From: abstine@toy4x4.visix.com (Art Stine)
Subject: Re: Unix Review review of Alpha/OSF
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 21:02:08 GMT
Reply-To: abstine@visix.com
Organization: Visix Software Inc.
Followup-To: abstine@visix.com


In article <1993Jan20.194415.17508@decuac.dec.com>, rye@scmbrd.dco.dec.com (Bill Rye) writes:
>
|>It all boils down to legalities.  If the patches are FTPable, then ANYONE
|>that has internet access could get at them.  Thus is a patch shows up for
|>sendmail, maybe there is a bug in sendmail that allows root access to
|>everyone, and someone attacks it.  Is DEC responsible?  Lawyers say, "Don't
|>do it!"
|>
|>What if a patch is only to be used in a certain situation and some admin
|>copies and installs them all.  Two days later the system crashes and all
|>information on every disk is lost, who is responsible?
|>

how is that different than a sysadmin getting a tape with the patch and the
instructions which say 'Only apply this if... blah blah blah' and he installs
it anyway? I think DEC is assuming that all their customers are stupid and
can't read instructions. For those of us who know what we're doing, let
us have the patches over the net; for those who aren't comfortable with
it, wait (and wait) to get the tape or have the problem 'fixed in the
next major release'. And besides, anyone who trusts patches and system
updates on tapes that much that they don't do a full backup BEFORE applying
them is just asking for trouble. I don't see any diff to getting them on
tape or over the net, except that: 1) it costs DEC less to distribute over
the net 2) we can get it alot quicker...

|>The list goes on and on, but it is mainly the lawyers who are concerned
|>as I see it. By having you call to get the patches, they can restrict
|>your access in order to keep you from shooting yourself.  Although I feel
|>any admin worth having is capable of preventing the above senarios,
|>there still is the potential of a law suit.
|>

Again, the assumption is that we're too stupid to manage our own systems
and need to have own hands held to the utmost. Can't these things be
distributed with a >>disclaimer<<? Isn't there still the same potential
of a lawsuit for patches that one gets via calling in (in terms of
it destroying data)?

|>Sales might not like the idea of customers seeing the number of patches
|>there to a particular OS.  Might make the customer leary if the number is
|>high.
|>

Does the sales force @ DEC think they are fooling customers into thinking that
DEC software products are bug-free by not admitting that patches are available?
Or does the customer just find out the truth after they've bought the product
and tries to get patches for problems in the software?

Again, I think the overriding assumption DEC is making about its customer base 
is that we're naive or ignorant or both.

|>
|>Hopefully this will change some day, but until then ...
|>

Until then, customers will keep swearing at DEC and not swearing by them...

-art stine
software engineer
visix software inc
abstine@visix.com

Disclaimer: I do not speak not Visix in any way, shape or form. My rhetoric
            is my own...
Xref: sparky comp.sys.dec:7075 comp.unix.ultrix:9439