Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 02:50:07 +0900 From: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com> To: Mike Meyer <mwm@phone.net> Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: [Q] How stable is FreeBSD 3.X ? Message-ID: <374D85CE.6FAC3AB8@newsguy.com> References: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9905261038060.80146-100000@guru.phone.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mike Meyer wrote: > > You may not know - I did. Even things that were only read at startup > could generally be dealt with by restarting just the process that read > that. Of course, if that process was the kernel or init, you wound up > rebooting anyway. And in some cases, the chain of things that depended > on that change was complex enough that rebooting was simpler. You don't need to always reboot FreeBSD either. Of course, most people don't know when it's ok and when it is not. So, the same applies. > For yet another difference - not even Sun recommends installing > *every* fix. FreeBSD doesn't have any other option. Eh? We have the whole cvs available. You can easily make partial upgrades. > Note that I'm *not* proposing such a system for FreeBSD! Merely > pointing out that the differences is very noticable. Still not noticiable to me. It's a black box. Aside from saying "it takes much longer", there is not effective difference. -- Daniel C. Sobral (8-DCS) dcs@newsguy.com dcs@freebsd.org "If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you." 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?374D85CE.6FAC3AB8>