4 ms·

It doesn't really matter what anyone thinks a name means based on their prior experience. If they didn't RTFM I've no sympathy, particularly if that user is dep

It doesn't really matter what anyone thinks a name means based on their prior experience. If they didn't RTFM I've no sympathy, particularly if that user is depending upon security features within the OS. Users, particularly corporates, have to take responsibility for your own situation and if they got caught out by this because they didn't understand or bother to take the time to read what -CURRENT is then I've no respect for them in any technical capacity.

jacquesm 12y ago
So, then we should label the unstable may crash at any time release 'USETHISONE' and the stable one 'POSTALPHA'. Really, I don't get this attitude of 'if they can't be bothered to read the manual they get what they deserve'. It's everybody's loss to have more compromised machines on the net because compromised machines allow bad elements to gain a foothold and from there it can get much worse in a hurry. So you treat this as a communications problem and reduce the potential of error by properly labelling your releases (this costs $0) instead of telling those that got bitten by it that they 'got what they deserve'. Whether you have respect for them or not doesn't enter into it, it's a security issue, not a respect issue.
- weland 12y ago
  CURRENT has meant MAYCRASH in BSD for... 25 years now? I don't know how suggestive it is to someone who doesn't use FreeBSD, but if you as much as download and install it, there's no way you don't stumble into at least one "-CURRENT is not what you want for production" fine print. This isn't a communication, security or respect issue, it's a competence issue. You don't just install an OS on a server and "somehow" not know you're installing a development version!
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    Lance Leventhal is one of my favorite authors of machine language books, he wrote a series of books on old school microprocessors, each of which followed a fixed template and taught you the basics of yet another processor in a familiar setting. One of the lines from those books that stands out very clearly 25 years after reading them last: "If a variable is tallying the number of horses name it 'nhorses' not 'qdogs'". Names matter. So if 'CURRENT' means 'MAYCRASH' name it so.
    - vertex-four 12y ago
      Many projects use "head" to refer to their development branch. That's equally as non-meaningful, yet nobody complains about that.
      - bdowling 12y ago
        "Head" is very commonly used because it is from the language of revision control systems. CVS, Subversion, Perforce, Git, Mercurial, and probably others all refer to the latest checkin as the "head". It has a specific meaning to a much larger group of people than just FreeBSD users.
    - weland 12y ago
      -CURRENT is called CURRENT because it reflects the CURRENT development efforts and their CURRENT state. Of course it may crash. When it stops crashing, it's going to be released and that's how it will be turned into a RELEASE. There is literally (and I'm using the word in its proper sense, not as a hyperbola) no way you end up with FreeBSD on a server without knowing this. No one just installed it "by mistake" in a production environment or mistook it for a STABLE version.
- garrettheaver 12y ago
  -CURRENT machines shouldn't be "on the net" in any meaningful way unless you've calculated the risks and are willing to accept them. I don't get this attitude of people who think projects should fit their model of how things should be named. Many of us have no problem understanding the labelling, its really fairly intuitive. We also have no problem understanding alternative schemes used in other projects. Just because its different to what you're used to doesn't make it wrong. Whether or not I have respect for them matter quite a lot if they're trying to market security related products. Basing themselves on -CURRENT and not understanding the potential consequences speaks volumes about that organisation or teams competency in their chosen field.
  - tracker1 12y ago
    Given that... wouldn't -DEV or -EDGE or -UNSTABLE make more sense?

jacquesm 12y ago

So, then we should label the unstable may crash at any time release 'USETHISONE' and the stable one 'POSTALPHA'. Really, I don't get this attitude of 'if they can't be bothered to read the manual they get what they deserve'. It's everybody's loss to have more compromised machines on the net because compromised machines allow bad elements to gain a foothold and from there it can get much worse in a hurry. So you treat this as a communications problem and reduce the potential of error by properly labelling your releases (this costs $0) instead of telling those that got bitten by it that they 'got what they deserve'. Whether you have respect for them or not doesn't enter into it, it's a security issue, not a respect issue.

weland 12y ago
CURRENT has meant MAYCRASH in BSD for... 25 years now? I don't know how suggestive it is to someone who doesn't use FreeBSD, but if you as much as download and install it, there's no way you don't stumble into at least one "-CURRENT is not what you want for production" fine print. This isn't a communication, security or respect issue, it's a competence issue. You don't just install an OS on a server and "somehow" not know you're installing a development version!
- jacquesm 12y ago
  Lance Leventhal is one of my favorite authors of machine language books, he wrote a series of books on old school microprocessors, each of which followed a fixed template and taught you the basics of yet another processor in a familiar setting. One of the lines from those books that stands out very clearly 25 years after reading them last: "If a variable is tallying the number of horses name it 'nhorses' not 'qdogs'". Names matter. So if 'CURRENT' means 'MAYCRASH' name it so.
  - vertex-four 12y ago
    Many projects use "head" to refer to their development branch. That's equally as non-meaningful, yet nobody complains about that.
    - bdowling 12y ago
      "Head" is very commonly used because it is from the language of revision control systems. CVS, Subversion, Perforce, Git, Mercurial, and probably others all refer to the latest checkin as the "head". It has a specific meaning to a much larger group of people than just FreeBSD users.
  - weland 12y ago
    -CURRENT is called CURRENT because it reflects the CURRENT development efforts and their CURRENT state. Of course it may crash. When it stops crashing, it's going to be released and that's how it will be turned into a RELEASE. There is literally (and I'm using the word in its proper sense, not as a hyperbola) no way you end up with FreeBSD on a server without knowing this. No one just installed it "by mistake" in a production environment or mistook it for a STABLE version.
garrettheaver 12y ago
-CURRENT machines shouldn't be "on the net" in any meaningful way unless you've calculated the risks and are willing to accept them. I don't get this attitude of people who think projects should fit their model of how things should be named. Many of us have no problem understanding the labelling, its really fairly intuitive. We also have no problem understanding alternative schemes used in other projects. Just because its different to what you're used to doesn't make it wrong. Whether or not I have respect for them matter quite a lot if they're trying to market security related products. Basing themselves on -CURRENT and not understanding the potential consequences speaks volumes about that organisation or teams competency in their chosen field.
- tracker1 12y ago
  Given that... wouldn't -DEV or -EDGE or -UNSTABLE make more sense?