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-security@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-security-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"