OverviewExploreTrending
Nostr Archives
OverviewExploreTrending
ChipTuner1d ago
I think that's changed a lot. I had an ubuntu 14 (iirc) That had over 1000 days of uptime at one point. That wasn't smart, it was because I was lazy and it was a backup machine sitting in a remote location. High uptime is now pretty correlated with low security. I think security-first has shifted heavily since RedHat started to run with it. That means rapid kernel patches, which means package rebuilds and rapid merging. I think leading to this more 3-6 month window like @Matt 🛸 suggested as well of stability. You just have to keep jumping if you want to stay on top of it imo. Consumer cares more about stability, commercial cares more about 99% forever. If 99.9999 is a goal, but one bug in a package takes you down, it wasn't worth it.
💬 2 replies

Thread context

Root: c72c9827eb6b…

Replying to: 11c1d3b86816…

Replies (2)

Matt 🛸1d ago
Do you necessarily need to lose up time for security? I suppose if something requires a restart? Or do you mean if an update breaks something? Server isn't my strongest area.
0000 sats
Bill Cypher1d ago
Over the last few years patches and software upgrades consume more and more of my time. It used to be changes but now it is more running in place with the same gear.
0000 sats