Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!know!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!ucsd!dog.ee.lbl.gov!me10.lbl.gov!milburn
From: milburn@me10.lbl.gov (John Milburn)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.hp
Subject: Re: Software patches
Message-ID: <7542@dog.ee.lbl.gov>
Date: 10 Oct 90 15:57:46 GMT
References: <24818@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU>
Sender: usenet@dog.ee.lbl.gov
Reply-To: JEMilburn@lbl.gov (John Milburn)
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA
Lines: 27
X-Local-Date: Wed, 10 Oct 90 08:57:46 PDT

In the referenced article bb@palmetto.cis.ufl.edu (Brian Bartholomew) writes:
>In article <5570507@hpfcdc.HP.COM> rer@hpfcdc.HP.COM (Rob Robason) writes:


>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?

This is perhaps an overreaction. One of the things which sets HP
appart from most other vendors is their extensive QA of released
products. I believe the hesitation which Rob expressed comes from the
fact that these patches have not been qualified through the complete
test suite for an OS release. His point about possible interactions
between patches is quite valid. It is certainly never intentional
that patches would have some effect upon another part of the system,
but in a system as complex as unix, you are never completely sure.

I don't intend to appear as an apologist for hp (despite the
quote in Unix Today :-} ), but I think the concerns expressed
are valid, and that your response is somewhat over-critical.

-jem

-- 
JEMilburn@lbl.gov  ...!ucbvax!lbl.gov!JEMilburn