Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 20:19:04 +0000 From: J McKitrick <jcm@freebsd-uk.eu.org> To: Josef Karthauser <joe@pavilion.net> Cc: questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 4.0 questions Message-ID: <20000315201904.A5253@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> In-Reply-To: <20000315200915.G52322@florence.pavilion.net>; from joe@pavilion.net on Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 08:09:15PM %2B0000 References: <20000315123937.B33126@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0003150935580.11038-100000@mammalia.sea> <20000315174907.C3638@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <20000315194743.F52322@florence.pavilion.net> <20000315195316.A5217@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <20000315200915.G52322@florence.pavilion.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 08:09:15PM +0000, Josef Karthauser wrote: > If you're running 3.X as a server providing mission critical > services, I wouldn't recommend upgrading just yet. If on the other > hand you like to tinker then why not? (I've been running 4.0 on > my laptop since last October, and although there were some problems > with pccard until January I've not had a problem since). Your > milage will probably vary - but 4.0 is much much better than 3.0 > ever was. That good, eh? Well, i wouldn't call it 'mission critical' but it is important that the basics stay functional pretty predictably, like windowmaker, netscape, ppp, vim, cdrom, sound, zip drive, etc. Other than that, i'm just a little wary about the first bumper crop of bugs. What makes it 'much much better than 3.0'? You mean 3.x in general? Or just the quality of this x.0 release compared to 3.0? jm -- --------------------------------------------- Jonathon McKitrick / jcm@freebsd-uk.eu.org \ "I prefer the term Artificial Person myself."/ --------------------------------------------- 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?20000315201904.A5253>