Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!yeshua.marcam.com!news.kei.com!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!natinst.com!hrd769.brooks.af.mil!hrd769.brooks.af.mil!not-for-mail From: burgess@hrd769.brooks.af.mil (Dave Burgess) Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.questions Subject: Re: NetBSD 0.9 or NetBSD-current ? Date: 2 Feb 1994 15:47:42 -0600 Organization: Armstrong Laboratory, Brooks AFB, TX Lines: 33 Message-ID: <2ip72c$mmb@hrd769.brooks.af.mil> References: <2ij198$ckg@owl.und.ac.za> <2imf54$a2@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> <hastyCKKrKs.4u8@netcom.com> <a09878.760219582@giant> NNTP-Posting-Host: hrd769.brooks.af.mil In article <a09878.760219582@giant>, Curt Sampson <a09878@giant.rsoft.bc.ca> wrote: >hasty@netcom.com (Amancio Hasty Jr) writes: > >>In article <2imf54$a2@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> banshee@cats.ucsc.edu (Wailer at the Gates of Dawn) writes: >>> >>>netbsd 0.9 is pretty stable. > >>As long as you quickly update to netbsd-current... > >Really? I wonder why I've had no problems with my NetBSD 0.9 machine >that's been running as a production machine at my office for weeks >now, then. Using straight NetBSD 0.9, It seems to be fairly stable for the old shop back in Texas: 3:41pm up 26 days, 43 mins, 2 users, load average: 1.78, 1.72, 1.73 I don't remember why they rebooted last time, but it seems to me it was so they could vacuum under the machine, or something equally as 'software unstable'. Of course, this is on a UPS and in a controlled environment... They have a Gateway 486/33 EISA system with 16Meg of memory and a 1542A SCSI card. I wish my system here was half as stable (NetBeui/LanManager/DOS) and twice as expensive. -- TSgt Dave Burgess NCOIC Applications Programming Branch US Strategic Command, Offutt AFB, NE burgessd@j64.stratcom.af.mil