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> Cc: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Subject: Re: BSD Success Stories Message-ID: <20040403235314.GA47866@pasternak.w.lub.pl> In-Reply-To: <20040403172643.GA48831@cimbali.dssrg.curtin.edu.au> References: <20040401220702.B56A86A832@smtp4.pacifier.net> <1080972666.77366.1.camel@elemental.DashEvil> <20040403172643.GA48831@cimbali.dssrg.curtin.edu.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040403235314.GA47866>