Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ssbell!dsndata!wayne From: wayne@dsndata.uucp (Wayne Schlitt) Newsgroups: comp.sys.hp Subject: Re: Software patches Message-ID: Date: 10 Oct 90 16:56:25 GMT References: <18@gauss.mmlai.UUCP> <5570507@hpfcdc.HP.COM> <24818@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> Sender: wayne@dsndata.UUCP Organization: Design Data Lines: 77 In-reply-to: bb@palmetto.cis.ufl.edu's message of 10 Oct 90 03:03:13 GMT In article <24818@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> bb@palmetto.cis.ufl.edu (Brian Bartholomew) writes: > > 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. [ ... ] the most "correct and complete operating system" is the one that correctly runs your programs. if it aint broke, whatcha gonna fix? > > >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. [ .... ] > > 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... uuuh, gee. have you ever tried to QA a large software system? do you know of any operating system that has _ZERO_ bugs? how can HP try to get bug fixes to critical problems out _quickly_ and still QA all the possible configurations? i used to be a sysadmin at a large IBM mainframe site. IBM has a very elaborate system to handle patches, tracking which patches you have installed, what optional products you have, which patches work with which other patches and which products, what versions of the operating system and products you were running, etc, etc, etc. it was all very nice and worked quite well as long as you kept up to date on the patches, applying only the ones that you needed in order to fix the problems you were having and had a good sysadmin to keep things running smoothly. we had one person who's major job duty was to apply patches. it took a fair while to learn how to use their patch system and IBM obviously put a lot of work into it. IBM also puts a lot of work into making things work right the first time, but asking for zero defects _and_ quick turnaround on new features, _and_ support of new hardware, _and_ backwards compatibility is asking for a lot. if _I_ had a complete list of patches available, i would apply _only_ the patches that would save me more time that it costs me to apply them. i have real work to do, and appling patches for things that dont effect me is just a waste of time. > [ ... ] That's what I am paying for. Would a car owner turn down a > warranty repair on the brakes, for any reason? sure, if i got a recall notice that my brakes on my car needed repair work, i would do it. but car companies never let you upgrade from your 1987 model to the current 1991 modem. car companies dont give you anywhere near as many options to a base model. sorry, in this one case i have to side with HP's. in my opinion, HP puts out some of the most solid hardware and software that i have ever seen. our unix box crashed yesterday, and i was shocked. it's the first time in over a year. i never had so few problems with any other system i have seen. not letting patches out to everyone probably helps a great deal. -wayne