On 7/24/06, Eduardo Grosclaude <eduardo.grosclaude at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I have a number of CentOS machines that have been up 24/7 in datacenter > > environments for years and were only rebooted on occasion as a result of > > security-related kernel upgrades (which would affect any linux distro). > > I can't recall EVER having uptime or network-related issues on ANY live > > CentOS server that wasn't the direct result of a hardware failure. It > > just works...and works...and works. :) The key is to beat up on any > > new hardware in a test environment first to make sure that you don't > > have any incompatible hardware bits (which hasn't bitten me often). > > > > Thank you for your point, on which I wholly agree, but I was taking > "stability" as "a measure of velocity in change" of a system's components-- > here reflected in a shorter or longer life cycle for each version. Please > correct me if I am wrong, I may be misusing the word (I am heading right to > Wikipedia in a minute! :) ). > Er... I'm back from Wikipedia, and found (cough) no traces of "stability" as the proper word for what I meant, but come on, think Debian stable/unstable, that stuff :S -- Eduardo Grosclaude Universidad Nacional del Comahue Neuquen, Argentina -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20060724/c72986b4/attachment-0005.html>