From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1R8cTm-00048L-6a for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 18:34:06 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8888E21C2E4; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 18:33:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-bw0-f53.google.com (mail-bw0-f53.google.com [209.85.214.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D910121C0FC for ; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 18:33:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: by bkbzt12 with SMTP id zt12so9202523bkb.40 for ; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 11:33:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=eK8QWXJMnJS+L8WDx89fvv4VxaVS5ilCT0bZvroLQ5s=; b=vNPXlUYxJRSsX/Txq3fcsUdYwXSc4tb+kY5aq9KZv0Pp2VDA1EhCGhlQLGPMLFoO7G dr7/95rlpBbo7HV2qTWCRrjAqJp+IzbG3QPWLlyOqKxgDoUYJR2vkL1368zAoK6Fil6C RsNe6z+hmR4NxEwAKtJdLDJKiqp6kQQme53/8= Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.135.72 with SMTP id m8mr5344408bkt.389.1317148382010; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 11:33:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.177.199 with HTTP; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 11:33:01 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <4E80D466.7010804@coolmail.se> <1331399.V0JPsD72Y5@localhost> <6524150.hJIs8EZsLC@localhost> Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 14:33:01 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Slightly OT but interesting nonetheless... From: Michael Mol To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 66d0ce11897550a364e41f5f073b5b17 On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Mark Knecht wrote: > On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Michael Mol wrote: > >> >> Because, in this case, the hardware, which is unreplaceable, went tits >> up. Meaning it no longer works. It can't be replaced, and they're SOL >> until they get the software ported forward. Their remaining hardware >> of the same vintage had already died on them, and they didn't have any >> migration path or hedge set up. >> >> Other reasons--and this is why I *loathe* unnuanced "if it works, >> don't touch it" mentalities--include security updates and migration >> difficulty in the event of *necessity* of upgrades. >> > > I sympathize with the hardware dieing, but one could argue (IMHO > anyway) that that is as much a management problem on their part, or > those supporting them, as it is an issue with the kernel. If someone > is running a system which is critical and isn't planing for how to get > new copies of the system or move forward to new hardware over time, > then they are painted into a corner. I fully concur. IME, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" is a large underlying driver for how people paint themselves into those corners. Management's (and a terribly high number of sysadmins') definition of 'broke' doesn't include 'can I recover if it gets hit by lightning tomorrow?' > > I can pretty much promise you that one area likely to get LOTS of > attention in this kernel series IS security updates, at least if they > are kernel based security issues. That a major reason, if not the #1 > reason, that this series of kernels exists. And I think that's excellent; I wasn't even aware of them until today. -- :wq