Mark wrote: > > I understood your point perfectly. Why upgrade, using > > precious time, when another upgrade may be required very shortly, > > requiring said time to again be used. I am just pointing out a > > pitfall. There is always a good excuse not to do something. It is, > > however, exactly that. An excuse. > > Your pitfall could easily be turned around to say: "I understand > developers rather have clients test out the product in the field, > waiting for feedback on bugs and errors, rather than using precious time > to do more thorough pre-release testing themselves, but this is just an > excuse for not doing their own homework." It sure were nice if we could > assume the absence of laziness on either side of the fence.
Actually, it cannot be turned around in that fashion. Whilst, I will agree, there are occasions when something may crop up due to improper or lapsadaisical testing, to expect a Dev team to own every configuration of (hardware|software) upon which their programme will inevitably end up running is beyond any reasonable bounds of expectancy. Whilst I do agree with you on the testing thoroughly before putting into production, at the cost of losing efficacy for a few days, there is no reason to hold off updating for the simple fact that there 'may' be another version around the corner. Would you accept a hospital nurse telling you that they weren't going to set your broken arm in plaster 'because it will be healed in a week or two anyway, so you might as well just wait'? I think not. And yes, I will echo what Tomasz said in this regard. These gentleman|lady admins are paid to keep these systems in prime working condition, inclusive of updates for new threats or security exploits. Period. That is why they are called (I.T|Network) Administrators. Matt _______________________________________________ http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
