<DA> Totally understood. This does not appear to be that sort of environment. If I read the thread correctly, things appear to be working well for the OP with auto-updating enabled, except for Internet bandwidth saturation at inopportune times. Purposefully disabling updates to vulnerable applications that are not bound to specific versions without a plan to immediately assume a managed plan to patch them is not wise at best. At worst it's potentially career limiting.
</> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Mark Liechty <[email protected]> wrote: > On Nov 16, 2015, at 6:33 AM, Richard Stovall <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Understood. I totally get that there are valid reasons to retain old > versions of Java for some very specific use cases. But Reader/Acrobat? > Chrome? And heaven forbid, Flash? > > ######### > > > I worked with a medical device company a few years ago that was very > specific about the Adobe Reader version. They have very complex QA around > any changes to the processes of any kind. Rules come from the FDA, Legal > Department and lots of other strangeness that It cannot, and should not, > control. > > It seems that at one point the PDF documents that were generated by some > other process did not display properly when looked at by the newest version > ##.### of Adobe but were perfect when using version YY.YYY since opening > these documents was required for each device as it came from assembly (had > testing results) we could not use the latest versions. > > Added to that ANY change at any point in the process required a complete > end-to-end revalidation\certification that was a very detailed process. > > So we stayed with the old versions and moved on. My last contact was 5 > years later and they still had not been able to change. What they had > worked and there was no motivation to upgrade for the sake of being “new > and shiny” > > > > >
