From owner-freebsd-stable Tue May 25 4:50:16 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from sand2.sentex.ca (sand2.sentex.ca [209.167.248.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1C7C15025 for ; Tue, 25 May 1999 04:50:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from gravel (ospf-wat.sentex.net [209.167.248.81]) by sand2.sentex.ca (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id HAA08861 for ; Tue, 25 May 1999 07:50:10 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Message-Id: <4.1.19990525075210.0465a180@granite.sentex.ca> X-Sender: mdtancsa@granite.sentex.ca X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 08:00:42 -0400 To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG From: Mike Tancsa Subject: RE: [Q] How stable is FreeBSD 3.X ? In-Reply-To: <000001bea672$dce52580$021d85d1@whenever.youwant.to> References: <199905250541.WAA00380@dingo.cdrom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG At 01:53 AM 5/25/99 , David Schwartz wrote: > > Have you stopped to consider that users may just want to _use_ FreeBSD >without having to follow the development? Have you considered that bad >releases affect them? This is yet another piece of the 'Open Source' versus >'company supported' puzzle. NT out of the box needs to be patched for performance and security reasons. No matter what OS you deploy, you must follow the development so to speak... Even if only for security reasons. Yes, it would be nice in a perfect world if this were not the case. ---Mike ********************************************************************** Mike Tancsa, Network Admin * mike@sentex.net Sentex Communications Corp, * http://www.sentex.net/mike Cambridge, Ontario * 01.519.651.3400 Canada * To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message