Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 10:47:52 -0500 From: James Snow <snow+freebsd-current@teardrop.org> To: Steve Ames <steve@energistic.com> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The case for FreeBSD Message-ID: <20050208154752.GB93774@teardrop.org> In-Reply-To: <20050208153922.GC75950@energistic.com> References: <4205F382.8020404@freebsd.org> <20050206120822.3d8e381a.flynn@energyhq.es.eu.org> <200502061327.03530.mark.rowlands@mypost.se> <20050208144032.GA6592@akroteq.com> <20050208153922.GC75950@energistic.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 10:39:22AM -0500, Steve Ames wrote: > On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 05:40:32AM -0900, Andy Firman wrote: > > > > Your comments are disturbing. I run a few 4.10 servers and am getting ready > > for a couple new ones and would like to go with 5.3 stable. > > For a while 5.X was pretty iffy. A number of people who tried it at that > time are still stuck with that impression. IMHO, its unjustified. I hate to post a "me too" but I feel compelled to offer my wholehearted agreement with this statement. I installed a number of 5.3-R machines at my old place of employment. They remain the most stable machines in the company by far. At home I run a 5.3-R machine with a RAID3 volume and a 5.3-STABLE machine with two RAID1 volumes - one of them bootable. Both machines have been flawless with the exception of some bad RAM; obviously not FreeBSD's fault. YMMV, but I've been running 5.x since one of the RCs and I've never had a problem that wasn't my own fault in some way. -Snow
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050208154752.GB93774>