> 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. | <s>