Date: 09 Nov 1998 15:27:18 -0500 From: Chris Shenton <cshenton@uucom.com> To: VEGA <vega@d132-h017.rh.rit.edu> Cc: John Sconiers <jrs@enteract.com>, Steve Friedrich <SteveFriedrich@Hot-Shot.com>, FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Plea to core team Message-ID: <86lnlkvcgp.fsf@samizdat.uucom.com> In-Reply-To: VEGA's message of Mon, 9 Nov 1998 13:48:35 -0500 (EST) References: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9811091345220.15614-100000@d132-h017.rh.rit.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
VEGA <vega@d132-h017.rh.rit.edu> writes:
> i _do_ think it needs to bl clearer on the webpage, for the microsoft
> monkeys out there who don't see things unless they use the blink tag.
> once again, we can thank bill gates for the idiofying of the computer
> world.
Microsoft monkeys will always download the latest version ("Oh, look:
NT5-alpha2-sp17 just came out, let's put it on our exchange server!").
I do agree that if you're not clever enough to discern whether to use
-STABLE or x.0-RELEASE then the default should be -STABLE.
But I don't believe 3.0 was the problem for this luser. It was that
the install script didn't read his mind and configure the machine with
a 10GB /var partition for mail. I think 2.2.7 would have the same
problem, so let's not beat ourselves up over the 2.x-STABLE versus
3.0-RELEASE thing.
(I just installed 3.0-BETA [a day before RELEASE came out]-: on a very
remote ISP, very reluctantly: 2.2-STABLE didn't work with our new Dell
disk controller. Fortunately, it's been running very well as the
web/ftp/proxy/cache system, and a clone as the SMTP/POP/IMAP system.
But I saved up enough experience and bought a clue before installing:
I gave the web, cache, and mail dirs *plenty* of space on their
respective disks :-).
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?86lnlkvcgp.fsf>