I think you should learn and read about what you're downloading and running in production (given your hypothetical example). It's basic literacy. For example, would you go to Linus's github: https://github.com/torvalds/linux and just start downloading that and try running it verbatim in production because "oh! it's Linus's branch! Linus makes Linux. It is Linux!" and then complain because it's not an actual distribution?

Because that's how you read in your comment.

The linux development kernel is called "mainline" Would you want them to change it to Nightly or Alpha?

Yes, people should read the manual.

And FreeBSD should name things better. Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

I agree you should read and understand what you're downloading and running in production. And I'd like to think that if I were in a position such that I was making those decisions I'd not make the mistake of assuming CURRENT meant current stable release. I'm just saying, reading the post I originally had assumed that's what current meant.

If you give inaccurate information and then correct it in the manual, you still gave inaccurate information.

If you didn't read the manual before putting something in production, you still didn't do your job properly.

If there is one group that categorically does not read the manual then it is computer people. And if they do read the manual it is because something didn't work as expected.

That's not entirely wrong. On the other hand, if you can't tell whether the OS you deployed in production has, say, security support, maybe you're not the right person to administer it.

This probably comes from overconfidence. If you're pretty sure you can handle whatever comes up, it's easy to see reading documentation in advance as a potential waste of time.

I would not state it as broadly as "computer people."

A lot of computer people are indeed that way. But many others are not.

Invariably, when something goes wrong, the group that doesn't read the manual visits forums or chats to seek help from the group that does.

Who gave you inaccurate information? Assuming CURRENT means stable is just plain assuming.

Principle of Least Astonishment. The names of things should not mislead a reasonable user as to their purpose.

It is still the responsibility of the user to educate themselves on the things they use; but it's also the responsibility of the designer to make things straightforward and intuitive. I'm okay with blaming both of them, but don't pretend that the designer has no responsibilities here.

I can understand the terminology may be confusing to someone new to FreeBSD, but the handbook clearly documents the meaning of -CURRENT and -STABLE, and explains that -CURRENT is the "bleeding edge" of FreeBSD development.

"EDGE" may be a better term in that case... meaning it may cut you... there's risk... "CURRENT" to me brings a thought of, okay, it's current and up to date (safe from known exploits).