From owner-freebsd-current Fri Apr 30 15: 6: 8 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from ozz.etrust.ru (ozz.etrust.ru [195.2.84.116]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC1BA14D6C for ; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 15:05:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from osa@etrust.ru) Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by ozz.etrust.ru (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1711E173; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 22:05:58 +0000 (GMT) Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 02:05:58 +0400 (MSD) From: oZZ!!! To: david@aps-services.com Cc: paul@originative.co.uk, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: RE: solid NFS patch #6 avail for -current - need testers files) In-Reply-To: <199904302151.OAA15792@web1.aps-services.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Fri, 30 Apr 1999 david@aps-services.com wrote: > 3.1 is probably the most unstable "stable version" ever to be sent out > by Walnut Creek. I have a machine that has 2.2.6 on it, which has > been abused, cold booted, etc. When I received 3.1 in the mail I > installed it on three seperate machines before giving up. to many > system failures. I am waiting for 3.2 to replace my 2.2.6 installation > due to the machine's importance. use 3.1-stable from current.freebsd.org last -stable is TODAY-stable :-)) > > Right now I am using 4.0 current 19990421 on my test box which > works fine, go figure? time-to-time -current in some features is MORE stable then last -STABLE, but -current is CURRENT: its a development version. > > Although I am not a programmer, I do care about the open source > movement, and look forward to the day where I can replace all of the > desktop OS's in my office with a free version of unix, linux, etc. > > To sum it all up is there any difference between the branches? plz c handbook at http://www.freebsd.org/handbook Rgdz, Sergey A. Osokin, osa@etrust.ru To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message