On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 03:03:39PM -0700, Karsten M. Self wrote: | on Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 11:29:21PM -0400, dman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: | > On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 05:16:37AM +0200, Martin F Krafft wrote: | > | also sprach Jason Boxman (on Sat, 15 Sep 2001 08:22:26PM -0400): | > | > Dude, what kernel version is on those?! | > | | > | > > piper:/var/log# uptime | > | > > 16:58:42 up 854 days, 11:46, 67 users, load average: 0.05, 0.05, 0.01 | > | | > | 2.0.22 | > | | > | > > titan:~# uptime | > | > > 11:06am up 1556 day(s), 4:30, 113 users, load average: 0.06, 0.13, 0.11 | > | | > | 2.0.38 | > | | > | these machines are around: piper as a modem/fax server, and piper as a | > | print server. work just fine. :) | > | > The next killer-feature would be the ability to upgrade the kernel | > while it is running without losing the uptime. :-). | | Two-kernel monty allows you to boot a kernel from within a running | GNU/Linux session,
Ooh, cool. I'll have to check it out. Maybe that way I could switch framebuffer resolutions without rebooting :-). | though all session timers restart. | You'd have to somehow feed an uptime value to the new kernel to actually | carry uptime forward. Again, it would be something of a fib. Yeah, it makes sense because the uptime measures how long the kernel has been running. Maybe we need to make a new timer that shows how long the *system* has been running without a reboot (even a soft reboot). This would have to be hardware level I think. -D