Michael Lake wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 07:27:34PM +1000, Rick Welykochy wrote:
> > Looks like BSD wins in the reliability stakes ...
> > <http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html>
> > Oh, and that *other* O/S didn't even show.
>
> We must be fair here. If you read the FAQ there it mentions that some
> OSs do not provide uptime information such as NT3 & 4 and win95/98.
> Even some Unixes don't provide this info. Therefore the 98/NT boxes
> will not show in the uptimes even if all of them were up for the
> last two years. OK we all know that thats not true but we have to be
> fair :-)
Also, stating the obvious: To have a 4 year uptime, you must have a 4
year old kernel installed. How many linux kernels have had development
time enough to give them the stability to last 4 years, and another 4
years of time to actually get there? Linux 2.2 is only a little over 2
years old.
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
