Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 18:46:17 -0700 From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> To: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com> Cc: freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: bsd vs. linux and NT chart Message-ID: <4.1.19990302184058.00c4a1c0@localhost> In-Reply-To: <36DC8BE7.246DD3BA@newsguy.com> References: <99Mar2.114516est.113920@pandora.isinet.com> <4.1.19990302132445.040f6d40@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 10:09 AM 3/3/99 +0900, Daniel C. Sobral wrote: >3.1-RELEASE/3.1-STABLE is what is recommended for new installations >on production machines. > >2.2.x, right now, is probably kind of how you feel about 2.1.x. :-) If I upgrade machines to 3.1-RELEASE, I know I'll have major work to do rewriting maintenance scripts, etc. because things like the utmp format have changed. This means downtime for the client. Also, since 3.0-RELEASE was explicitly NOT for production machines, the earliest version I will install on ANY production machine will be 3.2-RELEASE (and only then with special permission from the client, because our general policy is to wait for the third "real" release of anything before relying on it for mission-critical functions). Sorry to sound so utterly conservative, but that's 'cause we are. --Brett To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.1.19990302184058.00c4a1c0>