From: "Mike A. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Oh, some. It is sorta sad that this implies we'll see fewer and fewer
> >machines with multiple year uptimes that are not in rather positions
> >where machine security doesn't matter.
>
> The uptime of a machine is a meaningless metric, in particular
> once kernel security erratum has been released (as you hint at
> above).
>
> Any machines running in a capacity where security doesn't matter,
> but uptime does, are typically going to be some kind of
> enterprise machine of some sort, and that is where Red Hat
> Enterprise Linux ES or Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS would be a
> better choice anyway IMHO.
Well, once 2.0.x stabilized nicely and only garnered enhancements downported
from 2.2 and 2.4 kernels it ran for a very long time for me. It went down
after 436 days or so because I needed to put in a second NIC. Otherwise it
would likely still be up with several years accumulated. It's inconvenient
pulling stuff down and rebooting. But I suppose once a year isn't too bad.
Now, more recent kernels seem to NEED massive updates for security
purposes....
I am not sure what that tells me. I am also not sure I like what it tells
me.
{o.o}
--
Phoebe-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/phoebe-list
