On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 2:51 AM, Svein Skogen <sv...@stillbilde.net> wrote: > On 05.07.2010 06:12, Fredrich Maney wrote: >> On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 12:03 PM, Edward Ned Harvey >> <solar...@nedharvey.com> wrote: >>> It is free. So people should not be expecting supportability or perfection. >>> It's very agile to development and change. >> >> I agree, however that opinion doesn't seem to be universal. Otherwise, >> we wouldn't keep seeing so many people on these lists whining about >> OpenSolaris support for their production environment, would we? > > Would be possible, just using your imagination, to see why someone might > be _VERY_ reluctant to connect a system they cannot access > security-patches for to the internet at all?
Ignoring the condescension, yes, I can certainly understand a person having a certain reluctance to connecting an unpatched system to the Internet. Then again, I also find the idea of running Production processes on unpatched/unsupported systems to be rather disquieting. There are, of course, exceptions - for example, I see no problem with running DNS, MX, NTP, Firewall, Proxy or Web services on non-vendor supported systems utilizing BIND, Sendmail, Apache and the like because those systems are generally stripped down, minimized, hardened and replicated. They are easy to rebuild or replace and generally do not contain a lot of sensitive data that would be difficult to replace. Major application and database servers where outages can cost the company huge sums of money or even put it out of business, are a whole different kettle of fish. fpsm _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
