This is one of those outdated dick measuring contests that is doing nobody any good.
Nonsense, it is one measure of the design quality.
Ideally, reboot every system on a rotation no longer than 60 days.
Why on earth would you do that? Does it make everything feel nice and fresh to you? If you enjoy that then I suggest you also rotate the tires on your car every 60 days, and drop the engine for good measure. Of course you do that don't you?
now uptime has taken the backseat to updating software
Speak for Windows and Apple. With Linux it is normal to update without rebooting. You only need to reboot to change the kernel, and even then hot patching is a thing. This isn't just servers, but even general purpose computers that you are installing and deinstalling all kinds of things on constantly, including nasty things like games. I have often upgraded across major versions of Debian and even Ubuntu without rebooting.
I had my primary workstation up for over 600 days at one point, only ended by a blackout that lasted longer than the UPS.
Want to investigate Company X, its CEO or any of its employees? Sorry, all pertinent e-mails and documents are stored on servers in [some other country] and we don't have to give them to you.
I see your point! The problem is, even if we can always get your data, then what about your thoughts? We need access to those too, and it shouldn't matter where you live.
It's not actually worse than storing your data on a Windows computer, or an Apple, or Android. Basically, Linux and its ilk where the software stack is top to bottom visible to you is the _only_ way you can expect to keep your privacy and even that requires constant vigilance. Or to put it another way, if you have allowed yourself to be anally raped by Microsoft all these years then what is the point of getting upset just because your cloud provider decided to join the party?
If you have absolute control of your client, which is pretty much the default with Linux on a white box PC (short of your hardware actually being backdoored, awfully hard to hide from prying Linux eyes) then you can encrypt your cloud data and be pretty confident that nobody is getting into it. But your metadata will still be visible and you may attract attention from those who automatically regard you as a criminal because you believe that privacy is a right. It hasn't gotten quite that bad in functional democracies yet, although not for want of trying.
Slashdot Mirror
Do your in-laws have pacemakers?
Bitter, are we?
From the summary, the cells may die off. Even worse, they might vote republican.
What an ass.
Or "Microsoft trustworthiness."
Right, oxymoron, like "Windows reliability."
Also for a sanity check on your hardware.
I would say that the person who reboots unnecessarily needs a sanity check. Obsessive/compulsive maybe?
To be sure, you better reboot every day. Oh wait, every hour. Or maybe just don't turn it on, then you can be really sure.
Spoken as someone well and truly indoctrinated into the Windows culture.
This is one of those outdated dick measuring contests that is doing nobody any good.
Nonsense, it is one measure of the design quality.
Ideally, reboot every system on a rotation no longer than 60 days.
Why on earth would you do that? Does it make everything feel nice and fresh to you? If you enjoy that then I suggest you also rotate the tires on your car every 60 days, and drop the engine for good measure. Of course you do that don't you?
now uptime has taken the backseat to updating software
Speak for Windows and Apple. With Linux it is normal to update without rebooting. You only need to reboot to change the kernel, and even then hot patching is a thing. This isn't just servers, but even general purpose computers that you are installing and deinstalling all kinds of things on constantly, including nasty things like games. I have often upgraded across major versions of Debian and even Ubuntu without rebooting.
I had my primary workstation up for over 600 days at one point, only ended by a blackout that lasted longer than the UPS.
Windows lite, isn't that a tautology like "a little bit pregnant?"
Comic.
Can you audit the source code of Windows? No? Then you are the FUD.
To be clear, I'm laughing at you at the moment, you're the joke.
Whoosh.
While Linux is obviously superiour to Windows etc, most people can't review all the code, including user land.
Obviously, you don't have to. But you must be able to. You must also belong to a community that takes such things seriously.
Net neutrality is under attack by unethical conservatives, it is not dead. Are you an unethical conservative or just a surrender monkey?
Want to investigate Company X, its CEO or any of its employees? Sorry, all pertinent e-mails and documents are stored on servers in [some other country] and we don't have to give them to you.
I see your point! The problem is, even if we can always get your data, then what about your thoughts? We need access to those too, and it shouldn't matter where you live.
That would make a whole pile of business sense, never mind the ethical issues.
It's not actually worse than storing your data on a Windows computer, or an Apple, or Android. Basically, Linux and its ilk where the software stack is top to bottom visible to you is the _only_ way you can expect to keep your privacy and even that requires constant vigilance. Or to put it another way, if you have allowed yourself to be anally raped by Microsoft all these years then what is the point of getting upset just because your cloud provider decided to join the party?
If you have absolute control of your client, which is pretty much the default with Linux on a white box PC (short of your hardware actually being backdoored, awfully hard to hide from prying Linux eyes) then you can encrypt your cloud data and be pretty confident that nobody is getting into it. But your metadata will still be visible and you may attract attention from those who automatically regard you as a criminal because you believe that privacy is a right. It hasn't gotten quite that bad in functional democracies yet, although not for want of trying.
Please do provide an example of a chemical combination that doesn't "work together", thus reducing the number of bits per codon. (troll detected)
Do you regard yourself as witty, and do you really giggle when you type?
Are you implying it's a dup? It's not. Different group, different research. Seems to take a similar idea much further, to a specific application.
OMG, two-bit. Or six-bit per codon.