I agree that current systems should have no problem running for years between reboots, but which for verious reasons would not be a good idea now.
(conversely my current desktop boots so fast that I now shut it down every day. Saves a bit of power, and a clean start to each day feels good.)
But it's important to understand that back in the 90s running a machine for long periods was unusual. 18 months is certainly notable. Of course there were no security patches back then (and largely no need for them because the always-on Internet wouldn't happen for another few years.)
It's hard to understate just how unreliable tech was in the 20th century. Cars broke down a lot. Computers needed rebooting all the time. The risks taken during Mercury, Gemini and Apollo would be considered completely reckless now.
It has ever been thus. In the first world war more pilots died from mechanical failure than from enemy fire.
First we make it. Then we make it fast. Then we make it reliable.
(conversely my current desktop boots so fast that I now shut it down every day. Saves a bit of power, and a clean start to each day feels good.)
But it's important to understand that back in the 90s running a machine for long periods was unusual. 18 months is certainly notable. Of course there were no security patches back then (and largely no need for them because the always-on Internet wouldn't happen for another few years.)
It's hard to understate just how unreliable tech was in the 20th century. Cars broke down a lot. Computers needed rebooting all the time. The risks taken during Mercury, Gemini and Apollo would be considered completely reckless now.
It has ever been thus. In the first world war more pilots died from mechanical failure than from enemy fire.
First we make it. Then we make it fast. Then we make it reliable.