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

[lars]

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?