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. Cheers, -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
