Date: 01 Jun 1999 01:45:52 +0200 From: Juergen Nickelsen <jnickelsen@acm.org> To: "Jean-Pierre H. Dumas" <jphdumas@yahoo.fr> Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 2.2.8 or 3.1/3.2 for a safe/reliable server ? Message-ID: <x7emjwx0pb.fsf@goting.jn.berlin.snafu.de> In-Reply-To: "Jean-Pierre H. Dumas"'s message of "Mon, 31 May 1999 17:33:37 %2B0200 (CEST)" References: <19990531153337.9904.rocketmail@web1002.mail.yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Jean-Pierre H. Dumas" <jphdumas@yahoo.fr> writes on freebsd-questions: > But now I am facing the worst, use the "rock solid" 2.2.8, (I have > the Walnut Creek CDROM), or begin straight with 3.1 (I have a > snapshot in the "FreeBSD Toolkit CDRM set : CD_VERSION = > 3.1-19990327-STABLE) And I have 3.2 in back order. At work I have 2.2.7-STABLE running on the Internet gateway box that does routing, NAT, firewall, SMTP forwarder, SSH, FTP, WWW, and DNS. It is stable enough to stay up between power outages. (A little over 100 days was the most since I installed the machine.) 2.2.8 should be at least that stable. (I haven't upgraded to 2.2.8 because the system simply *works*.) On the other hand I use 3.2-STABLE at home, with similiar functions (although dialup), and it looks very good. There seem to be few problems with 3.2, judging from the discussion in the mailing lists. (I read -stable, -chat, -net, -security, and -questions.) I would not hesitate to use it on a production machine. There were, though, some glitches in 3.1, if I remember correctly. -- Juergen Nickelsen To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?x7emjwx0pb.fsf>