Dave Watts wrote: > > Well, of course, that doesn't sound like fun. However, it doesn't have to be > that way. Again, an ounce of preventative foresight is worth a pound of > patches. > > As for "auto-patching", well, count me out.
Amen. BTW, I don't think I have patched anything on our NT4 production systems since September :) Now, if only assigning a new IP wouldn't require rebooting :( The biggest problem we have is a bug in CF (confirmed) which requires me to restart the CF App Service every night. Having said that, there are some things to say for *nix e.a. A small example is that in my experience it is much more likely to be able to fix something remotely as on Windows. Also, there is a lot more choice. The difference in emphasis that developers place on what they want their OS to do are quite big. I find it hard to compare the early 2.4 Linux kernels and their memory problems with for instance OpenBSD, which focusses on security and stability. And the same goes for hardware (or does anybody want to run Windows on his Blade 1000 or his IBM mainframe?). Jochem ______________________________________________________________________ Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body or visit the list page at www.houseoffusion.com
