Re: FreeBSD 4.8 v/s 5.1
mkisofs --- for creating iso's burncd --- for ATAPI CDRW cdrecord --- for SCSI CDRW, and SCSI emulation of ATAPI CDRW -- With Best Regards, Shantanoo Mahajan ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 4.8 v/s 5.1
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Two more questions. 4.8-RELEASE or 4.8_STABLE? I lost my 4.8-stable cd and need to burn another one. What is the easiest way to burn an iso file from freebsd? On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 14:34:38 -0400 C. Ulrich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 2003-09-29 at 03:51, Bryan Cassidy wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I was just wondering what people on the list thought. I don't want to know any details on which is better or whatever just in general which is better for whatever reasons people use it. Short answer: use 4.8 for anything remotely critical such as a firewall, web server, etc, especially if it's going to talk to the outside world and/or uptime is important. That's why they call it 4.8-STABLE. For learning purposes or a personal system that you don't mind tinkering with every now and again, you might as well go with 5.1. For what it's worth, most releases that aren't necessarily -STABLE are plenty stable enough for normal use. They just aren't officially supported by the FreeBSD team if you run into a snag. See the handbook and/or FAQ for more info. C. Ulrich -- http://bityard.net ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE/eQifKjx9X0nK5vwRAkpPAKCNPpuZHehVLxfsnNDfH1pD1pS1kwCePpK2 02UJPIOIm4hgtkzQRCA6tWs= =ilRe -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
FreeBSD 4.8 v/s 5.1
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I was just wondering what people on the list thought. I don't want to know any details on which is better or whatever just in general which is better for whatever reasons people use it. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE/d+SdKjx9X0nK5vwRArY5AJ44i24ywDRWdL7cWN8dQJM5RRqN3ACghAg6 VUx2SDWZiY5AU3ObTQhCtJ0= =tTb3 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: FreeBSD 4.8 v/s 5.1
ok, i am using 5.1 for 2 developemnt servers, 1 programming workstation. i.e: not production, internal network behind firewall. so, security and stability are not critical as far as i am concerened. there is another important reason, my hardware tends to require later versions of FreeBSD, for example: i am currently supplied with late model Intel P4 systems, they need 5.1 to run hyper-threading CPUs. i hope that is some help. = -Original Message- = Hash: SHA1 = = I was just wondering what people on the list thought. I don't want to = know any details on which is better or whatever just in = general which is = better for whatever reasons people use it. = ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 4.8 v/s 5.1
At 2003-09-29T07:51:57Z, Bryan Cassidy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: which is better for whatever reasons people use it. Define better - I'm not being facetious. If by better you mean faster on common hardware and more stable, then you *probably* want 4.x. If you mean has cool new features and should be faster on high-end hardware, then you *probably* want 5.x. -- Kirk Strauser 94 outdated ports on the box, 94 outdated ports. Portupgrade one, an hour 'til done, 82 outdated ports on the box. pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: FreeBSD 4.8 v/s 5.1
On Mon, 2003-09-29 at 03:51, Bryan Cassidy wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I was just wondering what people on the list thought. I don't want to know any details on which is better or whatever just in general which is better for whatever reasons people use it. Short answer: use 4.8 for anything remotely critical such as a firewall, web server, etc, especially if it's going to talk to the outside world and/or uptime is important. That's why they call it 4.8-STABLE. For learning purposes or a personal system that you don't mind tinkering with every now and again, you might as well go with 5.1. For what it's worth, most releases that aren't necessarily -STABLE are plenty stable enough for normal use. They just aren't officially supported by the FreeBSD team if you run into a snag. See the handbook and/or FAQ for more info. C. Ulrich -- http://bityard.net ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
