On Saturday 29 March 2003 12:08, Guy Fraser uttered:Simantics.
Well, well, well. There you go, another pseudo system administrator. I have been supporting multiple unix platforms since 1984, and RH since 1995. The issues coming up now should be very relevant to RH. If I had to go to my boss and tell him that our low cost workstations were now going to cost $300 + $60x2 = $420 each every 2 years... the delayed fix for wine will seem like a bump in the road of my career.
The company I work for was not expecting to have constant recurring costs that were not existant when I convinced them to go with Red Hat.
Get your math right. RHEL WS is $149/y. Period. You buy RHEL WS from Red Hat and download the isos, it's $149 a year. So it's $300 every 2 years, so on and so forth.I trusted RH not to cause such a huge problem. I personaly do not do the upgrades, but it was through my encouragement that RH was installed to reduce overhead costs, when everyone who had upgraded glibc and things broke it was put on me to get the systems fixed after the other people could not get their apps that run under wine to work.
Perhaps the bigger issue here is, why did you roll out a glibc upgrade w/out testing it first? If it broke in your test environment, then you wouldn't
have had any job problems, as you never would have rolled it out across the company. Change control needs to happen, even if you're getting software updates from a trusted source. I certainly didn't allow this glibc update to be rolled out untested. Somewhere in my 3 years experience I picked that nugget up, so I would expect that in your... 19(?) years exp you would have picked it up too? Perhaps it wasn't the move to Linux thats threatened your job, rather lack of competence to properly test a major software upgrade before you rolled it out.Like I said above RH rolled the software out, and I am not responcible for updating the technicians workstations. But with the recent changes at RH the company has reluctantly purchased some entilements at my request. Having given my company the speil about how RHN was the way to go because the software goes through a QA proccess before it is released. The company is pissed that they had to forkout cash for what was free, and then within months a large percentage of the group was unable to work, that was a huge cost in salaries and customer affecting delays. Having not fully cooled down over the entitlements, then wine gets trashed...
Management was not impressed, and was looking for a scape goat.
And I hope the QA person who let glibc at RH does.
And yes, had an admin rolled out a glibc in our environment, without properly testing it (IE run it through a change control board), and had it broken critical things, the admin would have been fired on the spot.
I am sure that on Monday I will be asked to come up with an Alternative to RH even though I have fixed wine.
The errata suggests that all RH releases are affected by the change not just RH 8/9, I don't know if it affected the RHEL series.
I had not upgraded glibc any of our 3 remaining RH servers, because the security fix would not have fixed any known issues for those machines, and like you say it was not passing the test on my development machine. By the end of next month we had already planed to replace the remaining 3 RH servers with FreeBSD anyway. Two of them on Monday, the replacements have been undergoing testing for the past month and are ready for the switch.
-- Psyche-list mailing list Psyche-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/psyche-list
