Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 12:05:38 -0500 From: Matthew George <mdg@secureworks.net> To: James Snow <snow+freebsd-current@teardrop.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The case for FreeBSD Message-ID: <4208F162.5020603@secureworks.net> In-Reply-To: <20050208154752.GB93774@teardrop.org> References: <4205F382.8020404@freebsd.org> <20050206120822.3d8e381a.flynn@energyhq.es.eu.org> <200502061327.03530.mark.rowlands@mypost.se> <20050208144032.GA6592@akroteq.com> <20050208153922.GC75950@energistic.com> <20050208154752.GB93774@teardrop.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
James Snow wrote: > On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 10:39:22AM -0500, Steve Ames wrote: > >>On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 05:40:32AM -0900, Andy Firman wrote: >> >>>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. >> >>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. > > > I hate to post a "me too" but I feel compelled to offer my wholehearted > agreement with this statement. > I run many servers on both 4.10 and 5.3. My 5.3 servers, without a doubt, have been as reliable as my 4.x servers. Applications they host range from firewalls/gateways to file, database, and web servers. I have a couple colleagues that have described problems getting more desktop-oriented things running properly (one example that comes to mind is VMware, though I haven't tried to use it under 5.3 myself ...). I run a 5.3 workstation and it works fine for me (*shrug*). I can definitely confirm that in the server role, however, 5.3 is up to the task, and anyone that claims otherwise needs to have a second look. I'm running a mix of IBM and Dell servers ... -- Matthew George SecureWorks Technical Operations
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4208F162.5020603>