Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!hobyah.cc.uq.oz.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!munnari.OZ.AU!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!reason.cdrom.com!usenet From: jkh@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: How stable is -CURRENT? Date: 14 Apr 1996 02:37:59 -0700 Organization: FreeBSD Project Lines: 21 Sender: jkh@time.cdrom.com Message-ID: <yfg4tqngn7s.fsf_-_@time.cdrom.com> References: <4jb843$nb8@mark.ucdavis.edu> <4k1hvk$krb@uriah.heep.sax.de> <4km59t$fk4@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: time.cdrom.com In-reply-to: dma@mail.aei.ca's message of 12 Apr 1996 17:53:01 GMT X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.1 In article <4km59t$fk4@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca> dma@mail.aei.ca writes: Not really related but kind of -- is -current fully BSDI 2.0 compatible? As far as has been reported, yes. There were a couple of things (Netscape & Excite) that I wanted to run but Netscape runs just fine under -stable; I believe they compile to BSD/OS 1.1 instead of 2.0 for that. Same for their commerce server. I don't know about Excite. So the latest SNAP CD is the best thing to get? For easy and convenient access to 2.2-current, yes, I'd say so. Jordan -- - Jordan Hubbard President, FreeBSD Project