Actually, in my case, I'm more interested in % uptime then long uptimes,
something that this site does keep track of ...
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006, lars wrote:
David Benfell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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?
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
