Re: [pca] EXT : PCA is 10!

2013-09-09 Thread Nishimura, Scott L (ESS)
Happy Birthday, PCA!  What a great program, Martin!  You would think Sun would 
have just licensed your code and spent their energies on other things.  
Patching is never fun and usually tedious but PCA actually made the task 
enjoyable, at least from the standpoint of looking at the output and knowing my 
system was fully patched without having to babysit an install or trying to 
figure out what to install and in what order.

Thanks again!


Scott

-Original Message-
From: pca-boun...@lists.univie.ac.at [mailto:pca-boun...@lists.univie.ac.at] On 
Behalf Of Martin Paul
Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 4:08 AM
To: PCA (Patch Check Advanced) Discussion
Cc: pca-n...@lists.univie.ac.at
Subject: EXT :[pca] PCA is 10!

PCA is 10!

Scrolling down on the PCA-News web page, at the very bottom, one finds this 
message: 2003/09/09: First version. Introducing PCA 1.0. So it's really 10 
years now since I decided to make this script public, after I've been using it 
for some time internally. It had 208 lines at that time.

Only one day later I received the first e-mail with the subject pca 
from Andrew Brooks, which was a lot like the many messages I received in the 
next ten years:

First, he thanked for the useful script. Such comments from PCA users turned 
out to be my main motivation to maintain and refine PCA in the following years. 
So thanks to all of you who ever sent positive comments!

Second, he provided an idea (and included code) for some new function (a new 
option -H to output HTML) which I immediately decided *not* to include in the 
official version of PCA :-) In my answer I stated that I wanted to keep PCA as 
simple as possible, not depending on some URLs staying consistent on Sun's web 
page. I always liked Unix for its tradition of simple commands which can be 
used in pipes to achieve great things.

Soon other PCA users provided more and more input and I started to add new 
functions and options over the time, always weighing simplicity against 
usefulness. The option to download patches from Sun directly was probably one 
of the most useful, and the one which caused me most work in the last years. 
Sun (and later Oracle) turned the simple process of downloading a patch file 
via FTP into a complicated procedure with authentication, server redirects, 
dependencies on certain HTTP features etc. which I always had to follow closely 
to keep the download functions in PCA working. There were moments when I 
seriously thought about giving up on it.

While I knew that Sun engineers were using PCA themselves, and Sun never 
succeeded in providing a own, working patch administration tool (I would have 
been the first to switch, believe me!) they never officially acknowledged PCA, 
although it was recommended on some Sun websites and PDFs.

As I got a lot of e-mails in the meantime from admins asking about the usage of 
PCA and me answering the same questions over and over again, I created the PCA 
mailing lists (for those interested in numbers, I have
4827 messages in my folder with private PCA communication, and 3139 messages on 
the PCA mailing list - I definitely wrote more text than code). This helped a 
lot, as power users now answered the queries from beginners. I also had a lot 
more contact to the users of PCA and was fascinated in how many different ways 
and procedures it was being used. 
I also got in contact with Gerry Haskins and Don O'Malley from Sun, which made 
it a lot easier to sort out problems and to get information about the internals 
of Sun's patch creation and publication. Thanks to both of them for their help 
and patience!

With the appearance of Solaris 11 and its IPS system, traffic on the mailing 
list was reduced a lot. As PCA is not needed anymore on Solaris 11, it is now 
being used mostly by experienced admins running Solaris 10 who already know 
what they do. Personally, I also think that PCA is feature complete for quite 
some time now, and as (now) Oracle doesn't change their patch infrastructure 
anymore, new versions of PCA have been reduced to a minimum.

As far as I'm concerned, that's very welcome. While I still work with some 
Solaris systems, we're moving away from Solaris here slowly, due to the high 
prices of Oracle hardware and support. Of course I'll keep PCA working as long 
as somebody is still using it.

Finally, let me state that I'm pretty proud of what PCA turned out over the 
years - it has saved numerous sysadmins around the world uncountable hours of 
work and frustration. This compensates for all the time I invested, even if it 
was frustrating now and then when performing complicated tests to ensure PCA's 
analysis being correct or hunting for obscure bugs. Would I publish PCA 1.0 
once again if I could go back to 2003? I think so :-) If only for the amount of 
positive feedback I got over all the years.

Let me end with a quotation which is the basis of my work on PCA (and also in 
general):

Perfection is achieved, not when there is 

Re: [pca] 118666-36 118667-36

2012-02-15 Thread Nishimura, Scott L (ESS)
So maybe they should call their patches Mostly harmless...   : )

-Original Message-
From: pca-boun...@lists.univie.ac.at [mailto:pca-boun...@lists.univie.ac.at] On 
Behalf Of Glen Gunselman
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 8:24 AM
To: PCA (Patch Check Advanced) Discussion
Subject: EXT :Re: [pca] 118666-36  118667-36

I think there is another just as plausible explanation.

It appears to me that more and more the engineers who make the changes are 
less and less able to articulate the reason for those changes. Without some 
other supporting evidence I would treat them as trivial.

If the vendor expects us to treat the patches as important, then they need to 
be responsible and tell us so.   (At times we must justify an outage and we 
need Oracle's support in doing so.)

Perhaps the description, instead of just saying problem with it could say 
import problem with (just thinking of the hitch hikers guide to the galaxy 
update ...)  :)


Have a good day,
Glen

-Original Message-
From: pca-boun...@lists.univie.ac.at [mailto:pca-boun...@lists.univie.ac.at] On 
Behalf Of Martin Paul
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 9:05 AM
To: Glen Gunselman; PCA (Patch Check Advanced) Discussion
Subject: Re: [pca] 118666-36  118667-36

Jeff Wieland wrote:
 How are we supposed to figure out what priority to give to installing
 a patch when the README says:

Don O'Malley recently a long reply to a similar query by Dennis Clarke. My
interpretation was that bug reports often get shortened to problem with XXX
when Oracle doesn't want to give out information about security issues.

So the conclusion would be that any problem with XXX in a patch README means
high priority. No idea whether that's a reasonable approach.

Martin.