Matt Fretwell wrote:
Bill Taroli wrote:
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 infrastructu
The windows nasty business is a very dynamic world. The frequent releases
are mostly responses to these changes.
Thanks for a great job !
John Phillips
I remember when FLYING was FUN and TV was FREE.
On Fri, 13 May 2005, Bill Taroli wrote:
> Matt Fretwell wrote:
>
> > Mark wrote:
> >
> >
>
Bill Taroli wrote:
> 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
Nigel Horne wrote:
On Fri, 2005-05-13 at 18:20, Daniel J McDonald wrote:
On Fri, 2005-05-13 at 10:11 -0700, Bill Taroli wrote:
Matt Fretwell wrote:
I completely agree with your point. But taken from a different
perspective, this may be one reason to justify that such a product not
On Fri, 2005-05-13 at 18:20, Daniel J McDonald wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-05-13 at 10:11 -0700, Bill Taroli wrote:
> > Matt Fretwell wrote:
>
> > 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 pr
On Fri, 2005-05-13 at 10:11 -0700, Bill Taroli wrote:
> Matt Fretwell wrote:
> 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
Matt Fretwell wrote:
Mark wrote:
I understood your point perfectly. Why upgrade, using
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, exac
Samuel Benzaquen wrote:
> That is why they are called (I.T|Network) Administrators.
> >
>
> Your are right. We are paid.
> Our time is company money and if the product needs too much Admin time,
> then it is not that _gratis_ as we presented it to our bosses in the
> first place.
Nothing is tru
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Matt Fretwell
> 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 sec
Gee, my own little flame war. Not my intention when I asked the
original question. Here's how my thoughts went:
1. The developers obviously thought that the changes since 0.84 were
significant enough to release a new version, and obviously hoped that
people would upgrade to 0.85.
2. Sin
Mark wrote:
> > I understood your point perfectly. Why upgrade, using
> > 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
Phil wrote:
> Thats fine and dandy when you only have one box to upgrade. I think
> the original question is valid. .84 lasted what? Week and a half,
> maybe two.
Only too recently, I myself have argued in favor of a short waiting period
before upgrading -- precisely to avoid your typical "oopse
On May 12, 2005, at 10:56 AM, Nigel Horne wrote:
Ok, your better than me. Still didn't get my point though and I
don't have a we to do it.
You could always employ me to do it for you...
You get me clients to understand why they need to pay bi-weekly for
upgrades, I will. ;-)
Phil
Matt Fretwell wrote:
> not do do something
That should have been, 'not to do something'.
Matt
___
http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
Phil Schilling wrote:
> > Finding time to do anything is not easy. We still cope :)
> Ok, your better than me. Still didn't get my point though and I
> don't have a we to do it.
I understood your point perfectly. Why upgrade, using precious time, when
another upgrade may be required very
> with testing on each, it does take a little but of that "free time". :)
Well, you can employ me as well ;-)
> Rob
-Nigel
___
http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
> Ok, your better than me. Still didn't get my point though and I
> don't have a we to do it.
You could always employ me to do it for you...
> Phil
-Nigel
___
http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
> Phil Schilling wrote:
>
> > > Not the most taxing of procedures.
>
>
> > Point still missed. I never said it was hard. But 2 hours of time to
> > upgrade and test all boxes is not easy to come by.
Phil, do not feel alone. There are many of us that have the same type of
question in the sam
On May 12, 2005, at 10:43 AM, Matt Fretwell wrote:
Phil Schilling wrote:
Not the most taxing of procedures.
Point still missed. I never said it was hard. But 2 hours of time to
upgrade and test all boxes is not easy to come by.
Finding time to do anything is not easy. We still cope :)
Ok, you
Phil Schilling wrote:
> > Not the most taxing of procedures.
> Point still missed. I never said it was hard. But 2 hours of time to
> upgrade and test all boxes is not easy to come by.
Finding time to do anything is not easy. We still cope :)
Matt
On May 12, 2005, at 10:04 AM, Matt Fretwell wrote:
Jason Frisvold wrote:
On 5/12/05, Phil Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thats fine and dandy when you only have one box to upgrade. I think
the original question is valid. .84 lasted what? Week and a half,
maybe two. And yes I am a contribu
Phil Schilling wrote:
On May 12, 2005, at 8:48 AM, Kenneth Byrne wrote:
Upgrading took me less than 5 minutes earlier this morning (including
configure/make times on a RH3 box running postfix+amavisd), while the
number
of fixes may look small its always wise to run the most recent
releases.. if
Jason Frisvold wrote:
> On 5/12/05, Phil Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Thats fine and dandy when you only have one box to upgrade. I think
> > the original question is valid. .84 lasted what? Week and a half,
> > maybe two. And yes I am a contributor.
>
> I package it in an RPM and
On 5/12/05, Phil Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thats fine and dandy when you only have one box to upgrade. I think
> the original question is valid. .84 lasted what? Week and a half,
> maybe two. And yes I am a contributor.
I package it in an RPM and use up2date (or preferred rpm handl
On May 12, 2005, at 8:48 AM, Kenneth Byrne wrote:
Upgrading took me less than 5 minutes earlier this morning (including
configure/make times on a RH3 box running postfix+amavisd), while
the number
of fixes may look small its always wise to run the most recent
releases.. if
only because it means
Upgrading took me less than 5 minutes earlier this morning (including
configure/make times on a RH3 box running postfix+amavisd), while the number
of fixes may look small its always wise to run the most recent releases.. if
only because it means the next version change is then a smaller hop away.
26 matches
Mail list logo
