Why are so many people using 4.x?

[illoai at gmail.com]

On 3/29/06, Chris <chrcoluk at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 29/03/06, Kris Kennaway <kris at obsecurity.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 01:30:51PM -0500, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 01:19:30PM -0500, DAve wrote:
> > > > Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > > > >On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 05:11:05PM -0500, DAve wrote:
> > > > >>>modern, supported version of FreeBSD.
> Well without a doubt 4.x is the fastest and most stable freebsd out of
> the 3.

Fuel on the fire, but:
FreeBSD is useably, configurably, and stably moreso than
what was before* on each and every (or all) of the "intel
insides" I've on it putting (gerund).  That's three gramatically
wrong adverbs worth of tautology forwarming that bearskin
rug Giada De Laurentiis should be sprawling on (enfirewise).

Both times I was wondering, but shockwaif flash si teh b0nks
and undeeded too.  Trust me, no good publication would do
such a thing.

4.11 since 4.x was 4.0, or however you yanks would say it.
^^^^ drm doesn't compile, tintin++-devel doesn't compile,
myriads of myriads (with only 14k plus some odd it takes
a math genius to make this number work) soon won't for
lack of threads or summat.  Whatever.


*It didn't support uname, I don't know what it was.
--
--