From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 29 08:25:10 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BF9716A422 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 08:25:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ml.diespammer@netfence.it) Received: from parrot.aev.net (parrot.aev.net [212.31.247.179]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D5E443D48 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 08:25:08 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ml.diespammer@netfence.it) Received: from soth.ventu (adsl-ull-183-192.51-151.net24.it [151.51.192.183]) (authenticated bits=128) by parrot.aev.net (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k2T8e6x2022271 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 10:40:12 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from ml.diespammer@netfence.it) Received: from [10.1.2.18] (alamar.ventu [10.1.2.18]) by soth.ventu (8.13.6/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k2T8Lwex021896; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 10:21:58 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from ml.diespammer@netfence.it) Message-ID: <442A445A.4050403@netfence.it> Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 10:24:58 +0200 From: Andrea Venturoli User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (X11/20060130) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: usleepless@gmail.com, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org References: <200603281234.11850.satyam@sklinks.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.53 on 212.31.247.179 Cc: Subject: Re: Why are so many people using 4.x? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 08:25:10 -0000 usleepless@gmail.com wrote: > you have had plenty of response already. i just want to post my experience. I'll post my 2 cents too. > in late 2001, i installed 4.3 on a server and a couple of > workstations. i have upgraded them as time went by up to 4.11. no > problems, it runs runs runs. I've had plenty of 4.11 systems. Some of them tends to reboot from time to time. Sometimes I was able to track it down to some software failure (vinum, net drivers, ...), sometimes to hardware, sometimes I wasn't able to get anywhere and I simply started over with new HW&SW. > i have been following the mailing-lists on a regular basis, and > decided 5.x was not me ( sorry guys ). I've read plenty of horror tales on 5.x, yet I've built some new systems and done some upgrades and had absolutely no problems so far. In my experience even 5.3 is far stabler than 4.11 (which was not at all bad in turn). > so far, 6.0 has been flawless for me. only thing i noticed was: gcc3.3 > seems to be a lot slower than 2.95 ( i have no figures, could be my > imagination ) I agree 6.0 is even as stable. As for gcc, 3.x is far slower than 2.9. C++ is a huge beast and supporting it all poses heavy requirement on the compiler. 2.95 didn't support C++ as well as 3.x, so you'll sooner or later run into some missing features; on the other side this implied faster compilations. Their web site says 4.x is again a lot faster than 3.x, although I didn't see any performance comparison against 2.x. I still haven't tested this myself. Go with 6.x, really. bye av.