Matt Fretwell wrote:
Mark wrote:
I understood your point perfectly. Why upgrade, usingYour pitfall could easily be turned around to say: "I understand
precious time, when another upgrade may be required very shortly,
requiring said time to again be used. I am just pointing out a
pitfall. There is always a good excuse not to do something. It is,
however, exactly that. An excuse.
developers rather have clients test out the product in the field,
waiting for feedback on bugs and errors, rather than using precious time
to do more thorough pre-release testing themselves, but this is just an
excuse for not doing their own homework." It sure were nice if we could
assume the absence of laziness on either side of the fence.
Would you accept a hospital nurse telling you that they weren't going to
set your broken arm in plaster 'because it will be healed in a week or
two anyway, so you might as well just wait'? I think not.
LOL. Well, depending on the kind of break they might very well say something like that! ;-)
And yes, I will echo what Tomasz said in this regard. These gentleman|lady admins are paid to keep these systems in prime working condition, inclusive of updates for new threats or security exploits. Period. That is why they are called (I.T|Network) Administrators.
I completely agree with your point. But taken from a different perspective, this may be one reason to justify that such a product not be used in production IT environments. The point should *not* be missed that something so crucial to one's infrastructure -- that you would of course want to keep up to date -- should *require* updating on a weekly basis to solve *software* issues. Obviously, keeping signatures up to date is extremely important. But if software is so buggy that regular code upgrades are required, one really needs to start wondering why that's the case... is it for functionality enhancements, or due to quality?
_______________________________________________
http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
