On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 13:21:47 +0100 Manuel Giraud
<manuel.giraud@univ-nantes.fr> wrote:

quoted text
> Scott McEachern <scott@erratic.ca> writes:
> 
> > Huh?  Let me get this straight.  You want to use a *new* package.
> > You have to use -current to get the new package.  How do you figure
> > running -stable will help?
> 
> I wasn't clear enough: by "new package", I meant "a package not
> installed on my system yet" and not "the bleeding edge version of one
> package".
> 
> > I'm with J.C. Roberts on this one.  I got tired of seeing the cool
> > kids playing with the new toys on -current, got over the (wrong)
> > impression that -current is unstable, and started using -current
> > with the goodies.  I haven't looked back since.
> 
> Maybe I'll stick to -current too. But I'd like to give try staying
> -stable for a while and I could still play with the new toys every 6
> month anyway. I wonder why does the FAQ recommend -stable over
> -current?

The -stable branch requires less work and less knowledge. If you are
new to OpenBSD or new to UNIX in general, the -stable branch is a nice
and simple place to start. Also, it gives that warm comfy feeling to
the tired, battle scared sysadmins who wander in out of the cold, and it
keeps the management types happy due to the required buzzwords.

There's a story I remember reading about an OpenBSD user from Japan
(possibly Mark Uemura?) who met an interesting fellow at a conference
who asked what operating system he was running on his laptop. The
OpenBSD user proudly stated, "I'm running OpenBSD X.Y Stable," and the
interesting fellow replied, "You should be running current."

Said "interesting fellow" turned out to be Theo.

-jcr