Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2005 01:30:44 +0800 From: Erich Dollansky <oceanare@pacific.net.sg> To: "Neal E. Westfall" <nwestfal@dslextreme.com> Cc: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Negative Review of FreeBSD 5.4 Message-ID: <429F4244.2040207@pacific.net.sg> In-Reply-To: <20050602091600.Q20286@Osgiliath.home.lan> References: <20050602091600.Q20286@Osgiliath.home.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, I do not think that this guy is that wrong. It was not the best move to declare 5.3 usable for production. Not even 5.4. It is not a single major problem in there, it is the number of little, little problems which can run people crazy who have to keep a web- or any other server up and running. Even upgrading to 5.4 was not 100% perfect for me. 99,9% is not enough if a company waits behind your back to start work. Do not get me wrong. I think the problems with FreeBSD 5.x are real minor things, only the label 'production' is what bothers. One more round with 4.11 as production and at least 5.3 with some other sticker would have been better for FreeBSD's reputation. It is not the technical guys who decide finally which operating system is used in a company. But those guys take this kind of articles as a base for a 'no' to the usage of FreeBSD. Erich Neal E. Westfall wrote: > Anybody have any thoughts on this review? > > http://os.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=05/05/24/2153257&tid=8 > > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-advocacy > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-advocacy-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?429F4244.2040207>