On Fri, 30 Apr 1999 da...@aps-services.com wrote: > 3.1 is probably the most unstable "stable version" ever to be sent out > by Walnut Creek. I have a machine that has 2.2.6 on it, which has > been abused, cold booted, etc. When I received 3.1 in the mail I > installed it on three seperate machines before giving up. to many > system failures. I am waiting for 3.2 to replace my 2.2.6 installation > due to the machine's importance. use 3.1-stable from current.freebsd.org last -stable is TODAY-stable :-)) > > Right now I am using 4.0 current 19990421 on my test box which > works fine, go figure? time-to-time -current in some features is MORE stable then last -STABLE, but -current is CURRENT: its a development version. > > Although I am not a programmer, I do care about the open source > movement, and look forward to the day where I can replace all of the > desktop OS's in my office with a free version of unix, linux, etc. > > To sum it all up is there any difference between the branches? plz c handbook at http://www.freebsd.org/handbook
Rgdz, Sergey A. Osokin, o...@etrust.ru To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
