not 
technical issues.  Sorry if that surprises you.  

But I have to take objection to this:

> As a final observation, FreeBSD is rarely advanced by postings of the
> form 'FreeBSD must do XYZ'.  This is primarily because volunteers work on
> whatever they feel interested in doing with their free time, rather than
> the priorities anyone else sets for them.

First, this is obvious and true for all open source projects.  But no,
FreeBSD _never_ advances because someone writes code that does something
well.  FreeBSD _only_ advances when the core developers agree that this
thing is worthy of their interest.

And I'm not even saying this is a bad thing.  It just means that writing
code without buy-in from the core developers is GUARANTEED to be a waste of
time.

-- 
Jo Rhett
senior geek
SVcolo : Silicon Valley Colocation