On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 08:11:29AM +0000, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 08:20:16PM -0600, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 06:47:33PM -0500, Hall Stevenson wrote:
> > > * Jamin W. Collins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030304 18:30]:
> > > > On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 04:05:37PM -0500, stan wrote:
> > > > > Moving target or not, I think 200+ day uptimes ina 24x7 production
> > > > > environment say something about teh :stability" of the testing
> > > > > release.
> > > >
> > > > Stability isn't just a matter of uptime.
> > >
> > > In the MS Windows world, it is.
> >
> > Irrelevant. The discussion up to this point had little to nothing to do
> > with MS Windows. It was a complaint about the lack of security support
> > in testing, and an argument for the "proven stability" of testing was
> > the uptime of a system. Then a conclusion was drawn from this uptime
> > that the release was "stable" and therefore in dire need of support from
> > the security team. I'm simply pointing out that uptime is a by product
> > of stability, but not necessarily a valid (or even useful) indicator of
> > it presence.
>
> Especially since uptime is 99% kernel; the rest of the distribution
> doesn't matter unless you *really* screw it up. We could release any old
> pile of rubbish if this was the only criterion.
>
I agree thta it is not -the only_ measuer of stability. However in this
case, the stated uptime includes all apps (including X). So I think it's
still a valid indication of the stability of the entire release (as used in
this particular application).
--
"They that would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve
neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
