Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 17:30:41 +0200 (CEST) From: Wilko Bulte <wilko@yedi.iaf.nl> To: seth@freebie.dp.ny.frb.org (Seth) Cc: serge69@nym.alias.net, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: [Q] How stable is FreeBSD 3.X ? Message-ID: <199905251530.RAA15405@yedi.iaf.nl> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9905250922001.21875-100000@freebie.dp.ny.frb.org> from Seth at "May 25, 1999 9:23:12 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
As Seth wrote ... > Why not upgrade to -STABLE and solve the problem? I also had panics under > 3.1-RELEASE, but they were all fixed within one week of -STABLE upgrades. I agree this may fix it. But it does not address the original point of Sergey: why should I need to go for V.next if I just got my V.today with -RELEASE stamped on it? Mind you, there are more than enough answers to that question. One of the major ones is the fact that FreeBSD is a volunteer effort. We don't have paid people to test it on a gazillion different hardware platforms. If you think that is not relevant: I used to work with the SCO Unix source base and the amount of comment on hardware quirks is considerable to say the least. No instant answers I guess,. > On Tue, 25 May 1999, Sergey wrote: > > > Hi! > > > > I've checked this out on good hardware. And now can CLAIM that > > 3.1-R *really* have kernel problems on FreeBSD's "classic" configuration. > > This bug causes TERRIBLE instability - panic in 24 hours. Even Microsoft's > > OSes gives significantly better results > > > > > > > > This is mourning day for me - I CAN'T believe in stability of RELEASES > > any more... > > > > > > With best regards, Sergey. | / o / / _ Arnhem, The Netherlands - Powered by FreeBSD - |/|/ / / /( (_) Bulte WWW : http://www.tcja.nl http://www.freebsd.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199905251530.RAA15405>