Xref: utzoo comp.unix.xenix:2971 comp.unix.microport:1271 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!mailrus!ames!elroy!gryphon!vector!rpp386!jfh From: jfh@rpp386.UUCP (John F. Haugh II) Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix,comp.unix.microport Subject: Re: Xenix reliability (Was: Re: Bell Tech 386 SysVr3) Message-ID: <5282@rpp386.UUCP> Date: 10 Aug 88 14:00:46 GMT References: <25145@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <465@sp7040.UUCP> <11643@steinmetz.ge.com> <1988Jul30.141708.3175@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu> <152@ispi.U Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.UUCP (The Beach Bum) Organization: HASA, "S" Division Lines: 19 In article <1988Aug8.201739.4868@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu> woods@gpu.utcs.Toronto.EDU (Greg Woods) writes: >In article <5084@rpp386.UUCP> jfh@rpp386.UUCP (The Beach Bum) writes: >> age of system: 31 days, 5 hrs., 27 mins. >> >>thirty one days looks like reliable to me. > >Not to me. Besides, how is that system used? if a system is running applications like crash, fuser, and w, which sco doesn't even include, AND which run around poking in kernel memory, do you really have to ask HOW it is being used? lots of cc, compress, uucp, news, etc. happy now? -- John F. Haugh II +--------- Cute Chocolate Quote --------- HASA, "S" Division | "USENET should not be confused with UUCP: killer!rpp386!jfh | something that matters, like CHOCOLATE" DOMAIN: jfh@rpp386.uucp | -- apologizes to Dennis O'Connor