From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Jan  6 15:52:36 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB8CC16A4CE
	for <questions@freebsd.org>; Thu,  6 Jan 2005 15:52:36 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from imo-m14.mx.aol.com (imo-m14.mx.aol.com [64.12.138.204])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4113443D46
	for <questions@freebsd.org>; Thu,  6 Jan 2005 15:52:36 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from Tm4528@aol.com)
Received: from Tm4528@aol.com
	by imo-m14.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v37_r3.8.) id r.81.1e80ba69 (14374);
	Thu, 6 Jan 2005 10:52:27 -0500 (EST)
From: Tm4528@aol.com
Message-ID: <81.1e80ba69.2f0eb8ba@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 10:52:26 EST
To: laszlof@vonostingroup.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5116
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.1
cc: questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Supermicro Hardware and FreeBSD
X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: User questions <freebsd-questions.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>,
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>,
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 15:52:36 -0000

In a message dated 1/5/05 7:39:02 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
laszlof@vonostingroup.com writes:
>Your point might have some teeth if the "newer" version were better, but 
>the entire problem is that 5.x is much worse than 4.x, so there lies the
>issue. 4.10 is NOT supposed to be an "old" version. Its the production
>version. Because its readily admitted that 5.x is not yet ready for 
>prime time by those in the know. And its not properly suppored.
>
>  
>
>Thats strange, http://www.freebsd.org says 5.3 is the Production release 
>and 4.10 is the (legacy) production release
I> guess they just dont teach you words like "legacy" in troll school.

And why is that, when Robert Watson has outlined, on this list, why
5.x isnt ready yet? I find it amazing that not one person in this stupid
customer base cares about that fact? Are you all a bunch of wireless
college kids or something?