On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Mark Knecht <markkne...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Michael Mol <mike...@gmail.com> wrote: > <SNIP> >> >> Because, in this case, the hardware, which is unreplaceable, went tits >> up. Meaning it no longer works. It can't be replaced, and they're SOL >> until they get the software ported forward. Their remaining hardware >> of the same vintage had already died on them, and they didn't have any >> migration path or hedge set up. >> >> Other reasons--and this is why I *loathe* unnuanced "if it works, >> don't touch it" mentalities--include security updates and migration >> difficulty in the event of *necessity* of upgrades. >> > > I sympathize with the hardware dieing, but one could argue (IMHO > anyway) that that is as much a management problem on their part, or > those supporting them, as it is an issue with the kernel. If someone > is running a system which is critical and isn't planing for how to get > new copies of the system or move forward to new hardware over time, > then they are painted into a corner.
I fully concur. IME, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" is a large underlying driver for how people paint themselves into those corners. Management's (and a terribly high number of sysadmins') definition of 'broke' doesn't include 'can I recover if it gets hit by lightning tomorrow?' > > I can pretty much promise you that one area likely to get LOTS of > attention in this kernel series IS security updates, at least if they > are kernel based security issues. That a major reason, if not the #1 > reason, that this series of kernels exists. And I think that's excellent; I wasn't even aware of them until today. -- :wq
