The case for FreeBSD
Matthew George
mdg at secureworks.net
Tue Feb 8 09:05:42 PST 2005
James Snow wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 10:39:22AM -0500, Steve Ames wrote:
>
>>On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 05:40:32AM -0900, Andy Firman wrote:
>>
>>>Your comments are disturbing. I run a few 4.10 servers and am getting ready
>>>for a couple new ones and would like to go with 5.3 stable.
>>
>>For a while 5.X was pretty iffy. A number of people who tried it at that
>>time are still stuck with that impression. IMHO, its unjustified.
>
>
> I hate to post a "me too" but I feel compelled to offer my wholehearted
> agreement with this statement.
>
I run many servers on both 4.10 and 5.3. My 5.3 servers, without a doubt, have
been as reliable as my 4.x servers. Applications they host range from
firewalls/gateways to file, database, and web servers. I have a couple
colleagues that have described problems getting more desktop-oriented things
running properly (one example that comes to mind is VMware, though I haven't
tried to use it under 5.3 myself ...). I run a 5.3 workstation and it works
fine for me (*shrug*). I can definitely confirm that in the server role,
however, 5.3 is up to the task, and anyone that claims otherwise needs to have a
second look. I'm running a mix of IBM and Dell servers ...
--
Matthew George
SecureWorks Technical Operations
More information about the freebsd-current
mailing list