Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 16:58:44 -0700 From: "Kevin Oberman" <oberman@es.net> To: "D. Alex Neilson" <neilson@purple.nugate.com> Cc: questions@FreeBSD.ORG, FreeBSD Mailing Lists <freebsd@purple.nugate.com> Subject: Re: 4.0: what is stable? Message-ID: <200007122358.e6CNwin00646@ptavv.es.net> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 12 Jul 2000 16:46:56 PDT." <Pine.BSF.4.21.0007121628060.43016-100000@purple.nugate.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 16:46:56 -0700 (PDT) > From: "D. Alex Neilson" <neilson@purple.nugate.com> > Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG > > I need to use FreeBSD for commercial purposes, but I'm seeing > contradictory information as to what is the most stable > version of 4.0 (URLs and details below). In the online handbook, section > "18.2.2.3. Using FreeBSD-STABLE", it tells me to get a snapshot from > ftp://releng4.FreeBSD.org/pub/FreeBSD/ if I'm "installing a new system and > want it to be as stable as possible". But when I read the README-40.TXT > file, I get "This release is aimed primarily at early-adopters... > and are willing to deal with a few bumps in the road...If you're more > interested in doing business with FreeBSD [go elsewhere]". > > So, are snapshots "as stable as possible", or more cutting edge and > should be avoided for commercial purposes where reliability is > paramount? > > > Thanks, > > Alex > > > > http://www.FreeBSD.org/handbook/current-stable.html#STABLE > > 18.2.2.3. Using FreeBSD-STABLE > > 2. If you are installing a new system and want it to be as stable as > possible, you can simply grab the latest dated branch snapshot from > ftp://releng4.FreeBSD.org/pub/FreeBSD/ and install it like any > other release. The problem is that you are confusing 4.0 Release, which was the first release of 4.0 and 4.0 Stable which has had a huge number of things fixed since 4.0 was released. But the "early adopters" information really needs to be removed. That is a hold-over from before 4.0 was actually released. 4.0-Stable seems to e pretty stable, although it seems to push the hardware, especially memory a bit harder than 3.4 did. That could be largely a result of UDMA actually working and doing so by default on 4.0, but that is mostly speculation on my part. I have had no real problems with 4.0 Stable for some time. R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: oberman@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634 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?200007122358.e6CNwin00646>