Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 18:46:51 -0300 From: Mario Lobo <lobo@bsd.com.br> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: (no subject) Message-ID: <201206011846.51116.lobo@bsd.com.br> In-Reply-To: <9E.12.15580.45168CF4@smtp02.insight.synacor.com> References: <9E.12.15580.45168CF4@smtp02.insight.synacor.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday 01 June 2012 03:29:40 Thomas Mueller wrote: > > I ddon't see any advantage in FreeBSD 8.x or earlier. Well, I still see complains about a few quirks in 9 here in the list, specially after certain src updates. Re:Use of C99 extra long double math functions after r236148 Re: kern/168190: [pf] panic when using pf and route-to (maybe: bad fragment handling?) Re: ULE/sched issues on stable/9 - why isn't preemption occurring? Etc .. To me, something like pf (specially route-to!) is critical and for the moment, I wouldn't touch my rock-solid-down-to-the-micro-second perfect production firewall 8-STABLE server for nothing, if the aim is such a role. I think that distribution set size is just not a very strong argument. OTOH, if the aim is just experimenting, that's another story. -- Mario Lobo http://www.mallavoodoo.com.br FreeBSD since 2.2.8 [not Pro-Audio.... YET!!] (99% winblows FREE)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201206011846.51116.lobo>