On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Michael Mol <mike...@gmail.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 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. HTH, Mark
