Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 10:39:22 -0500 From: Steve Ames <steve@energistic.com> To: Andy Firman <andy@firman.us> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The case for FreeBSD Message-ID: <20050208153922.GC75950@energistic.com> In-Reply-To: <20050208144032.GA6592@akroteq.com> References: <4205F382.8020404@freebsd.org> <20050206120822.3d8e381a.flynn@energyhq.es.eu.org> <200502061327.03530.mark.rowlands@mypost.se> <20050208144032.GA6592@akroteq.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050208153922.GC75950>