From owner-freebsd-questions Tue May 4 15:18: 0 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from resnet.uoregon.edu (resnet.uoregon.edu [128.223.144.32]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 112E714C09 for ; Tue, 4 May 1999 15:17:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dwhite@resnet.uoregon.edu) Received: from localhost (dwhite@localhost) by resnet.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA24738; Tue, 4 May 1999 15:17:35 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dwhite@resnet.uoregon.edu) Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 15:17:34 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug White To: Greg Lehey Cc: Studded , freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Current state of the conventional wisdom? In-Reply-To: <19990504092501.G10134@freebie.lemis.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, 4 May 1999, Greg Lehey wrote: > On Monday, 3 May 1999 at 13:22:52 -0700, Doug White wrote: > > On Mon, 3 May 1999, Studded wrote: > > > >> 1. As far as I can see, 3.1-Stable is the way to go. I need info on the > >> best way to upgrade a 2.2.8 system to 3.1-Stable, going fully(?) elf in > >> the process. > > > > I suggest holding off until 3.5. 3.X is a total mess at the moment, and > > if your 2.2.8 box is running fine then don't touch it. > > Huh? What gives you that idea? I've been running 3.X for some time > now, and I haven't had any trouble. If you make such negative > statements, you should at least justify them. 1. 2.2.X -> 3.X upgrade doesn't handle a.out libraries, rendering a.out bins (netscape, built ports, etc.) useless until they're moved. 2. Sysinstall locks up during the second device probe. 3. Sysinstall locks up during extraction on machines with <=8MB RAM. 4. Kernel panics mysteriously after device probe when devices are removed; unedited kernel boots normally. 5. /kernel.config fiasco. 6. NFS instabilities. 7. > On the other hand, I wouldn't recommend installing 3.1 right now. 3.2 > will be released in the middle of the month, and it's probably worth > waiting for. I'll wait and see. The conventional release cycle has the .5 release as a strong comeback for the branch. Reference 2.0.5, 2.1.5, 2.2.5... > We've had trouble with NFS for years. 3.X is no worse than 2.X, and > it's probably better. The good news is that we've recently seen a lot > of fixes for NFS go into -CURRENT, and they'll probably appear in 3.X > (probably 3.3) as well. -CURRENT is the best NFS candidate, thanks to Matt Dillon's hard work. Unfortunately -CURRENT has problems elsewhere. Doug White Internet: dwhite@resnet.uoregon.edu | FreeBSD: The Power to Serve http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~dwhite | www.freebsd.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message