From owner-freebsd-questions Tue Jun 20 22:28:31 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from ns1.hutchtel.net (ns1.hutchtel.net [206.9.112.100]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 695DA37BB81 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 22:28:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jpaetzel@hutchtel.net) Received: from joshpaet (hutch-283.hutchtel.net [206.10.67.211]) by ns1.hutchtel.net (8.9.1/8.9.0) with SMTP id AAA00270; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 00:28:23 -0500 (CDT) From: "Josh Paetzel" To: "Dan O'Connor" , Subject: RE: FreeBSD v3.5!!!!!!!!! Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 00:30:29 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-reply-to: <0b9c01bfdb3c$b6fe40e0$0200000a@danco> X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG > [mailto:owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG]On Behalf Of Dan O'Connor > Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 11:54 PM > To: Josh Paetzel; freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG > Subject: Re: FreeBSD v3.5!!!!!!!!! > > > >I like 4.0 just fine for my home network....but if I am going to > get a call > >at 2am because some mission critical piece of hardware is down, I'll use > 3.4 > >everytime. 3.x has years of in the field testing under its belt. > > Er, about 1 year 5 months, actually. Not *years*... > > >4.0 doesn't. > > No, but it has a lot of the old, stable, tried and true code in it, > though... > > >And no matter how wonderful the coders are, and they are > >wonderful, don't get me wrong, there are fun treats (read that as bugs) > >waiting to be discovered in 4.0. > > And this presumes that bugs won't (or don't) find their way into > 3.x-STABLE? > I've cvsupped lots of updates to the source code for 3.x, so > apparently it's > not optimal yet... > > >Personally, I'd just as soon let someone > >else find them. > > Well, the only *bug* I've seen in 4.0-STABLE is that the new ad driver no > longer supports my old Pentium 90's broken IDE controller, which forced me > spend $29 on a Promise Ultra33 card. And I haven't had any problems > whatsoever with the three other computer I have 4.0 running on (a rather > diverse group, too: Dell Dimension XPS P166c, Compaq Deskpro P75, IBM > PC300PL PIII-350)... > > Of course, this isn't to say that lagging behind isn't a sound strategy, > especially for a mission-critical machine, but I think it's > definitely fair > to say that 4.0 really is ready for prime time... > I had to go back and check on the release date of 3.4, and you are right...time flies when you are having fun. I agree that 4.0 is ready for prime time, but is it as ready for prime-time as 3.4? I think that you would agree with me if I said that needs to be decided on a case by case basis depending on the situation and the definition of "prime-time". I am in no way trying to say that 4.0 is bad....>;-) Anyways, this could go on for a long time and not really change much. FreeBSD is a wonderful operating system, and I fully believe that the best is yet to come. Josh > --Dan > > -- > Dan O'Connor > On Matters of Most Grave Concern > http://www.mostgraveconcern.com > > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message