Re: Sun's new patch policy for Solaris 10 'software updates'! - SUN

This is a discussion on Re: Sun's new patch policy for Solaris 10 'software updates'! - SUN ; Craig Dewick writes: >Rich Teer writes: >>So people like me (hobbysists), students, small businesses who can't/ >>don't want to afford a service contract can use the Update releases >>of Solaris for $0. Solaris Express is also a $0 option, but ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Re: Sun's new patch policy for Solaris 10 'software updates'!

  1. Re: Sun's new patch policy for Solaris 10 'software updates'!

    Craig Dewick writes:

    >Rich Teer writes:


    >>So people like me (hobbysists), students, small businesses who can't/
    >>don't want to afford a service contract can use the Update releases
    >>of Solaris for $0. Solaris Express is also a $0 option, but given its
    >>pre-release status, ought not to be deployed in production.


    >Agreed.


    Apparently at this time that's not even strictly allowed according
    to the license.

    >That'll undermine the grassroots user base of Solaris on surplus hardware
    >(doesn't mean it's old hardware - could be very new but bought or acquired
    >as used), and might create a rift where we'll see Solaris ignored for
    >anything except current hardware product.


    The patch situation has returned to what it was two/three years ago.
    So I'm not sure if it is that bad.

    My question to you is: when did you last *need* a non-security patch?
    I have sporadic recollections of this, but mostly caused by bad patches
    and not GA bugs. And the quality of Solaris @ FCS has improved over time,
    IMHO.

    >True. However Sun also used to offer StarOffice for free, and they now make
    >people buy it. Perhaps that's to compete with OpenOffice, which is free and
    >open-source.


    Did we? I don't remember we ever offered StarOffice for free; it comes
    for free with Solaris, still, though.

    >Sun's probably not deliberately doing it (or perhaps they are), but it seems
    >like the current changes will turn away hobbyists, enthusiasts, students,
    >etc. from using Solaris which is still the best OS for Sun hardware in
    >general terms, but the alternative OS's have other advantages which are not
    >related to being free and open-source, such as being far less
    >'bloatware'-ish. One of the problems with Solaris is that it's so consuming
    >of system resources - there needs to be a way to limit that (customising the
    >installation can do this to some degree).


    I'm still not sure why there's such a perceived need for patches.

    Casper
    --
    Expressed in this posting are my opinions. They are in no way related
    to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
    Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
    be fiction rather than truth.

  2. Re: Sun's new patch policy for Solaris 10 'software updates'!

    In comp.unix.solaris Casper H.S. Dik wrote:
    > My question to you is: when did you last *need* a non-security patch?


    The framebuffer patches might be one example - at least in the past
    it was often highly desirable to have those in a recent revision,
    and they aren't R/S usually.

    Not having the SRSS 3.0 patch (118979-01) is quite a nuisance, as
    without it most wheel mice don't work (I see that 118979-02 is S
    as of today). Sometimes it's good that a patch gets marked S as
    a security fix is delivered in rev. 01, and you'll get all newer
    revisions, too, even if they aren't security related.

    > I have sporadic recollections of this, but mostly caused by bad patches
    > and not GA bugs. And the quality of Solaris @ FCS has improved over time,
    > IMHO.


    True, but: When I encounter a problem I usually check for a patch
    for that certain piece of software before anything else. Often it's
    already fixed. If you can't access the patch, you'll have to spend
    some time on analyzing the bug, and probably only end up by finding
    out that it's already fixed in a non-R/S patch, which you can't access.

    Overall, a frequent answer to queries on c.u.s. about obscure problems
    often is "are you up to date on patches ?" ..

    mp.
    --
    Systems Administrator | Institute of Scientific Computing | Univ. of Vienna

  3. Re: Sun's new patch policy for Solaris 10 'software updates'!

    In article <439febcf$0$11065$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>,
    Casper H.S. Dik wrote:
    >The patch situation has returned to what it was two/three years ago.


    Maybe.
    I've not yet read what patches of the old Recommended patch clusters
    would not be included under the new policy of free security, driver,
    possibly data integrety patches, and their dependencies.

    >My question to you is: when did you last *need* a non-security patch?


    The last time I installed Sun Studio.

    John
    groenveld@acm.org

  4. Re: Sun's new patch policy for Solaris 10 'software updates'!

    On Wed, 14 Dec 2005, Casper H.S. Dik wrote:

    > I'm still not sure why there's such a perceived need for patches.


    Too many people are used to the poor quality (and hence, the need
    for frequent patches) of *ahem* other operating systems.

    --
    Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member

    . * * . * .* .
    . * . .*
    President, * . . /\ ( . . *
    Rite Online Inc. . . / .\ . * .
    .*. / * \ . .
    . /* o \ .
    Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 * '''||''' .
    URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich ******************

  5. Re: Sun's new patch policy for Solaris 10 'software updates'!

    Casper H.S. Dik wrote:
    > My question to you is: when did you last *need* a non-security patch?


    If you install Sun Studio 11, does it require any non-security patches?
    What about the latest JVM?

    > I have sporadic recollections of this, but mostly caused by bad patches
    > and not GA bugs. And the quality of Solaris @ FCS has improved over time,
    > IMHO.


    Well, Solaris 2.4 wasn't too hot at FCS. ;-)

    - Logan

  6. Re: Sun's new patch policy for Solaris 10 'software updates'!

    andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk (Andrew Gabriel) writes:

    >In article <439febcf$0$11065$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>,
    > Casper H.S. Dik writes:
    >>
    >> My question to you is: when did you last *need* a non-security patch?
    >> I have sporadic recollections of this, but mostly caused by bad patches
    >> and not GA bugs. And the quality of Solaris @ FCS has improved over time,
    >> IMHO.


    >Some months back, I persaded a Linux guy to install S10 GA on
    >one of his systems. I left space for a second root filesystem
    >so I could demonstrate the wonders of Live Upgrade. Unfortunately,
    >the essential Live Upgrade patch is no longer available to him,
    >so that was the end of that. I could probably have dug out my
    >copy of it, but his enthusiasm (in so far as it ever existed)
    >vanished at that point. That was kind of a shame -- I've seen
    >a couple of other Linux zealots left somewhat gobsmacked by LU
    >in the past.



    liveupgrade patch? You mean the pkg* tools patch?


    (For live upgrade, you generally need to install the packages
    from the release you're about to upgrade too).

    Point noted.

    Casper
    --
    Expressed in this posting are my opinions. They are in no way related
    to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
    Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
    be fiction rather than truth.

  7. Re: Sun's new patch policy for Solaris 10 'software updates'!

    In comp.sys.sun.admin Logan Shaw wrote:
    > Casper H.S. Dik wrote:
    >> My question to you is: when did you last *need* a non-security patch?

    >
    > If you install Sun Studio 11, does it require any non-security patches?


    Yes. See:

    http://developers.sun.com/prodtech/c...1_patches.html

    There are four patches listed as recommended for Solaris 10/SPARC, of
    which only one is marked Security:

    % pca -a | egrep '118676|118683|117461|120753'
    117461 08 = 08 RS 7 SunOS 5.10: ld Patch
    118676 01 = 01 246 SunOS 5.10: patch for Solaris make and sccs utilities
    118683 01 = 01 197 SunOS 5.10: Patch for assembler
    120753 02 = 02 15 SunOS 5.10: Microtasking libraries (libmtsk) patch

    You can access the READMEs, but not the patches themselves. The above
    link also states:

    And remember, you can always get the latest revision of the patch
    from SunSolve.

    Which is of course only partly correct.

    Maybe the patches are included in the Studio 11 download package, but
    those will be aged in a few weeks anyway, and the newer revisions won't
    be available then.

    Giving away a piece of software for free, but holding back OS patches to
    make it work correctly (or, patches which Sun recommends) is, uhm, not
    the best thing to do.

    mp.
    --
    Systems Administrator | Institute of Scientific Computing | Univ. of Vienna

+ Reply to Thread