[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: automatic nightly updates

On 2005-04-22 17:26:02 -0400, Joe Harrington wrote:
> If you consider that the source of your updates is the same as the
> source of your base OS, you should in principle be happy to get any
> improvements.  Regarding non-invasiveness, anything truly malicious
> wouldn't advertize itself in the update email. 

I don't think we are talking about malicious updates here, just the risk
associated with any change. No matter how careful the vendor tests the
patches, they may still break something at the customers site. Also,
some updates require a daemon to be restarted. So if you have to
guarantee a certain service level, you don't want updates to happen at
random times on your production servers. You want to test them on your
test machines first, and when you are conviced they don't break anything
you deploy them on the production servers at a time that is convenient
to you.


   _  | Peter J. Holzer \Beta means "we're down to fixing misspelled comments in
|_|_) | Sysadmin WSR     \the source, and you might run into a memory leak if 
| |   | hjp wsr ac at     \you enable embedded haskell as a loadable module and
__/   | http://www.hjp.at/ \write your plugins upside-down in lisp". --ae op5 se

Attachment: pgp00014.pgp
Description: PGP signature

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]