----- Crookedmaze <themazed...@gmail.com> [2013-02-10 07:33:34 -0600] ----- :
> This makes me a little nervous and I think I would rather just follow > release with errata patches or just follow stable. OK, System > Administrator I see what you mean by overhead now, now that I think about > it I am starting to see what you mean by undue burdon (why would you add > something new if what is being used right now works just fine?) I will > have to have a look at marc.info and see what I can find on the topic on > binary updates there also. Nick your right I should stop trying to make > OpenBSD like FreeBSD or Linux, in all honestly I don't really mind the > current update process, really the only actual "problem" I have had with > it is simply that if you had multiple servers running OpenBSD > (eg if you had 200 servers why would you build the patch on all 200 of > them) but the tool Brian suggested I look at looked promising in that > it looks like you could just apply the patch on a single system build a > package and have all the other servers install the package. > Nick I also agree with you that there is > a certain "simple elegance" about OpenBSD its actually one of my > favorite things about OpenBSD in that it is secure by default > and the installer for it is great because I can install OpenBSD > in about 3 minutes (as opposed to 20-30+ minutes on others) > not to mention all the time I would normally have to spend > hardening the system post install. With OpenBSD its just a matter > of checking the errata page. Whilst I understand your concern, I can confirm that since using snapshots for the last 4 months I have had completely functional and stable systems. I have yet to come across an issue that i've needed to manually get involved with fixing. I can highly recommend using snapshots. Of course, there's the choice so you can stick with what you feel most comfortable with. -- Primary Key: 4096R/1D31DC38 2011-12-03 Key Fingerprint: A4B9 E875 A18C 6E11 F46D B788 BEE6 1251 1D31 DC38
