From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 8 17:05:42 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 EFB4916A513 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2005 17:05:40 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail.secureworks.net (mail.secureworks.net [209.101.212.155]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8A87B43D2D for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2005 17:05:39 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from mdg@secureworks.net) Received: (qmail 46997 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2005 17:05:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.8.243?) (209.101.212.253) by mail.secureworks.net with SMTP; 8 Feb 2005 17:05:38 -0000 Message-ID: <4208F162.5020603@secureworks.net> Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 12:05:38 -0500 From: Matthew George User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.9 (X11/20041117) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: James Snow 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> In-Reply-To: <20050208154752.GB93774@teardrop.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: Andy Firman 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 17:05:42 -0000 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