gavin long wrote: > [snip]
> >>If you are running on Windows, you should be automatically rebooting > >>every few days for stability reasons anyway. > > > > Uh, yeah, maybe if you're still running Win98. Windows 2000 and XP are > > rock-solid, I can't even tell you the last time I rebooted my machine > > here. Which if you have any idea what's going on under the hood is > > nothing short of miraculous. > > They're good, yes. They're better than Win98. Uh, yeah, like about a BILLION times better. > But they're not > bulletproof. Right. No OS is. > I've seen win2k web servers go belly-up several times a > day. The whole machine? You've seen a pretty poorly setup webserver then, or one with hardware problems. > The OS in this instance remains undisclosed beyond "win32" > Ok, so it's probably Win98 or something. > > Don't try to blame Mozilla's defects on Windows Gerv. > > I didn't see Gerv make any such accusation. He _implied_ that using > win32 in a 24/7 environment was unwise. That's a point that can be > argued to death over in > alt.windows.sucks.no.linux.is.overrated.is.not.is.too.etc.etc.etc by > those who wish to do so, but isn't really on topic here. > Hey, Gerv brought it up. I was simply correcting his misstatement. > > Don't try to blame Mozilla's defects on Windows Gerv. > > Why do you always use people's first names when criticising/patronising > them, Gary? > Why do you always use my name when criticizing/patronizing me, Gavin? What would you prefer I call the guy, "pal"? "Bucko"? "Dude"? "Senor Mozillarista"? > -- > gav
