Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 20:10:33 +0200 (CEST) From: Wilko Bulte <wilko@yedi.iaf.nl> To: vev@michvhf.com (Vince Vielhaber) Cc: seth@freebie.dp.ny.frb.org, serge69@nym.alias.net, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: [Q] How stable is FreeBSD 3.X ? Message-ID: <199905251810.UAA01923@yedi.iaf.nl> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9905251321550.3974-100000@paprika.michvhf.com> from Vince Vielhaber at "May 25, 1999 1:31:23 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
As Vince Vielhaber wrote ... > On Tue, 25 May 1999, Wilko Bulte wrote: > > > As Seth wrote ... > > > > > Why not upgrade to -STABLE and solve the problem? I also had panics under > > > 3.1-RELEASE, but they were all fixed within one week of -STABLE upgrades. > > > > I agree this may fix it. But it does not address the original point of > > Sergey: why should I need to go for V.next if I just got my V.today with > > -RELEASE stamped on it? > > > > Mind you, there are more than enough answers to that question. One of the > > major ones is the fact that FreeBSD is a volunteer effort. We don't have > > paid people to test it on a gazillion different hardware platforms. > > > > If you think that is not relevant: I used to work with the SCO Unix source > > base and the amount of comment on hardware quirks is considerable to say the > > least. > > > > No instant answers I guess,. > > I'm leaving Sergey's original in place so everyone can reread it. From > the vast amount of information he gives (and has given in subsequent > followups) what alternate advice can anyone give him? 3.2-R happened I have an alternate advice: if M$ works better for your particular setup, be happy with it... My comment was aimed at a more generic level: V.today is always better than V.yesterday. But why not wait for V.tomorrow. -RELEASE is to a lot of people a sort of Gold Seal Of Approval (tm) for better or worse. So, it sets some expectations. Having just installed V.x you don't want to go to V.x+1 immediately. At least *I* would not like it. It is obvious that the amount of information provided is NULL. So, if I had this kind of problem put in front of me in my daily work (which involves among other things customer support) I'd sure send people off to do their homework (or shut up). People who want to run free O/S-es should do a fair bit of homework without being asked to. If not, tough for them... Follow-ups to -chat, this is far to philosophical for any other list. > ten days ago, so if he got V.today or even V.yesterday he'd be using > 3.2. There is no mention to the hardware used or even what other software > he's using. How about what he's doing when it fails? Is he by chance > overclocking? Who knows? In another post he says it's up to the > developers to ask him questions. If he doesn't want to volunteer the > conditions surrounding the problems he's having with an OS that came out > a few months ago, the only answer can be to upgrade to the current > version. > > > > > > > On Tue, 25 May 1999, Sergey wrote: > > > > > > > Hi! > > > > > > > > I've checked this out on good hardware. And now can CLAIM that > > > > 3.1-R *really* have kernel problems on FreeBSD's "classic" configuration. > > > > This bug causes TERRIBLE instability - panic in 24 hours. Even Microsoft's > > > > OSes gives significantly better results > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is mourning day for me - I CAN'T believe in stability of RELEASES > > > > any more... | / o / / _ Arnhem, The Netherlands - Powered by FreeBSD - |/|/ / / /( (_) Bulte WWW : http://www.tcja.nl http://www.freebsd.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199905251810.UAA01923>