[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
you have had plenty of response already. i just want to post my experience.
I'll post my 2 cents too.
in late 2001, i installed 4.3 on a server and a couple of
workstations. i have upgraded them as time went by up to 4.11. no
problems, it runs runs runs.
I've had plenty of 4.11 systems. Some of them tends to reboot from time
to time. Sometimes I was able to track it down to some software failure
(vinum, net drivers, ...), sometimes to hardware, sometimes I wasn't
able to get anywhere and I simply started over with new HW&SW.
i have been following the mailing-lists on a regular basis, and
decided 5.x was not me ( sorry guys ).
I've read plenty of horror tales on 5.x, yet I've built some new systems
and done some upgrades and had absolutely no problems so far. In my
experience even 5.3 is far stabler than 4.11 (which was not at all bad
in turn).
so far, 6.0 has been flawless for me. only thing i noticed was: gcc3.3
seems to be a lot slower than 2.95 ( i have no figures, could be my
imagination )
I agree 6.0 is even as stable.
As for gcc, 3.x is far slower than 2.9. C++ is a huge beast and
supporting it all poses heavy requirement on the compiler. 2.95 didn't
support C++ as well as 3.x, so you'll sooner or later run into some
missing features; on the other side this implied faster compilations.
Their web site says 4.x is again a lot faster than 3.x, although I
didn't see any performance comparison against 2.x. I still haven't
tested this myself.
Go with 6.x, really.
bye
av.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
