On 25 Oct 2000, at 16:00, J. Atwood wrote:

> "Months without rebooting"?
> That is certainly not something to brag about. 

Huh? Did anybody? Certainly not me. :-{

In case I didn't make myself clear: for running Zope; I don't care 
much whether the OS needs a reboot every month, every year, or 
every decade, when I have to upgrade and/or restart Zope for 
installing Hotfixes and/or new products, every other month, 

>With three of my
> installations of Zope on Linux I have the machines at 194, 204 and 55 days
> of uptime (and the 55 was because of a bad powerstrip, the other others have
> been up since I brought them up). 

So what. I'm using an old 3.51 server on one of my companies 
intranets here, serving as a backup domain controller plus a few 
other, less important services, which is running for about half a 
year now (power failure in the machine room, too).  That machine 
has begun life as a OS/2 Lanmanager server (ca '90), and has 
been upgraded almost seamlessly again and again, both in 
hardware and in software, since. 

> While NT can and does stay up for long
> periods of time, it still is a very poor server choice as anything you
> install leads to a reboot. 

Well, W2K certainly has more capabilities here, and Linux, for 
example, is somewhat better in some (!) areas, but "anything" is 
a gross exaggeration. 

> I have installed countless things on the Linux
> boxes and never brought it down. That is the difference and makes all the
> difference when it comes to a website.

The vagueness of the first statement doesn't justify your 
conclusing, IMHO. But to each his own.

Zope maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )

Reply via email to