Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Slightly OT but interesting nonetheless...

[Michael Mol]

On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Mark Knecht <markknecht@×××××.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Michael Mol <mikemol@×××××.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