From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 8 15:39:29 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C31416A4CE for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2005 15:39:29 +0000 (GMT) Received: from energistic.com (mail.virtual-voodoo.com [65.204.79.152]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB26A43D2F for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2005 15:39:28 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from steve@energistic.com) Received: from energistic.com (steve@localhost.energistic.com [127.0.0.1]) by energistic.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j18FdMMe019200; Tue, 8 Feb 2005 10:39:22 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from steve@energistic.com) Received: (from steve@localhost) by energistic.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id j18FdMo5017836; Tue, 8 Feb 2005 10:39:22 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from steve) Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 10:39:22 -0500 From: Steve Ames To: Andy Firman Message-ID: <20050208153922.GC75950@energistic.com> References: <4205F382.8020404@freebsd.org> <20050206120822.3d8e381a.flynn@energyhq.es.eu.org> <200502061327.03530.mark.rowlands@mypost.se> <20050208144032.GA6592@akroteq.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050208144032.GA6592@akroteq.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.7i X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS,USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO autolearn=ham version=3.0.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on energistic.com cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The case for FreeBSD X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 15:39:29 -0000 On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 05:40:32AM -0900, Andy Firman wrote: > > I have championed FreeBSD and got it adopted for various purposes > > at a number of major clients but I wouldn't dare recommend 5.3. > > Your comments are disturbing. I run a few 4.10 servers and am getting ready > for a couple new ones and would like to go with 5.3 stable. There were a LOT of early problems with 5.X. Most were ironed out prior to 5.3R. I'm running 5-STABLE (1/31/05) on a production server and it runs just fine. Going to 5.X has a lot of serious advantages. In my case SATA was the deciding factor. For a while 5.X was pretty iffy. A number of people who tried it at that time are still stuck with that impression. IMHO, its unjustified. -Steve