Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site tommif.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!decwrl!greipa!tommif!tom
From: tom@tommif.UUCP (Tom Faulhaber)
Newsgroups: net.micro.att,net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: instability in Berkeley versus AT&T releases
Message-ID: <121@tommif.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 24-Jul-85 03:52:16 EDT
Article-I.D.: tommif.121
Posted: Wed Jul 24 03:52:16 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 26-Jul-85 04:29:31 EDT
References: <2067@ucf-cs.UUCP> <363@cuae2.UUCP> <2423@sun.uucp> <406@petrus.UUCP> <2453@sun.uucp>
Lines: 28
Xref: linus net.micro.att:324 net.unix-wizards:11189

In article <2453@sun.uucp>, guy@sun.uucp (Guy Harris) writes:
> > > By implication that puts all commercial vendors of 4.2BSD systems
> > > in the "unstable computing environment business"?
> My machine is supplied by a "commercial vendor of 4.2BSD systems" (as is
> John's, I suspect :-) :-) :-)), and, well,
> 
> 	4:00pm  up 5 days,  2:33,  6 users,  load average: 0.23, 0.07, 0.00
> 
> (etc.)

I am afraid that this is the point that proves the argument.  We have
an Ethernet composed of Convergent MiniFrames (the parent of the PC  7300)
in Un*x engineering at CT.  A few days ago an ruptime display would have 
shown you that the Networking development machine (mine) and the OS development
machine had been up for 45 days.  These machines had rebooted after PG&E 
decided to run over one of the power lines to our building.  Unfortunately last 
week they ran over the power lines again!  I would note that the OS 
development machine was running the latest CTIX version, and the networking 
machine was running an experimental kernel.

I say this only partially to brag about our systems.  Primarily, I would like
point out that five or even fifteen days of uptime does not make a solid
operating system.

		Tom Faulhaber
		...decwrl!greipa!tommif!tom

P.S.  Of course, we run System V.