Re: OT (and maybe silly): Re: uptime record?

["K. Richard Pixley" <rich noir com>]

HaJo Schatz wrote:
> On Sun, 2004-10-24 at 12:15, Walter Francis wrote:
>
> > Yeah, and it sucks too.. :(
>
> [...]
>
>
> > Real uptime is, of course, 497+90, or 587 days.
>
> Maybe a stupid question, but doesn't such a "record" mean that the
> machine has not experienced a kernel update since almost 2 years?
> Wouldn't then publishing the great up-time a box has achieved be what
> really sucks -- as this would be a perfect target for some sort of
> attack?

a) not all machines are general purpose computers.  Some are essentially 
embedded systems performing real time functions like routers, bridges, 
switches, firewalls, dhcp servers, dns servers, ldap servers, etc.

b) not all machines are connected to the greater internet.  Some, while 
performing all the functions of the greater internet, may live behind 
multiple NAT's, multiple firewalls, etc, such that the probability of 
any attack, even denial, reaching them is vanishingly slim.

c) not all machines are physical machines on physical networks.  :-).

Think of it as a game.  What could you do with that 500Mhz motherboard 
laying in the corner that would be at least nominally useful and would 
give you bragging rights for longest running box?  :-).

--rich