To: js1138
That may be true for windows boxes, but there is no reason to ignore patching a linux box. There is not the risk of breakage that exists with windows patches.
25 posted on
07/13/2004 5:52:13 PM PDT by
HipShot
(All of our ammunition should be dipped in pig fat)
To: HipShot
No large corporation installs patches simply because they're available. Lots of patches are of no consequense whatsoever, and don't justify the risk of downtime.
I live in an SBS world and my servers are naked to the world. I install all updates, but not the first day they're out.
26 posted on
07/13/2004 5:57:48 PM PDT by
js1138
(In a minute there is time, for decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse. J Forbes Kerry)
To: HipShot
There is not the risk of breakage that exists with windows patches.
Developers introduce unintentional and/or incidental regressions (aka bugs that break previously working functionality) all the time. Consequently, a decision to patch isn't based merely upon whether the patch is available and whether it can be installed with other components. Regression of functionality has to be a major consideration.
35 posted on
07/14/2004 12:17:48 PM PDT by
Bush2000
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson