On Mon, 2007-03-05 at 17:32 -0800, Tracy R Reed wrote: > > So which is better? Constantly upgrading and risking things breaking all > the time? > > Or holding back and only upgrading when really necessary? >
I've always waited and only updated when necessary. Let everyone else be the beta testers, I'll upgrade when the bugs are worked out. I subscribe to the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." crowd. My server at home has been running RH 9 since...well, since RH 9.1 was released. It's never been broke, so I haven't fixed it, and upgrading it would have broke many things that I relied upon. It's time now though, with the time change, to "fix it". I'll be upgrading it this week to Fedora 5 (that's right, 5, not 6). As for our servers, etc. The only thing we are concerned with are those that are running version control that is time-sensitive. Also some database systems that rely upon accurate time fields. Other than that, the time being off until an admin manually fixes it (or the system otherwise gets an update) is no big deal. PGA -- Paul G. Allen BSIT/SE Owner/Sr. Engineer Random Logic Consulting www.randomlogic.com -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
