From owner-freebsd-questions Sun May 14 14: 1: 2 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from majordomo2.umd.edu (majordomo2.umd.edu [128.8.10.7]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D54337B916 for ; Sun, 14 May 2000 14:00:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from culverk@wam.umd.edu) Received: from rac1.wam.umd.edu (root@rac1.wam.umd.edu [128.8.10.141]) by majordomo2.umd.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA03638; Sun, 14 May 2000 17:00:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rac1.wam.umd.edu (sendmail@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rac1.wam.umd.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA14425; Sun, 14 May 2000 17:00:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (culverk@localhost) by rac1.wam.umd.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA14421; Sun, 14 May 2000 17:00:52 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: rac1.wam.umd.edu: culverk owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 17:00:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Kenneth Wayne Culver To: Eric Ogren Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 5.0 already? In-Reply-To: <20000514165740.A2365@earthlink.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > Jordan has, numerous times, retracted his statement that 4.0 is not ready > for production use; in fact, I believe he has specifically recommended > it. If I wasn't so lazy, I'd find examples of this in the archives. :) > You are still not getting what I mean, he may have retracted that statement that it wasn't ready for production use, but he did say something about the tree not being the "real stable" even though it's marked as such. As I said before, I totally agree that FreeBSD 4.0 is ready for production use, and is better than 3.x. Ken To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message