Hi,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joshua Anderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 11:51 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Funny thought about version numbering...
>
>
> I highly dout your windows machine crashes every 4 hours on average.
Wanna bet ? Before you say "yes", let me inform you it's a two-years old
installation of 98 SE upgraded from 98. To be more exact, it doesn't always
crash, but on average after 4 hours it either crash or is almost dead from
memory / resources leaks.
Greetings, deacon Marcus
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Deacon Marcus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2001 3:29 AM
> Subject: Funny thought about version numbering...
>
>
> > Hi,
> > I'm using (very ligthly) modified Tomcat 4.0 b5 for almost as long as it
> was
> > out (b3 before, but I'm not sure), and found it rock-stable so
> far, not a
> > single failure on neither development or deployment servers. While
> there're
> > much features I would like Tomcat to have, what's already in is
> perfectly
> > stable for me. So why have 6th beta in a row, instead of declaring b5
> final
> > and naming b6 4.1? That would definitely encourage more people to use it
> > instead of out-dated 3.2/3.3. Hell, I have now Tomcat _beta_ running for
> > about a month now (on RedHat 7.1, if you want to know), while my Windows
> > _final_ with every possible service pack and security patches crashes
> about
> > every 4 hours on average. I love you guys :) If such programmers would
> work
> > in M$ since its begging we would had (stable) Windows XP in 1985-1990.
> >
> > Greetings, deacon Marcus
> >
> >
>
>
