[Total OT] Trying to improve some numbers ...

[Marc G. Fournier]

Actually, in my case, I'm more interested in % uptime then long uptimes, 
something that this site does keep track of ...

On Thu, 16 Feb 2006, lars wrote:

> David Benfell <benfell at parts-unknown.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 01:01:33 -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>>>
>>> FreeBSD is showing 4th place right now behind Linux, SunOS and Netware for
>>> Average Uptimes ... with ours being an average of 120 days
>>>
>> Which shows yet again how utterly worthless this kind of rating is.
>>
>> So here's the problem as *I* see it: Do you participate in such
>> silliness for dubious PR value at the risk of supporting the use of
>> invalid methodology, or do you refuse at the risk of appearing to have
>> something to hide?  Now, the way I frame this makes pretty clear *my*
>> preference, but possibly others have other ways to frame it.
> I agree with your assessment.
>
> A long uptime means that the machine hasn't been rebooted for a long
> time. If that time's longer than the time to the last patch that
> required a kernel recompilation and a reboot, it means the server is not
> patched.
> Where's the point in advertising an unpatched machine?
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-questions at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>
>

----
Marc G. Fournier           Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy at hub.org           Yahoo!: yscrappy              ICQ: 7615664