Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!news.texas.net!node2.frontiernet.net!news.his.com!news.walltech.com!hsnx.wco.com!news.wco.com!news From: "Jeffery T. White" <zellion@cyberwind.com> Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: 2.1.6 versus 2.2 Date: 11 Jan 1997 19:52:52 GMT Organization: CyberWind Lines: 25 Message-ID: <01bbfff9$a4b6bec0$df6d04c7@zellion.cyberwind.com> References: <01bbfd80$e983f0c0$6330fa9e@org-qsar2.chem.msu.su> <1997Jan8.175840.28795@wavehh.hanse.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: zellion.cyberwind.com X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1155 Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:33992 > Personally, I already run 2.2-Alpha and 2.2-Beta. I find them to be > more "polished" for my needs, many changes since 2.1.x work in > directions that are more intuitive for me. If there are bugs in these > new/changed functionality, they are not bad enough to show up here. I put up a 2.2 SNAP (101496 I think) and it is very stable... If it were not for limited time I would upgrade my 2.1.5 to 2.2 BETA. I just am short of time for upgrades right now, but I will go to 2.2-RELEASE day one. IMHO many of the supposed "less than stable" versions of FreeBSD are more stable than any product EVER released from say Microsoft or a host of other developers. Stable is relative, maybe 2.16 is more stable than 2.2 but in my mind that is like saying a Rolls is better than a Mercedes where all of the other software in the PC world is somewhere around the Pinto or Vega range :-) when it comes to stability. -- | Jeffery T. White | email: zellion@cyberwind.com | | Cyberwind, The wind knows... | http://www.cyberwind.com