> It does make you wonder what other bugs the software has though? Presumably it's not intentionally designed so that it needs rebooting periodically... Not n

> It does make you wonder what other bugs the software has though? Presumably it's not intentionally designed so that it needs rebooting periodically... Not necessarily. If the computer will never actually need to run for 51 days continuously, it may be a reasonable trade-off to require the reboot instead of writing (potentially buggy) code to handle a scenario that can be easily prevented from happening. It reminds me of this story: https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20180228-00/?p=98125 https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20180228-00/?p=98...: > I was once working with a customer who was producing on-board software for a missile. In my analysis of the code, I pointed out that they had a number of problems with storage leaks. Imagine my surprise when the customers chief software engineer said "Of course it leaks". He went on to point out that they had calculated the amount of memory the application would leak in the total possible flight time for the missile and then doubled that number. They added this much additional memory to the hardware to "support" the leaks. Since the missile will explode when it hits its target or at the end of its flight, the ultimate in garbage collection is performed without programmer intervention.