True, but his question was about Windows NT Server.
-Original Message-
From: Sommai Fongnamthip [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 2:16 AM
To: Gerald R. Jensen; Garth Hansen; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: Version question...
3.23.40 is stable on
3.23.40 is stable on Linux too.
At 18:46 1/8/2001 -0500, Gerald R. Jensen wrote:
>Garth:
>
>I would go for the current version (3.23.39a).
>
>The current version went on the stable list a long time ago, and has a
>boat-load of function/featur eimprovements that either did not exist in
>3.22.xx or
Garth:
I would go for the current version (3.23.39a).
The current version went on the stable list a long time ago, and has a
boat-load of function/feature improvements that either did not exist in
3.22.xx or were not fine-tuned to the extent they are in the current stuff.
Gerald Jensen
- O
Garth:
I would go for the current version (3.23.39a).
The current version went on the stable list a long time ago, and has a
boat-load of function/featur eimprovements that either did not exist in
3.22.xx or were not fine-tuned to the extent they are in the current stuff.
Gerald Jensen
- O
Garth:
I would go for the current version (3.23.39a).
The current version went on the stable list a long time ago, and has a
boat-load of function/featur eimprovements that either did not exist in
3.22.xx or were not fine-tuned to the extent they are in the current stuff.
Gerald Jensen
- O
Garth:
I would go for the current version (3.23.39a).
The current version went on the stable list a long time ago, and has a
boat-load of function/featur eimprovements that either did not exist in
3.22.xx or were not fine-tuned to the extent they are in the current stuff.
Gerald Jensen
- O
At 7:27 PM -0400 6/19/01, Mario Kent wrote:
>I installed 3.23.38 from source on a linux server, a status simply says:
>Server version: 3.23.38
>Now, I just installed 3.23.39 from source on another linux server and it
>displays:
>Server version: 3.23.39-log
>
>I want to know what the -log means and
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Mario Kent" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 1:40 PM
Subject: Re: Version question: -log & no -log ?
>
> Your message cannot be posted because it appears to be either spam or
> simply
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Mario Kent" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 1:40 PM
Subject: Re: Version question: -log & no -log ?
>
> Your message cannot be posted because it appears to be either spam or
> simply
