From owner-freebsd-advocacy Fri Apr 20 11:10:53 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from pilchuck.reedmedia.net (pilchuck.reedmedia.net [63.145.197.178]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35E8437B424 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 11:10:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from reed@reedmedia.net) Received: from reed by pilchuck.reedmedia.net with local-esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 14qfMZ-0007DB-00; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 11:10:35 -0700 Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 11:10:35 -0700 (PDT) From: "Jeremy C. Reed" To: Pedro Timoteo Cc: advocacy@freebsd.org Subject: Re: top uptime! In-Reply-To: <0104201829431V.20864@dehumanizer.meganet.pt> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, Pedro Timoteo wrote: > > It's very interesting to note which OS is *not* listed. > > I don't want to be TOO annoying, but could it be because the linux kernel 2.4 > is about 4 months old, and since then most people have upgraded to it, > ruining their uptimes? That doesn't make sense. If that was the case, then what about FreeBSD people upgrading their FreeBSD kernels to the latest (and ruining their uptimes)? > I'm not saying that Linux is more stable (I know it isn't, I use both), but > in this case I don't think the stability of Linux is fairly shown here. I ran Linux 2.0.36 for 497 days. It had some known 497-day bug (jiffy problem?) that crashed it with a kernel panic. Jeremy C. Reed http://www.reedmedia.net/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message