Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2012 18:43:04 +0100 From: Zoran Kolic <zkolic@sbb.rs> To: CeDeROM <cederom@tlen.pl> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 9.1 minimal ram requirements Message-ID: <20121226174304.GA1397@faust.sbb.rs> In-Reply-To: <CAFYkXjkaz=NDM-utS1d-Sgzgy4tXjOoLzA3D14XFrsUY9bF=kg@mail.gmail.com> References: <20121225151532.GA1404@faust.sbb.rs> <CAFYkXjk8LgrYAm6iTtiAkrHKWcGDFij-7H9j1dgj305KemaOhw@mail.gmail.com> <20121226170233.GA1408@faust.sbb.rs> <CAFYkXjkaz=NDM-utS1d-Sgzgy4tXjOoLzA3D14XFrsUY9bF=kg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 9.1-RC3 works just fine as well for some weeks :-) When your computers
> are not production machines I also recommend this to you Zoran to test
> RC in order to make RELEASE a better product. What you have now is
> labeled as RELEASE but it is a decoration. The "RELEASE" will be
> different from what you have found and installed (I think there are
> already versions with different tags available). This is really the
> thing that pushed me away from Linux :-(
I removed the line and it booted just fine.
To me, 9.1 is probably the best looking release, but
it might be due to new hardware.
I'n not aware what is going on, regarding release or
"release". At full speed I support the way devel team
does the work. And contrary, the team has to bear with
users, who want to know. I had new desktop and new
laptop waiting, since power surge killed some devices
at my home. And I waited for 3 months. None could say
I was impatient. The release image is on the site. And,
if you change RC3 to RELEASE in browser, there is even
more. Why would serious guys keep those files available,
if not for usage?
My best guess is that some packages compile made all
that fuss. What else might be?
Best regards
Zoran
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20121226174304.GA1397>