4.x is really a great unix. Very stable and plenty capable.
If the software you're hoping to run REQUIRES features in 5.x, I recommend
installing it directly. Meantime, I'd use mobile racks and install 4.x on
one so I could learn more about maintaining FreeBSD, installing
ports/packages, etc.
I have two identical boxes at home with RAID pairs. So on one pair I have
WinBlows xp (which can only run in one of the two boxes because if WinBlows
detects hardware changes, they'll disable the OS and you'll have to call them
to get back in).
Other pairs include: lightning - FreeBSD 4.10-STABLE daemon - FreeBSD 4.10-STABLE gandalf - FreeBSD 5.2.1-CURRENT freakinBSD - FreeBSD 5.2.1-CURRENT
So these pairs can be slid into EITHER box and run just fine (talk about
recovering from a hardware failure quickly!)
5.x is bleeding edge and too many inexperienced people are running it. I
track it merely for the learning experience. I started as a data systems
tech in the Navy in 1976. I've been a field service engineer, level-3 tech
support, tech writer, programmer, sys admin, and janitor 8oP, and I am
challenged trying to track -CURRENT.
People who want production machines shoudn't be tracking -CURRENT or -STABLE,
IMHO. They should jump from release to release, i.e., run 4.9 until 4.10 has
been out for a couple months, etc. Let OTHER people be beta sites.
YMMV. _____
Whereas I intend to run this server as a Postfix server w/ Courier IMAP, authentication through PAM/LDAP it would seem that I should stay at 4.10 then. Is this correct or not?
Also, if this server goes into production, then how much of a pain in the ass is it going to be to move to 5.x when it's stable?
Curtis
_______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
