Re: Patched sendmail? testing?
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 08:20:16PM -0600, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 06:47:33PM -0500, Hall Stevenson wrote:
> > * Jamin W. Collins (jcollins@asgardsrealm.net) [030304 18:30]:
> > > On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 04:05:37PM -0500, stan wrote:
> > > > Moving target or not, I think 200+ day uptimes ina 24x7 production
> > > > environment say something about teh :stability" of the testing
> > > > release.
> > >
> > > Stability isn't just a matter of uptime.
> >
> > In the MS Windows world, it is.
>
> Irrelevant. The discussion up to this point had little to nothing to do
> with MS Windows. It was a complaint about the lack of security support
> in testing, and an argument for the "proven stability" of testing was
> the uptime of a system. Then a conclusion was drawn from this uptime
> that the release was "stable" and therefore in dire need of support from
> the security team. I'm simply pointing out that uptime is a by product
> of stability, but not necessarily a valid (or even useful) indicator of
> it presence.
Especially since uptime is 99% kernel; the rest of the distribution
doesn't matter unless you *really* screw it up. We could release any old
pile of rubbish if this was the only criterion.
Cheers,
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
Reply to: