| 1 |
On 29 Oct 2009, at 14:59, James wrote: |
| 2 |
> Stroller <stroller <at> stellar.eclipse.co.uk> writes: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> I think that alternative methods of approaching system administration |
| 6 |
>> are sure to bring their own problems and require an investment of |
| 7 |
>> time |
| 8 |
>> to implement, but I don't see how upgrading machines one by one is |
| 9 |
>> sustainable. Honestly, it would be driving me crazy to be in your |
| 10 |
>> position, and I think some other alternative might well show time and |
| 11 |
>> hassle saved once it's up and running. |
| 12 |
> ... |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Thanks for the unecessary tongue lashing. |
| 15 |
> The systems rarely are at my location. I just cannot upgrade them |
| 16 |
> at my decision, as they belong to others. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Some of the machines I do not physically get for 6 months at a time. |
| 20 |
> ... |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I didn't intend to give you a tongue-lashing, and I'm sorry if I |
| 23 |
offended you. I was just trying to help and suggest a better way. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Obviously, I didn't know that the machines are in diverse locations, |
| 26 |
and obviously that makes a unified strategy impossible. I fear there's |
| 27 |
very little you can do, except log in remotely and regularly, |
| 28 |
allowing you to minimise update hassles and become familiar with |
| 29 |
issues as they are current. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Stroller. |
Archives