On Friday 27 May 2005 23:22, Matthias Buelow wrote:
> Scott Long wrote:
> > Yeah, and what I'm trying to do is smooth the bumps for the long
> > term. The 4.x->5.x transition was simply a gigantic mess for users,
> > and it was largely a function of it being 4+ years in the making.
>
> <rant>It still _is_ a gigantic mess. My hosted 5.3-stable server
> just crapped itself for the second time this year, for no apparent
> reason. I suggest reestablishing 4.x as the "production" tree and
> continuing to maintain it for a while, including making releases, and
> regressing 5.x to what it is and probably will be for quite a while:
> "experimental".</rant>
And to counter your rant, I've been using 5.x since 5.0-DP1 on a range
of hardware (mostly i386 in quite different setups, and more recently
amd64 too) with virtually no problems.
On the other hand, 4.x (I think it was 4.9, but I really cannot remember
for sure) crapped all over one box so hard I refuse to ever use it
again.
A.
--
Andy Fawcett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"In an open world without walls and fences, | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
we wouldn't need Windows and Gates." -- anon | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
