On 2005-04-22 17:26:02 -0400, Joe Harrington wrote: > If you consider that the source of your updates is the same as the > source of your base OS, you should in principle be happy to get any > improvements. Regarding non-invasiveness, anything truly malicious > wouldn't advertize itself in the update email. I don't think we are talking about malicious updates here, just the risk associated with any change. No matter how careful the vendor tests the patches, they may still break something at the customers site. Also, some updates require a daemon to be restarted. So if you have to guarantee a certain service level, you don't want updates to happen at random times on your production servers. You want to test them on your test machines first, and when you are conviced they don't break anything you deploy them on the production servers at a time that is convenient to you. hp -- _ | Peter J. Holzer \Beta means "we're down to fixing misspelled comments in |_|_) | Sysadmin WSR \the source, and you might run into a memory leak if | | | hjp@xxxxxxxxx \you enable embedded haskell as a loadable module and __/ | http://www.hjp.at/ \write your plugins upside-down in lisp". --ae@xxxxxx
Attachment:
pgpgAVL3dqZca.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
