4.8 > 4.10 successful. Now > 5.x?

[Curtis Vaughan]

> 4.x is really a great unix.  Very stable and plenty capable.
>
> If the software you're hoping to run REQUIRES features in 5.x, I 
> recommend
> installing it directly.  Meantime, I'd use mobile racks and install 
> 4.x on
> one so I could learn more about maintaining FreeBSD, installing
> ports/packages, etc.
>
> I have two identical boxes at home with RAID pairs.  So on one pair I 
> have
> WinBlows xp (which can only run in one of the two boxes because if 
> WinBlows
> detects hardware changes, they'll disable the OS and you'll have to 
> call them
> to get back in).
>
> Other pairs include:
> lightning - FreeBSD 4.10-STABLE
> daemon - FreeBSD 4.10-STABLE
> gandalf - FreeBSD 5.2.1-CURRENT
> freakinBSD - FreeBSD 5.2.1-CURRENT
>
> So these pairs can be slid into EITHER box and run just fine (talk 
> about
> recovering from a hardware failure quickly!)
>
> 5.x is bleeding edge and too many inexperienced people are running it. 
>  I
> track it merely for the learning experience.  I started as a data 
> systems
> tech in the Navy in 1976. I've been a field service engineer, level-3 
> tech
> support, tech writer, programmer, sys admin, and janitor 8oP, and I am
> challenged trying to track -CURRENT.
>
> People who want production machines shoudn't be tracking -CURRENT or 
> -STABLE,
> IMHO.  They should jump from release to release, i.e., run 4.9 until 
> 4.10 has
> been out for a couple months, etc.  Let OTHER people be beta sites.
>
> YMMV.
> _____

Whereas I intend to run this server as a Postfix server w/ Courier 
IMAP, authentication through PAM/LDAP it would seem that I should stay 
at 4.10 then.  Is this correct or not?

Also, if this server goes into production, then how much of a pain in 
the ass is it going to be to move to 5.x when it's stable?

Curtis