> 400+ days of uptime tells me one thing tho, he definitly has a UPS... His triple-redundant deep-cycle marine battery UPSes help, but I suspect that JLF's triple-redundant multi- fuel generators play no small part. :) Having a coupl'a fuel rods and a cold spare NanoNuke(TM) generator tied into his personal grid doesn't hurt, either. D * On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 04:03:35PM -0700, Jason wrote: > George Toft wrote: > > > > "J.L.Francois" wrote: > > > > > > The next time someone says Linux can't hang show them this. > > > This is a SparcClassic with 32MB RAM serving WWW pages > > > and my Sparc test platform. > > > Obsolete hardware to everyone but me. > > > > > > I wanted to get this out before I have to start turning equipment > > > off to mount in imy refrigerator converted to server cabinet. > > > > > > Woops, gotta go and reboot my wifes Win98 desktop, again. > > > > > > ============================================== > > > Linux heirophant 2.0.35 #1 Wed Feb 17 20:37:03 CET 1999 sparc unknown > > > 5:55pm up 406 days, 6:57, 1 user, load average: 0.04, 0.01, 0.00 > > > > Uptime is nice, but I hate to see uptime over 150 days - it shows that > > the kernel has not been updated against various exploits. The 2.0.35 > > kernel is about three years old, and I'm pretty sure there are some remote > > compromises up to the 2.2.13 kernel. Maybe the sparc kernel is different? > > > > Feel free to correct me if I am wrong. > > I believe that 2.0.35 was one of the first kernels not vulnerable to > the "nestea" attack... I think 2.0.34 was the first, actually, but I > am not sure... > > My uptime is never that high because I like to fool around with the > hardware too much. This box only has 12 days right now, but I guess > that would still be a miracle to see on a Winblows unit.. heh.. Having > 400+ days of uptime tells me one thing tho, he definitly has a UPS... > > -- > jkenner @ mindspring . com__ > I Support Linux: _> _ _ |_ _ _ _| > Working Together To <__(_||_)| )| `(_|(_)(_| > To Build A Better Future. |