> Eric Rostetter wrote: > > Quoting "Pettit, Paul" <ismanager@xxxxxxxxxxx>: > > > I've read (and now re-read) the MS document, the other one > I couldn't open > > for some reason. I disagree that is what the MS document > says on security > > updates but YMMV. > > How can you disagree with it. Some excepts are: > [snip] > > I fail to see how you can comply with any of the above if you > do un-attended > automatic updates on your production machines. The above > dictate that you > can not do unattended, automatic updates on production > machines. And they > are just a small sampling of the paper, which contains many > other statements > against automated installation of updates. > In a perfect world those are great ... It's not a perfect world. It's my right to feel that what companies say and what they actually do and practice are counter to their statements. Tell me, did you ever see the word "optional" in a security alert? Re-read the "Apply updates on a needs only basis." section and let me know if you agree or disagree. > > I was going to go into another discourse on best practices > and how the real > > world works but it's not worth it. > > It is up to you to decide if it is worth your time or not to > participate. > But I don't see how you can possibly make an argument for unattended, > automatic updates on a production machine for which you don't want > unplanned downtime. This goes against everything I've ever heard or > been taught about IT Best Practices from any source. > Well on this particular issue (since it's not what I originally posted about anyway) I'll pass. I had a nice long response but then I decided that it's not really relavent to my original point. None of this really is and I refuse to be dragged into it further. > > I decided that writing up anything at the time would have > been a) circular > > filed by you or whoever got it, > > I have never done that to a single thing you've wrote. In fact, I've > responded to most of your postings (unless I knew someone > else had replied > to it before I could). > No you haven't because it's out here on the list. Oh I guess you could have moderated me but why when I was solo on my side of the discussion. Now private emails would be different, I don't know how you would deal with disagreable opinions but from my experience here it was (and is) a perfectly reasonable expectation. > > b) would not have been very objective > > That is something only you can comment on. > And I did. I know when I've lost objectivity. At least I hope I do. :) > > and c) > > your page covered all the important parts of auto-updating > and the risks > > involved. So I moved on. > > Okay. > > > Right now I'm just going to go back to lurking (save that > test I need to do) > > as it's the safest thing to do right now. > > Which is also the surest way to make sure FL doesn't improve. > If everyone > lurks, nothing will get done, and FL will fail. But you do > have the right > to do so; if you want to be a lurker, you have that right. > Doesn't that say something to you? Anything? By your own statement you point out that driving members underground will hurt FL. So when will you take heed of your own words and let people truly speak their minds? Just because 1 person disagrees doesn't mean it's an attack. Lighten up. > > You have the keys to the car (or at least one set) and if I > or anyone should > > say "it might be best to turn left" and you turn right we > all are just along > > for the ride. > > Exactly, for both you and me. > > -- > Eric Rostetter > I'm glad you agree that it's time to listen to others. Let's hope you mean it. Paul Pettit CTO and IS Manager Consistent Computer Bargains Inc. I've heard it said that the proof of lunacy is when you repeat the same steps expecting different results. I say it's proof that you're a Microsoft user. - comment by deshi777 on experts-exchange.com -- fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
