Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!uflorida!palmetto.cis.ufl.edu!bb
From: bb@palmetto.cis.ufl.edu (Brian Bartholomew)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.hp
Subject: Re: Software patches
Message-ID: <24818@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU>
Date: 10 Oct 90 03:03:13 GMT
References: <18@gauss.mmlai.UUCP> <5570507@hpfcdc.HP.COM>
Sender: news@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU
Organization: UF CIS Dept.
Lines: 62

In article <5570507@hpfcdc.HP.COM> rer@hpfcdc.HP.COM (Rob Robason) writes:

>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.

Agreed.

>    Note too that SEs are often as in-the-dark about existing patches as
>    you are.  

This is one of the main problems under discussion in this group.  I am
glad that someone from HP has finally admitted it.  Perhaps now it can
be corrected.

>              If you had access to such a list, would you be inclined to
>    install all or most of the patches?  I think I would.

Of course; I would install each and every problem fix I could get my
hands on.  I want the most correct and complete operating system I can
get.  That's what I am paying for.  Would a car owner turn down a
warranty repair on the brakes, for any reason?

>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.

This is the most damning admission I have heard on this group in
several months.  You have admitted that HP can not even keep their own
bug fixes straight in their own house.  Further, if HP is not
confident enough in their own repairs to known they will work with
their own software, then they aren't really repairs, now are they?

Perhaps in the HP-UX technical support sales literature, HP should
mention that the customer may have his choice of known bugs; but by
company policy, in no case shall he be allowed to have a system
completely free of bugs.  Now that I read that again, perhaps it
should be moved to the Sales Manual for the technical support
managers...

>Rob Robason


"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Bartholomew	UUCP:       ...gatech!uflorida!matrix.math.ufl.edu!bb
University of Florida	Internet:   bb@matrix.math.ufl.edu
--
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Bartholomew	UUCP:       ...gatech!uflorida!matrix.math.ufl.edu!bb
University of Florida	Internet:   bb@matrix.math.ufl.edu