Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 11:18:36 -0600 From: "Broderick Wood" <bwood@KingsU.ab.ca> To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: [Q] How stable is FreeBSD 3.X ? Message-ID: <199905251718.LAA77623@mark.kingsu.ab.ca> In-Reply-To: <199905251530.RAA15405@yedi.iaf.nl> References: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9905250922001.21875-100000@freebie.dp.ny.frb.org> from Seth at "May 25, 1999 9:23:12 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
My one comment on this is as folows... If you think the -RELEASE line is stable, why do they have a - STABLE version? In my mind simple logic dictates that -RELEASE means latest version, kind of like Win2000. Whereas -STABLE is a MORE STAVLE version with at least MOST of the knoen issues taken care of. At least with FreeBSD you have this option. With M$ it's ALL - RELEASE versions. I am only now using Win95 (last 2 years) in a production environment so that at least I know what the errors are gonna be... My 2 cents worth... > > 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? --------------------------- -BMW- Don't just stand there! Pray something! (bwood@kingsu.ab.ca) Broderick Wood, Director of Information Technology Services The King's University College 9125 - 50 Street Edmonton, Alberta T6B 2H3 (780) 465-8315 (780) 465-3534 (FAX) ><> <>< To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199905251718.LAA77623>