Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 09:53:04 +0100 From: lars <lars@gmx.at> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [Total OT] Trying to improve some numbers ... Message-ID: <20060216085304.GA52806@storage.mine.nu> In-Reply-To: <20060216053725.GB15586@parts-unknown.org> References: <20060216005036.L60635@ganymede.hub.org> <20060216053725.GB15586@parts-unknown.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
David Benfell <benfell@parts-unknown.org> wrote: > On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 01:01:33 -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > > > FreeBSD is showing 4th place right now behind Linux, SunOS and Netware for > > Average Uptimes ... with ours being an average of 120 days > > > Which shows yet again how utterly worthless this kind of rating is. > > So here's the problem as *I* see it: Do you participate in such > silliness for dubious PR value at the risk of supporting the use of > invalid methodology, or do you refuse at the risk of appearing to have > something to hide? Now, the way I frame this makes pretty clear *my* > preference, but possibly others have other ways to frame it. I agree with your assessment. A long uptime means that the machine hasn't been rebooted for a long time. If that time's longer than the time to the last patch that required a kernel recompilation and a reboot, it means the server is not patched. Where's the point in advertising an unpatched machine?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060216085304.GA52806>