The problem with the wait and see approach is it is a tragedy of the commons approach. You're just outsourcing the effort to the "cloud" and hoping others are more adventurous than you are. Eventually critical mass is reached, and then even older code versions have the bugs, they last longer, and code quality gets even worse, and you can't just jump to newer code for the fixes, because they don't exist.
-Blake On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson <[email protected]>wrote: > On Thu, 23 May 2013, Jared Mauch wrote: > > That seems to be what the SE in the (now trimmed reference) was >> suggesting. I understand not everyone has lab/test hardware, but if that's >> the case how can you ever upgrade anything without risk. At some point you >> need to make that jump. >> > > I'd say the acceptable risk is different for each ISP. > > > I think the question of what that unit of measure you apply. If you want >> to wait until X bugs are fixed, I can certainly understand where x(sub)1 >> for my network may not be the same as x(sub)2 for yours. Is there a >> specific metric for number of defects you use, or is it just some >> time-based SWAG? Without the vendor getting feedback that their software >> is good (or bad), they are left with an unknown outcome for their software >> release. >> > > I'm not saying everybody should do what I say. In a perfect world vendors > would test there code properly and there would be no bugs. This is > obviously not happening so by staying behind the curve you let others run > into the bugs, they are fixed and by waiting you benefit from this. Others > might say new features are extremely important to them and they don't mind > rebooting their core boxes every 3 months to apply fixes. > > > I'm can get very frustrated with Cisco on these topics. We went a round >> with them on 4.2.2 as we depended on that release for specific hardware. >> They didn't want to support it. If that's the case, there was no point of >> the release at all, why even ship that release? (can you feel my >> frustration? :-) >> > > Absolutely. I also feel that at least the ASR9k BU seems to want to > abandon their "long-term" software after a year and stop supporting it. > This is not what I have been used to before on other platforms. > > But at least there is hope that things are improving with 4.3 and later > releases. > > > -- > Mikael Abrahamsson email: [email protected] > ______________________________**_________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/**mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp<https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp> > archive at > http://puck.nether.net/**pipermail/cisco-nsp/<http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/> > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
