On 1/17/2012 3:41 PM, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 2:14 PM, P J<pauljfli...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Thanks for the feedback guys, I agree about best practices but it's nice to >> get direct feedback from your peers. > In general it is very, very rare for an update to break anything - > after all that is the whole point of the 'enterprise' distribution and > it is well tested upstream. However, it is still possible, especially > if you have local apps and modifications, and it is very difficult to > back out any changes the updates make so it is always best to test on > a similar system before making changes on a production box where > downtime would be a problem. For boxes that are internet exposed, > I'd consider it more dangerous to go for long intervals with no > updates than to auto-update, though.
That's what I meant hen I said I thought it would be better for CentOS to have auto-updates enabled by default out of the box. Power users can always change the defaults. But for all the servers where the admin neglects the server or doesn't know enough to change it -- YES people can pontificate all they want about how those people shouldn't be server admins -- but the fact being that those servers are out there, it would seem less risky to have auto-updates turned on than to have no updates at all. Bennett _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
