Jeff Spaleta wrote: > On 12/5/05, Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot> wrote: >> Do you know why windows security sucks ? It's not because the patches >> does not exist, it's just that applying them has historically been so >> painful people do not bother. Why are you purposefully making yum use >> painful as well ? > > I'm really not sure why you decided to through this in...but I'll > bite. Yes or no... does Microsoft's XP auto updater understands the > difference between critical and non-critical updates and does it offer > all available updates as part of automated facility? > > Does MS's updater allow some critical updates to fail? The microsoft updates follow two modes : A fully automated B separate fixes with long explanations and detailed procedures A sometimes makes mistakes but everyone uses it. That's what yum should be B is akin to the mode you'd like people to follow when yum fails. It was MS default system for years because they didn't trust automation. And almost no one was using it because most people prefer an insecure system to one which forces them to 'investigate" problems manually all the time. Now MS force-feeds updates to everyone even if they sometimes fail, because the end result is orders of magnitudes more secure than not automating fully and expecting people to clean up manually afterwards. « Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien » as we say in French. Meaning if you always strive for perfection, you'll never achieve good enough state. Most of the times "good enough" is the right goal. On paper people investing manually every update problem is the best solution. In the actual world they won't investigate no matter what, so by striving for perfect security you're only achieving the reverse. -- Nicolas Mailhot -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
