Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!sdd.hp.com!hp-pcd!hpfcso!hpfcdc!rer From: rer@hpfcdc.HP.COM (Rob Robason) Newsgroups: comp.sys.hp Subject: Re: Software patches Message-ID: <5570507@hpfcdc.HP.COM> Date: 9 Oct 90 14:34:59 GMT References: <18@gauss.mmlai.UUCP> Organization: HP Fort Collins, Co. Lines: 33 tony> How about a SHORT unbound list of available patches instead? I can see two sides to this: 1) I agree that it is a waste of time to have every customer troubleshoot the same problem and isolate it to HP software. I too think that it would be nice if there was a list of patches with sufficient description to know if one applied to a current problem. Note too that SEs are often as in-the-dark about existing patches as you are. If you had access to such a list, would you be inclined to install all or most of the patches? I think I would. 2) What happens if a customer chooses a standard procedure of installing every patch that HP makes available? Patches are really intended, and QA'ed, for installation on a "standard" released system. There may be unexpected interaction between two or more patches. We would like to limit patch distribution to those who must have them to reduce the risk of introducing unexpected interactions between these patches. The last thing we want to do is have a critical problem introduced at a customer installation because of a patch; for one thing it is immensely more difficult to isolate on a non-standard (i.e. patched) system. I think this is at least one reason for our reluctance to give these patches to everyone. The bottom line is that I think it would be useful to provide a list of patches for customers to check, even if you still have to call the response center to get one. Caveat: My personal opinion is not a statement on behalf of HP, it's just my personal opinion (and worth every penny you paid for it :-). Rob Robason