From owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Apr  3 15:53:10 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBA3E16A4CE
	for <freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org>;
	Sat,  3 Apr 2004 15:53:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pr93.lublin.sdi.tpnet.pl (pr93.lublin.sdi.tpnet.pl
	[217.97.36.93])	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C19D143D41
	for <freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org>;
	Sat,  3 Apr 2004 15:53:08 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from michal@pasternak.w.lub.pl)
Received: (qmail 47902 invoked by uid 1001); 3 Apr 2004 23:53:14 -0000
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2004 01:53:14 +0200
From: Michal Pasternak <michal@pasternak.w.lub.pl>
To: Charon <charon@cimbali.dssrg.curtin.edu.au>
Message-ID: <20040403235314.GA47866@pasternak.w.lub.pl>
Mail-Followup-To: Charon <charon@cimbali.dssrg.curtin.edu.au>,
	freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org
References: <20040401220702.B56A86A832@smtp4.pacifier.net>
	<1080972666.77366.1.camel@elemental.DashEvil>
	<20040403172643.GA48831@cimbali.dssrg.curtin.edu.au>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20040403172643.GA48831@cimbali.dssrg.curtin.edu.au>
cc: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: BSD Success Stories
X-BeenThere: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Michal Pasternak <michal@pasternak.w.lub.pl>
List-Id: FreeBSD Evangelism <freebsd-advocacy.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-advocacy>,
	<mailto:freebsd-advocacy-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-advocacy>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-advocacy-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-advocacy>,
	<mailto:freebsd-advocacy-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2004 23:53:11 -0000

Charon [Sun, Apr 04, 2004 at 01:26:43AM +0800]:
> On Sat, Apr 03, 2004 at 01:11:06AM -0500, Chris Laverdure wrote:
> > I really question those crazy high uptimes.
> 
> 	They may reflect a carefull configuration choice to begin
> 	with. Also, consider the anti bsd sentiments of some
> 	Linux folk and the perception that old=unpatched and
> 	therefore unsecure. The uptimes might really be valid.
> 	The only way to be sure is to ask the admins of the site.

Well, the real question is:

	http://seclists.org/lists/linux-kernel/2004/Feb/0123.html
	
First thing is, we can laugh at Linux developers, who couldn't code proper
uptme counter until 2.6.0.

Second thing is, I wonder, how the uptimes will look in 1 - 2 years, just
because Linux 2.6.x is getting to be widely used.

Third, I don't really know, if that fault in Linux uptime counting really
hits Netcraft. Perhaps they use some other method.

Anyway, uptimes need a closer examination, before we can surely state some
statements about it. Comments?
-- 
mp