--qcHopEYAB45HaUaB
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 03:03:13PM -0500, der Mouse wrote:
> I just had a quick check of my own systems.  The uptime figures, just
> the days portion, are: 29, 2, 5, 47, 19, 30.
>=20
> What is it I have to worry about on the ones with the longest uptimes?
> (Admittedly, the 47-day figure came from a machine that's not directly
> reachable from the global Internet; ignore that one if you like.)

Well, in point of fact, you're fine with NetBSD. :^>

Bear in mind that I (am forced to) use Linux in the work place. If
those were Red Hat systems, adhering to Red Hat's update schedule,
four of them would in danger due to kernel-level security problems,
two of them doubly-so.

My point was more that it has always been and still is silly to
compare uptime as if it were genitalia. ;^>

Also that, though our kernel and TCP stack are more mature and more
stable than certain other operating systems, we're adding
connectivity things to the kernel (ipfilter, ipsec, and so on) that
provide potential buffer overflows, which may very well get fixed
without a lot of fanfare. A regular update schedule even on a
"stable" line of an OS, is pretty reasonable.

--=20
gabriel rosenkoetter
gr@eclipsed.net

--qcHopEYAB45HaUaB
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQE+dzdQ9ehacAz5CRoRAjC1AKCDgKJvWE+pdfn2x4Ef+oUtU1y6EQCgqVef
B5RvAxPs+Bhx75b8E9n9SjQ=
=qYCq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--qcHopEYAB45HaUaB--