Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 16:59:30 -0000 From: "Simon Gray" <simong@desktop-guardian.com> To: "David Meier" <meier@logmail.net>, <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: How "safe" is 5.2 to use? Message-ID: <072b01c3d9f6$9cf1f270$1100a8c0@dtg17> References: <auto-000071751279@doruk.net.tr> <EA3F35BC-45DB-11D8-8CDF-003065A70D30@shire.net> <40041172.5070602@daleco.biz> <64730.195.141.214.38.1074009759.squirrel@hiwatt.lognet.ch>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I understand my question officially can only be answered to still use 4.9. > I just wonder if anyone has used the 5.x for similar services as I plan to > do, successfully or not. > > Dave I run a similar set-up on a 4.8 box (with latest patchlevel) that's stable. I also run another box running 5.0 again with the latest patchlevel - both are stable. (Both Intel board/cpu's) Unless you are after anything particular within the 5.x series, I'd stick with what's stable 4.x branch (not saying that 5.x isn't stable, it's just that not all the bugs may have been found/fixed yet). New features are nice, but not always 100% stable - having said that, personally I'd not had any problems with either. Admittedly haven't tried 5.1 nor 5.2 but still. Might be worth having a closer look at the difference in the two releases and seeing if 5.x will provide any extra features that you'll use. HTH Simon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?072b01c3d9f6$9cf1f270$1100a8c0>