On 3/17/04 1:03 AM, "Chuck Yerkes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Quoting george ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): >> On 3/16/04 6:34 PM, "Alan Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 16 Mar 2004, Chuck Yerkes wrote: >>> >>>> Why 7.2? (when 9.0 has been out forever). RedHat AS 2.0 is old and >>>> is based on 7.2. 7.2 is from 2000 or so. >>> >>> Probably the same reason we use 7.2 at $orkplace - we have a >>> standardised desktop distribution and not enough hours available to >>> assess the impact of changing it drastically. >>> >>> (We're going to have to, as a lot of newer hardware simply isn't supported) >>> >> Gota spin in- >> If the tool works, why change for the sake of change? > > Security updates, performance improvements, management improvements, support, > better tools. > Tried and true systems that have no problems should not be updated just to update and "find" new security holes. I agree if a box has issues, the first thing would be to update. No question. But, no problems = no reason. Most people know their own systems. Nowadays most people are stretched so thin it's very nice to not be updating-changing all the time and just to sit back and watch the "little lights blink" with the knowledge you know what's going on. > Change for the sake of change is bad. > Stagnation for the sake of avoiding change is also bad. > >> We just bought SuSE 9.0. >> Our other SuSE box is 7.* PPC >> apple 8550 -still kickin >> (Hardware change - [drive space & ram] from 8550) > > Yeah, I still have a working and running Apple //+ and Sun 3 here. > The SPARC 10 is running a new OpenBSD, the Pentium/90 is running > FreeBSD 5.2.1; the Athlon/900 is running Redhat 9. > We have a few Cobalt boxes, ASIP, OSXS, Yellowdog, Snap, etc. here. (No, we are not brand loyal.) All are behind firewalls. (in and out) Some are only for fileservers, some for backup, etc. Most are not running the latest and greatest. We like it that way for a few reasons. > Unsecure software is a danger to all of us. If your company > gets screwed, well that's not my problem. When your server > attacks MINE, then it's my problem. And you don't want the > feeling I had a dozen years ago when I got a call from CERT > at the company I'd just started at telling us that a couple > sites had been attacked from our computer (our big server that > could NOT be easily rebuilt). > Everyone's situation is different. To automatically jump on someone for not running what you consider acceptable OS versions do not make people what to chime in or ask questions. Our best, most stable, longest running, easiest server by far? Home/Billing office office still has ASIP 6.3.3 running 9.2. Oh, that one is not behind a firewall. Never been, from 5.0. Am I afraid? Nope. It's very well tried and true, and very EOL. End topic. -- Thanks, George "...Linux, MS-DOS, and Windows XP" (also known as the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly)
