From owner-freebsd-stable Fri May 7 10:50:30 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from ns1.cybersites.com (unknown [207.92.123.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD10C152E8 for ; Fri, 7 May 1999 10:50:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from cyouse@cybersites.com) Received: from localhost (cyouse@localhost) by ns1.cybersites.com (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id NAA14434; Fri, 7 May 1999 13:45:49 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from cyouse@cybersites.com) X-Authentication-Warning: ns1.cybersites.com: cyouse owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 13:45:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Chuck Youse To: "Chad R. Larson" Cc: Justin Wolf , freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Stability concerns in latest -STABLEs. In-Reply-To: <199905071710.KAA18381@freeway.dcfinc.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Which, unfortunately, is one of my criteria. I need SMP for this puppy, otherwise I would agree with you and stick to 2.2-STABLE. Chuck Youse Director of Systems cyouse@cybersites.com On Fri, 7 May 1999, Chad R. Larson wrote: > 2.2 does all I need done. I'm a trailing-edge kinda guy when money > is directly involved. So, if someone were to ask me what they > should put up if their own butt was backing the uptime numbers, I'd > say, "Unless you need SMP, go with 2.2-STABLE." > > -crl > -- > Chad R. Larson (CRL15) 602-953-1392 Brother, can you paradigm? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message