As a customer the current approach to supporting later versions is better. There is an element of risk introduced with this approach in the sense that what is listed as compatible may not have been tested. This can be a headache when you run into issues, but there is a policy in place to make that information readily available as it becomes known.
The alternative is a product that only works on specific versions of products. This becomes haphazard and leads to really bad internal practices (don't patch/upgrade your db, OS, Java, Tomcat, or whatever else you use). Maintaining systems like this in a large ecosystem becomes problematic and haphazard. Every system becomes special which is impossible to properly maintain without an army of system administrators. On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Joe Martin D'Souza <jdso...@shyle.net>wrote: > With an OS, yes that may be true.. Upgrading the OS to a higher version can > potentially leave you with system libraries of a higher version, which your > current version of ARS will not be able to use.. It has happened to me once > in the past where I had to work around it by copying some of the older > system libraries and adjust the LD_LIBRARY_PATH accordingly.. But these was > a few major versions ago.. If the OS vendors since then have changed how > they deliver their upgrades, where they do not delete older system files for > a few minor, then it should not be an issue.. > > In case of MS-SQL, I recently came upon an article that they make that > database backward compatible upto 2 major versions. And that in my opinion > has begun to be a trend for a while with most vendors that manufacture most > legacy software.. > > > Joe > > -----Original Message----- From: John Doe > Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 3:00 PM Newsgroups: > public.remedy.arsystem.general > > To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG > Subject: Re: BMC Performance Matrix on ARS 7.6.04 on Different OS > > You are certainly correct. If I use Oracle 10g client it is compatible > with an Oracle 11g database, as per the matrix. But that was not the point. > My point is that simply saying that the product is compatible as long as > the vendor (Microsoft, Sun) claim backward compatibility is very > presumptuous. > > For instance, you are on Solaris 10 and decide to immediately upgrade to > Solaris 11. Assuming, since the compatibility matrix does not say it is not > compatible, it "should" work. This is very presumptuous, however allowable > based on the quotes submitted from the compatibility matrix. I would > proceed with caution. > > In the end, it is up to you. I am just offering a piece of friendly advice > from someone who has been through all the versions, all of the databases and > combinations. Including Oracle RAC on Linux. Trust me, Windows on SQL > Server is much easier than the others. BMC seems to favor testing their > product on this platform. > > Thanks and have a great day! > ______________________________**______________________________** > ___________________ > UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org > attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: "Where the Answers Are" > _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: "Where the Answers Are"
