On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Bryan Allen <[email protected]> wrote: > +------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > | On 2010-02-14 11:34:54, Daniel Carosone wrote: > | > | This is completely bogus (the thread, not picking on the comments > | above in particular). > | > | Why should only production machines be secure? > > Agreed. > > If Microsoft didn't offer security updates for free, the Internet would be an > even worse place than it currently is. > > All systems _should_ have access to security updates. How those updates are > delivered to users, and whether or not there's an associated price, is hard to > say. There are valid arguments on either side, given the cost of testing and > deployment. > > (I would suggest that not looking like total incompentents to everyone else > might be a good enough arguement for providing free security patches to all > users.)
Even Cisco of all organizations, provides that to non-contract customers. Does Oracle want to imply that they don't want to make the investment in security? It's fine if to drop old platforms, but by all means don't hold Oracle boxes hostage for security updates. > As a Solaris administrator who migrated his shop entirely from Linux two years > ago, I'm quite happy to pay for reliablity fixes (if I need them) to the > operating system I use completely for free; I'd even be happy to pay for > security updates for Solaris 10, if the pricing were a little more .. > particular. > > All that said: Use does not imply ownership. Oracle can do whatever they want. That doesn't mean that Oracle should be given a pass at it. I'd sure like to know what precedents they've thought of when making this decision. Finally, it's quite telling that they didn't make a wide announcement. _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
