Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 09:49:39 -0600 From: "Andrew L. Gould" <algould@datawok.com> To: "Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC" <chad@shire.net>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: How "safe" is 5.2 to use? Message-ID: <200401130949.39124.algould@datawok.com> In-Reply-To: <EA3F35BC-45DB-11D8-8CDF-003065A70D30@shire.net> References: <auto-000071751279@doruk.net.tr> <EA3F35BC-45DB-11D8-8CDF-003065A70D30@shire.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday 13 January 2004 09:19 am, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote: > On Jan 13, 2004, at 4:45 AM, Vahric MUHTARYAN wrote: > > Hi , > > > > You have to use FreeBSD 4.9, because you can see in freebsd web page > > prodcution version is 4.9. and please test it maybe you will see you > > can not > > install 5.2 on your hardware because when I try to install 5.1 on my > > intel > > platform I faced a problem then now I'm using 4.9 . Everybody will say > > that > > wait until more tested version and now its 4.9 > > Which begs the question. Will FBSD 5 ever be deemed worthy for > production use? Over the last year it was said in this list: 5.1 is > still a testing version not recommended for production, but 5.2 will be > better suited for production. > > I intend to transition a less used production server from 4.7 to 5.2 > sometime in the next month, and we'll see how it goes. There are > certain things I would like from 5... > > Chad > I think this is issue-driven. You can find specific info at: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/5-roadmap/index.html Best regards, Andrew Gould
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200401130949.39124.algould>