Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 16:52:41 +0100 From: lars <lars@gmx.at> To: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [Total OT] Trying to improve some numbers ... Message-ID: <43F5F149.1040001@gmx.at> In-Reply-To: <20060216194336.L60635@ganymede.hub.org> References: <20060216005036.L60635@ganymede.hub.org> <20060216053725.GB15586@parts-unknown.org> <20060216085304.GA52806@storage.mine.nu> <43F4CAA3.1020501@schultznet.ca> <43F4F43D.2090304@gmx.at> <20060216194336.L60635@ganymede.hub.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Thu, 16 Feb 2006, lars wrote: > >> If your machine only runs an NFS daemon and is behind a firewall, >> ok, you don't need to patch it asap when an NFS SA and patch is >> issued, if all clients connecting to the machine are benign. > > Actually, there are alot of situations where this sort of thing is > possible ... hell, I could probably get away with running a FreeBSD 3.3 > server since day one, that has all ports closed except for sshd, > imap/pop3/smtp, and be 100% secury ... sshd can be easily upgraded > without a reboot, with the same applying to imap/pop3/smtp if I use a > port instead of what comes with the OS itself ... > > You can say you are losing out on 'stability fixes', else the server > itself wouldn't stay up that long ... so about the only thing you lose > would be performance related improvements and/or stuff like memory > leakage ... > > And I could do this all *without* any firewalls protecting it ... Even if you managed to maintain an old version of a particular OS's uptime for so long, what did you prove? At a time where some OS couldn't even keep it up longer than a day, having a long uptime may have been a 'feature'. IMHO 'uptime' as a 'feature' is overrated, not to say obsolete.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?43F5F149.1040001>