On Sun, 2017-09-10 at 15:03 +0200, Wolfgang Pfeiffer wrote: > > All that means is that you're running out-of-date systems on your > > servers. > > It's also a strong hint that it's possible to have machines up and > running for such a long time. That isn't news. Anyone who has used or administered Unix/Linux for the last 4 decades or so, as I have, knows this. The question is whether you want to actually maintain your system in a stable and secure condition, or just try for some meaningless uptime record. If it's the former, you'll update it when it's prudent to do so, which of course depends on your specific situation. > That's what this whole debate basically is about: less maintenance > work and more usage of the machines - and to reach that I (and probably > quite a few more than just me) need at least less reboots. It's > doable, see Bill Shirley's machines, and yes: it might need quite some > work to reach that target - question remains: does anyone care? ... :) Speaking personally, no I don't care. I have never used the Gnome update system and cannot imagine why I ever would, but it no doubt works for some people. OTOH I do reboot my personal machine quite often as I update it every morning using dnf. That's my choice. The reboot generally takes about 30 seconds, unless I'm running a Windows VM in which case I usually try to shut it down properly, which can take a long time. If I were administering a mail and web service with several thousand users, as I once did, I simply wouldn't be using Fedora but CentOS or some other LTS distro. And I would still reboot it when necessary, after a judicious advisory period. poc _______________________________________________ users mailing list -- users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
