Well, most "upstreams" the process looks like "they do a release, then we start testing the code, and after a few months we're comfortable enough for it to be in a FreeBSD release". But with ZFS, "they" and "we" largely overlap so all the ZFS code is being tested on FreeBSD from the start and we're not waiting for them to do a release first.
In terms of stability: OpenZFS 2.4.0-rc4 has had far more testing on FreeBSD than most of the "release" versions of contrib code shipped in 15.0.
each point release is only supported for about three months
Where are you getting 3 months from? It's usually 9 months and occasionally 12 months.
Also, major versions are supported for 4 years and unless you're messing with kernel APIs nothing should break. (Testing is always good! But going from 14.3 to 14.4 is not a matter of needing lots of extra development work.)
I stand corrected, the official current release plan is "...while each individual point release is only supported FOR THREE MONTHS AFTER THE NEXT POINT RELEASE".
For keeping up to date with vulnerability fixes for packages/ports (which are far more frequent) the "easy" path is to use the last FreeBSD point release.
Yes, so what you do is you run `freebsd-update fetch` then `freebsd-update install` or if you switch a minor version you do freebsd-update upgrade -r MAJOR.MINOR` and do the same. Minor release upgrades are not the breaking kind. ABI, etc. will stay intact. There aren't expected breakages it's just that stuff will have new features and you might have some really specific use case where that shell command version output is checked and breaks stuff when it changes.
I think that's a big misunderstanding coming from other systems. Minor system updates are the kind of updates that a lot of other systems would pull in silently, while FreeBSD's major releases are a lot more like OpenBSD's releases (where minor and major version numbers don't make a difference).
Minor in FreeBSD means that stuff isn't supposed to break. It's a lot more like "Patch Level". I always want to mention Windows here for comparison, but keep thinking about how much Windows Updates break things and did so for a long time (Service Packs, etc.).
Maybe going about it from the other side makes more sense: FreeBSD got a lot of shit for not changing various default configurations for compatibility reasons - even across major versions. These are default configurations, so things where the diff is a config file change. I think they are improving this, but they really do care about their compatibility, simply because the use case of FreeBSD is in that area.
This is in contrast to eg OpenBSD where not so few people run -current, simply because it's stable enough and they want to use the latest stuff. They only support the last release (so essentially release +6 months) but again even there things do not usually break beyond having to recompile something. They all have their ports/packages collections and want stuff to run and OpenBSD being used a lot more "eating your own dogfood" style, which you can see with there being an OpenBSD gaming community, while that OS doesn't "even" support wine.
The problem here is that "mean" is a poor average. For hotels, if you're rating in 10 different categories, you really want a single 0/10 to bring the overall score down by way more than one point.
The opposite situation can also occur. At my university, entrance scholarships were decided a few years ago based on students' aggregate score across 25ish dimensions (I can't remember the exact number) where students were each rated 1-4. Consequently a student who was absolutely exceptional in one area would be beaten out by a student who was marginally above average in all the other areas. I suggested that rather than scoring 1-4 the scores should be 1/2/5/25 instead.
The problem here begins even before the mathematical issue - it's that web sites that live from listing bookings have an incentive to offer a way to delete reviews that are not in line with what the owner wants to see.
One issue, as they point out, is that we now do minor version updates every 6 months, and you need to update for each one. (We have a 3-4 month period where both are supported, but e.g. 15.0 will be EoL before 15.2 is released.)
We are aware that this isn't ideal for some users, but it was a necessary tradeoff. We might be able to improve this in the future (possibly as "security updates for the base system, but no ports support") but no guarantees.
Serious answer: Because they have to eat. Being a purist doesn't mean they can afford to ignore the world they live in; even if they believe that USD is fundamentally worthless and keep all their wealth in Bitcoin, they still need to occasionally pay bills to people who don't take Bitcoin.
But that is still for a limited number of chipsets though right? I would absolutely love to see way more support. I remember awhile back the FreeBSD Foundation putting some serious (on their scale of funds) funds to WiFi.
I can't remember which chipsets support it. But yes, the FreeBSD Foundation has been putting a lot of money into laptop support, including wifi improvements.
I guess it's better now then. To be clear, on linux the very same laptop in the very same location (dual boot) I got proper speed. The issue was entirely in FreeBSD drivers.
I run into this sort of bias all the time -- in the real world, not just in AI. I take my daughter to medical appointments, both for scheduling reasons (my wife's schedule is less flexible) and rapport reasons (I'm not that kind of doctor, but I know the terminology and medical professionals treat me far more as a peer), and I routinely get "oh we expected her mother" or "we always phone the mother to schedule followup appointments".
Is it so hard to understand that men can be parents too?
The scheduler is trained to give higher weight to those sorts of questions apparently. This begs some questions for GPTs, questions like how are they supposed to model something not implied in the training data?
But the fact that I'm bringing my daughter to a medical appointment should be a pretty clear indication that, you know, I bring my daughter to medical appointments.
Presumably he already has told them his number and preferences. Defaults are fine, but you don't want your preference to get reset to default every time, and assuming that only the mother of a child should be contacted in all cases is a terrible default. The person who made the appointment and who is bringing the child to the doctor should be the one contacted by default. There is no reason that the mother of a child should be considered the default guardian. That is an incredibly dangerous assumption to make in many circumstances.
Edit: This reply was written to a response that got completely rewritten in an edit. It may not make as much sense
This. Don’t be so sensitive, just say to call you.
I took my daughter to appointments and as soon as I started asking meaningful questions, doctors immediately switched to assuming I was the one to talk to.
When you act like you know what’s going on, act like you’re on top of it, I’ve never once had a doctor assume I was just babysitting. This was true in the Midwest and California.
> doctors immediately switched to assuming I was the one to talk to.
Exactly! They do that. If a father takes the kid, they will ask for his number, not the mother's, in my experience. If both the mother and father goes with the kid, well, there are cues they pick up on. In my case my father typically was always in the background while my mother was the one doing the talking, meaning they ask for her number, not my dad's. So, all in all, whoever does the most talking, for example. And if my dad wanted to be the one called, my mom would have told them his number, or my dad would have. I do not see an issue here really.
To quote a former Chief Scientist of the NSA, Rule #1 of cryptanalysis is "look for plaintext". Implementation flaws are very common.
reply