From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 20 10:24:49 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C792D16A4CF for ; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 10:24:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from sage.thought.org (dsl231-043-140.sea1.dsl.speakeasy.net [216.231.43.140]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FE1D43D2F for ; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 10:24:08 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from kline@thought.org) Received: from thought.org (root@tao [10.0.0.247]) by sage.thought.org (8.12.9/8.11.4) with ESMTP id i0KIOHGH055415; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 10:24:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from kline@thought.org) Received: (from kline@localhost) by thought.org (8.12.6/8.11.3) id i0KINvWt077310; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 10:23:57 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from kline) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 10:23:57 -0800 From: Gary Kline To: Matthew Seaman , Gafgo , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20040120182357.GB74976@tao.thought.org> References: <400B18A1.3050104@bredband.net> <20040120085925.GA44545@happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophile.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040120085925.GA44545@happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophile.co.uk> X-Organization: Thought Unlimited. Public service Unix since 1986. X-Of_Interest: Observing 17 years of service to the Unix community User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1i Subject: Related Q: (was) Re: Newbie question X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 18:24:49 -0000 On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 08:59:25AM +0000, Matthew Seaman wrote: > > It sounds to me as if your new machine has hardware which is supported > under 5.x but not 4.9. That's a very good reason to install 5.2 -- > caveats about "early adopters" notwithstanding, by all accounts 5.2 is > turning out nicely. I'd worry about using it for a system that was > mission critical to a business (read: financial consequences if it > isn't up and running), but for a home system I think it would do very > well. > I'm going toput 5.2 on my new DNS server; but from scratch. SWondering how dificult it is to upgrade from 4.[78] to 5.[latest]. Is the UPGRADING file suffieient? I've heard the 5.X is the cat's meow.... tia, gary > -- Gary Kline kline@thought.org www.thought.org Public service Unix