Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2003 02:59:01 -0800 (PST) From: Jeff Seeman <danger@e-lated.org> To: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com> Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD Stability Message-ID: <20030105025757.V33164-100000@mercedes.e-lated.org> In-Reply-To: <1041729106.17746.145.camel@zaphod.softweyr.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This string needs to die now. On 5 Jan 2003, Wes Peters wrote: > On Sat, 2003-01-04 at 14:41, Thomas Seck wrote: > > * Wes Peters (wes@softweyr.com): > > > > > On Fri, 2003-01-03 at 15:43, Thomas Seck wrote: > > > > > > * Nimrod Mesika (nimrod-me@bezeqint.net): > > > > > > > > > And uptimes are not important. Downtimes *are*. > > > > > > > > Yes. Especially the unscheduled ones. > > > > > > Don't be silly, uptimes are terribly important when they're not long > > > enough to be useful. They're no longer important when they've gotten > > > long enough to last between system upgrades, which FreeBSD and a number > > > of other systems are regularly capable of these days. > > > > You are over interpreting my message. > > No, just taking it at face value. C'mon, look at the statement and > admit it was absurd: "uptimes are not important." ;^) > > > Tell me: what is the maximum uptime one can achieve when following all > > FreeBSD security advisories which involve loading a new kernel due to > > locally or remotely exploitable kernel vulnerabilities? > > Shorter that the uptimes attainable with most recent 4.x releases, and > longer than the uptimes attainable with 5.0 right now. > > Oh, you want numbers? OK, I'll take a wild stab at not more than 6-8 > months, which is nowhere near the 1000+ days being reported by Netcraft, > but it certainly non-zero as well. And yes, there are systems available > now still not able to run for months at a time. > > > > I remember people being mightily impressed with VAX/VMS systems being > > > able to stay up for 30 days at a time. I also more recently recall > > > system administrators being very disappointed by Windows NT servers > > > because they couldn't stay up for 6 days at a time and they had NO time > > > in their schedule when the machines could be rebooted without disrupting > > > workflow between 0400 Monday and 0400 Saturday. > > > > Well, I our NT servers did not BSOD on us for years now. What does this > > say about NT stability? Right, nothing. The only downtimes we see here > > are the scheduled ones. I want it to stay that way. > > > > Too many people try to squeeze advocacy out of every figure they see > > somewhere. I don't. > > Too much motorcyle mentality. Ever ride a first generation Honda CBX? > On paper, they looked great. 6 cylinders, more moving parts than a > space shuttle, broad flat powerband. In reality, those extra two > cylinders tended to cook your legs, it was top-heavy and unweildy, and > the frame was far too flexible for the power of the bike. Good specs, > lousy integration. > > -- > > Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket? > > Wes Peters wes@softweyr.com > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030105025757.V33164-100000>