On Mon, 22 Jan 2007, T.J. Duchene wrote: > As for Solaris not being rebooted in years, that's really not a good > description of stability anymore. I've run FreeBSD, Solaris, and Linux > at one time or another - as well as dabbled with VMS/VAX (ugh) and > Tru-64. They are all pretty stable. Once you get one in place, they > can all have uptimes stretching into years. > > Not to sound contrary, but I'd rather be forced to reboot now and then. > The reasons are two: every now and then they change the kernels, so > upgrades require a reboot (just to make sure it's clean) - and the > second reason, which we can argue until the end of time - I have yet to > meet a single OS in existance that hasn't leaked memory due to poor > daemon designs or lazy programmers writing crappy apps. This reflects > nothing upon the OS. It's the applications or daemons that force a > reboot. I agree -- at least for me, not-rebooting-ever isn't all that important. I like the fact that Linux is moving forward. I didn't reboot Solaris because I didn't upgrade it. I didn't upgrade it because I was concerned that it would be a hassle. So the fact that I didn't reboot doesn't really reflect well on Solaris -- it isn't just because of stability! Also, we've been running a Linux box for 3 years or so and it has only been rebooted for power outages and maybe once for a kernel upgrade. So Linux is very stable too. Mike