Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 11:10:35 -0700 (PDT) From: "Jeremy C. Reed" <reed@reedmedia.net> To: Pedro Timoteo <deh@meganet.pt> Cc: advocacy@freebsd.org Subject: Re: top uptime! Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0104201102580.17317-100000@pilchuck.reedmedia.net> In-Reply-To: <0104201829431V.20864@dehumanizer.meganet.pt>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, Pedro Timoteo wrote: > > It's very interesting to note which OS is *not* listed. > > I don't want to be TOO annoying, but could it be because the linux kernel 2.4 > is about 4 months old, and since then most people have upgraded to it, > ruining their uptimes? That doesn't make sense. If that was the case, then what about FreeBSD people upgrading their FreeBSD kernels to the latest (and ruining their uptimes)? > 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. I ran Linux 2.0.36 for 497 days. It had some known 497-day bug (jiffy problem?) that crashed it with a kernel panic. Jeremy C. Reed http://www.reedmedia.net/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.21.0104201102580.17317-100000>