From owner-freebsd-hackers  Wed May 22 07:58:21 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id HAA01825
          for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 22 May 1996 07:58:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id HAA01783;
          Wed, 22 May 1996 07:58:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.7.5/8.6.9) with SMTP id HAA06841; Wed, 22 May 1996 07:57:48 -0700 (PDT)
To: dennis@etinc.com (Dennis)
cc: hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-isp@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: 2.1R vs 050196SNAP 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 22 May 1996 10:49:27 EDT."
             <199605221449.KAA26388@etinc.com> 
Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 07:57:48 -0700
Message-ID: <6839.832777068@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> Can anyone, in a nutshell please, give me a simple bullet list of the
> most compelling reasons (excluding obscure device support) to
> run the SNAP over 2.1R.

For a more balanced perspective, you might also solicit compelling reasons
NOT to run the SNAP. :-)

					Jordan