Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 11:00:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Jake Hamby <jehamby@lightside.com> To: Dennis <dennis@etinc.com> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 2.1R vs 050196SNAP Message-ID: <Pine.AUX.3.91.960522100854.8545B-100000@covina.lightside.com> In-Reply-To: <199605221449.KAA26388@etinc.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 22 May 1996, Dennis wrote: > > Can anyone, in a nutshell please, give me a simple bullet list of the > most compelling reasons (excluding obscure device support) to > run the SNAP over 2.1R. > > thanks, > > Dennis > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Emerging Technologies, Inc. http://www.etinc.com I found the 5/1 SNAP particularly stable but of course your mileage may vary. I recommend you test it on a non-critical machine before you even think about using it in production, just in case your configuration isn't quite compatible. FreeBSD-STABLE is of course a better choice for an ISP. Having said that, the advantages of -CURRENT: 1) PHK's improved RAM-efficient malloc. This, combined with much improved VM code, means the system swaps less and performs faster. 2) New versions of software (e.g. sendmail), bugs fixed. But then again, any critical bugs/security patches have been integrated into FreeBSD-STABLE. 3) Much better Linux support. Now runs ELF and a.out binaries. Even FreeBSD-native ELF binaries can be created (with the ELFkit). Supports sound under Linux DOOM! That's about it. But I do like this latest SNAP and I've had great success running it at home. If you have a spare machine that is not running anything "mission critical" I would recommend it. ---Jake
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.AUX.3.91.960522100854.8545B-100000>