From owner-freebsd-advocacy Fri Apr 20 10:36: 5 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from dehumanizer.meganet.pt (hyperion.meganet.pt [194.38.131.251]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B939D37B422 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 10:36:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from deh@meganet.pt) Received: from dehumanizer.meganet.pt (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by dehumanizer.meganet.pt (Postfix) with SMTP id F2E0A1F1F2 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 18:29:43 +0100 (WEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" From: Pedro Timoteo Organization: OniSolutions To: advocacy@freebsd.org Subject: Re: top uptime! Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 18:29:43 +0100 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.2] References: <3AE07137.5B2EB5CB@acuson.com> <0104201825111T.20864@dehumanizer.meganet.pt> In-Reply-To: <0104201825111T.20864@dehumanizer.meganet.pt> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <0104201829431V.20864@dehumanizer.meganet.pt> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Friday 20 April 2001 18:25, you wrote: > I'm not saying that Linux is more stable (I know it isn't, I use both), but > in this case I don't think the stability of Linux is fairly shown here. Also (it's funny to reply to my own message), for a FreeBSD to have an uptime greater than 1000 days, it's got to be an early 2.x. So, this list shows nothing about the stability of 3.x or 4.x. I'm not *doubting* it's great, but we'll only have "proof" when in 3 or 4 years there are some 4.xs still running. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message