Just a lurker, and FreeBSD users since late 3.0... > Problem is performance and trust in stability. It's > money and hardware independent problem. > > 5.x has significant performance hit, so we can't count > it as competitive replacement for 4.x. 6.1 is second release > in 6.x tree. 6.0 has stability problem. The 6.1 is > sufficiently stable on average use, but it still has problems > in edge situations. The 6.2 become first RELEASE in 6.x tree > acceptable for serious production use. 6.3 will be candidate > for first trustable RELEASE if there will not be significant > problem with 6.2. It's nothing special on major version > changes - 3.0 has been buggy, 4.0 has been buggy, 5.0 has > been almost unusable. It's common for other systems also - > first usable release of Novell Netware in 3.x tree has been > 3.11 (after buggy 3.0 and 3.1), but stable release has been > 3.12 for example.
Oddly enough, I've heard this very sentiment elsewhere this week. Take the post with a grain of salt, but it does touch on the matter. http://use.perl.org/~scrottie/journal/31273 >From my personal experience of (4) 4.x machines and (1) 5.x machine, all on the same hardware, I've had more problems with my 5.x install than I ever did with my 4.x install. I'm afraid to even look to see if 6.0 will run on it. Just another $0.000000002. -=Chris _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"