> Dennis Clarke wrote:
>> I guess really the question is, can MOS and Oracle be trusted to provide a
>> kernel patch that won't make things far worse?
>
> I can't answer that, but I agree in that the bug descriptions
> have become pretty useless recently (since Oracle took over?).
> Like revision 04 of 145080 ("SunOS 5.10: Firefox 3 patch") which
> reads:
>
> Problem Description:
> 7030533 problem with Firefox browser
>
> Never would've guessed that the patch for firefox would fix a
> problem with firefox.
>
> Martin.
Well I am fine with "problem with NFS - see bugid 6549871" if
and only if the bugid offers some clear information. What we
have now is a production OS where the patch updates to something
minor, like the kernel, are a total mystery. I don't like "magic"
patches and mystery bugids.
It seems clear to me that no one is at the helm of the software
maintenance ship and certainly there is no quality control anymore
in the Solaris OS department.
In truth I have no idea what bugids were addressed in the recent
kernel patch and some of the bugids I do see are from bug reports
filed back in 2004 and 2005.
https://supporthtml.oracle.com/ep/faces/secure/km/BugDisplay.jspx?id=6216670
On the other hand some bugids are perfect and even have source code :
https://supporthtml.oracle.com/ep/faces/secure/km/BugDisplay.jspx?id=4491376
https://supporthtml.oracle.com/ep/faces/secure/km/BugDisplay.jspx?id=7030516
Anyway, I am just really frustrated with the way Oracle has handled
a world class OS. Seriously, do they do this with Oracle Database too?
Dennis
--
--
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=0x1D936C72FA35B44B
+-------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Dennis Clarke | Solaris and Linux and Open Source |
| [email protected] | Respect for open standards. |
+-------------------------+-----------------------------------+
