Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 09:40:34 -0600 From: "Kevin D. Kinsey, DaleCo, S.P." <kdk@daleco.biz> To: "Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC" <chad@shire.net> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: How "safe" is 5.2 to use? Message-ID: <40041172.5070602@daleco.biz> In-Reply-To: <EA3F35BC-45DB-11D8-8CDF-003065A70D30@shire.net> References: <auto-000071751279@doruk.net.tr> <EA3F35BC-45DB-11D8-8CDF-003065A70D30@shire.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----Original Message----- > From: owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > [mailto:owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of David Meier > Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 1:19 PM > To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > Subject: How "safe" is 5.2 to use? > > Hello list, > > I am relatively new to the world of FreeBSD. But first, congrats to the > new release! I am somewhat insecure on how trustfully I can use the new > release for my intended use (and I hope my questions haven't been > posted a > zillion times before). Therefore I hope the FreeBSD nuts can advise me > whether to go for 4.9 or 5.2. Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote: > > On Jan 13, 2004, at 4:45 AM, Vahric MUHTARYAN wrote: > >> Hi , >> >> You have to use FreeBSD 4.9, because you can see in freebsd web page >> prodcution version is 4.9. and please test it maybe you will see you >> can not >> install 5.2 on your hardware because when I try to install 5.1 on my >> intel >> platform I faced a problem then now I'm using 4.9 . Everybody will >> say that >> wait until more tested version and now its 4.9 >> > > Which begs the question. Will FBSD 5 ever be deemed worthy for > production use? Over the last year it was said in this list: 5.1 is > still a testing version not recommended for production, but 5.2 will > be better suited for production. > > I intend to transition a less used production server from 4.7 to 5.2 > sometime in the next month, and we'll see how it goes. There are > certain things I would like from 5... > > Chad The "roadmap" now says that 5.X will branch to -STABLE around the time of 5.3, instead of the earlier prediction of 5.2. It seems likely that folks will take that with a grain of salt, but perhaps we can be appreciative of the fact that the RELENG team wants a little extra time to make sure things are, well, stable before they name it as such. It's not unlike a lot of other projects; I've created a website in two weeks, and I've another that's crawled on for well over a year. Some things are that way, and let's remember the adage "beggars can't be choosers." I think it would be difficult to find a large project that hasn't suffered from things like "feature creep...." For a "free" (in the best sense of the word) OS, we've got a Good Thing going here. FWIW, I'm running 5.1 pretty well in a server environment at the present, and just built 5.2 yesterday; everything seems normal and is working well (pending successful completion of portupgrade, sometime tomorrow, probably ;-) ).... Kevin Kinsey
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?40041172.5070602>