Patch availability change
in [Solaris]
|
Prev: <Beginner Question> - lu /sst
Next: difference between sun cluster "/dev/did" and "/dev/global" devices
From: jimp on 10 Feb 2010 14:06 Tim Bradshaw <tfb(a)tfeb.org> wrote: > On 2010-02-10 17:41:40 +0000, jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com said: > >> Has anyone else noticed that a lot of patches that used to be public are >> now contract only? > > There were changes to patch availability some time ago, which were > mostly enforcing rules which were not previously being enforced. In > some cases I think things are still available without a contract *but* > you now need a sunsolve login (or whatever it is called now) to get > them. Yeah, I know and have a sunsolve login. This just started happening this week. > I don't think it's unreasonable for Sun/Oracle to try and make money > from support for the software they give away for free, actually. That > kind of is the OSS business model isn't it (when it's not "Collect > underpants", "?", "Profit")? Yeah, I understand that but there needs to be a reasonable balance for patches. For example, if patches for something that could cause the system to halt at 3AM aren't readily available, they are shooting themselves in the foot. Also, the current support plans offered seem like something out of the big iron mainframe days. Why, for example, does the number of CPU's matter for OS updates? IMHO if there was a simple OS support plan that allowed for filing bug reports electronically, patch download, no handholding, and was on the order of $100/yr, I would think they would sell a LOT of them. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply.
From: Chris Ridd on 10 Feb 2010 14:43 On 2010-02-10 18:55:14 +0000, John D Groenveld said: > In article <7tgc7lFa2nU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > Chris Ridd <chrisridd(a)mac.com> wrote: >> The recommended patch clusters for Solaris 10 x86 were not publicly >> accessible when I looked a week or so back. > > My Sun Online Account is bound to contracts so I can't test, > but the last time someone here complained they were able to > get those patches if not the tarball with Martin Paul's PCA. > <URL:http://www.par.univie.ac.at/solaris/pca/> Using pca+patchdiag.xref I was only able to get earlier versions of patches marked as recommended and/or security. Typically I could only get version n-1, when version n was current according to pca+patchdiag.xref. This was consistent with navigating Sunsolve's patch finder in Firefox. n-1 was public, but n was not. I assume there's a sane relationship between the versions of recommended patches and the recommended patch cluster? I couldn't get the recommended patch cluster to find out! -- Chris
From: Ian Collins on 10 Feb 2010 15:02 jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > Tim Bradshaw <tfb(a)tfeb.org> wrote: > >> I don't think it's unreasonable for Sun/Oracle to try and make money >> from support for the software they give away for free, actually. That >> kind of is the OSS business model isn't it (when it's not "Collect >> underpants", "?", "Profit")? > > Yeah, I understand that but there needs to be a reasonable balance for > patches. > > For example, if patches for something that could cause the system to halt > at 3AM aren't readily available, they are shooting themselves in the foot. If I had a system that had to be running at 3AM, I'd make sure I had a support contract! > Also, the current support plans offered seem like something out of the > big iron mainframe days. > > Why, for example, does the number of CPU's matter for OS updates? > > IMHO if there was a simple OS support plan that allowed for filing bug > reports electronically, patch download, no handholding, and was on the > order of $100/yr, I would think they would sell a LOT of them. That's what they used to have, the basic plan was $120 a year. I agree with your comment, I had a plan then, I don't now. -- Ian Collins
From: jimp on 10 Feb 2010 15:22 Ian Collins <ian-news(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> Tim Bradshaw <tfb(a)tfeb.org> wrote: >> >>> I don't think it's unreasonable for Sun/Oracle to try and make money >>> from support for the software they give away for free, actually. That >>> kind of is the OSS business model isn't it (when it's not "Collect >>> underpants", "?", "Profit")? >> >> Yeah, I understand that but there needs to be a reasonable balance for >> patches. >> >> For example, if patches for something that could cause the system to halt >> at 3AM aren't readily available, they are shooting themselves in the foot. > > If I had a system that had to be running at 3AM, I'd make sure I had a > support contract! I have only seen one Unix system in the past 30 years or so that didn't run 24/7. Whether or not they "had" to run is another issue, but at the minimum most places do backups if nothing else in the wee hours. >> Also, the current support plans offered seem like something out of the >> big iron mainframe days. >> >> Why, for example, does the number of CPU's matter for OS updates? >> >> IMHO if there was a simple OS support plan that allowed for filing bug >> reports electronically, patch download, no handholding, and was on the >> order of $100/yr, I would think they would sell a LOT of them. > > That's what they used to have, the basic plan was $120 a year. I agree > with your comment, I had a plan then, I don't now. Yeah, me too as well as several other people/organizations I know of. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply.
From: Richard B. Gilbert on 10 Feb 2010 15:38
Ian Collins wrote: > jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> Tim Bradshaw <tfb(a)tfeb.org> wrote: >> >>> I don't think it's unreasonable for Sun/Oracle to try and make money >>> from support for the software they give away for free, actually. >>> That kind of is the OSS business model isn't it (when it's not >>> "Collect underpants", "?", "Profit")? >> >> Yeah, I understand that but there needs to be a reasonable balance for >> patches. >> >> For example, if patches for something that could cause the system to halt >> at 3AM aren't readily available, they are shooting themselves in the >> foot. > > If I had a system that had to be running at 3AM, I'd make sure I had a > support contract! > Any system that HAS to be available needs a support contract. It may even need a clone to take over in case the original becomes seriously ill! Probably needs one or more RAID arrays as well. >> Also, the current support plans offered seem like something out of the >> big iron mainframe days. >> >> Why, for example, does the number of CPU's matter for OS updates? >> >> IMHO if there was a simple OS support plan that allowed for filing bug >> reports electronically, patch download, no handholding, and was on the >> order of $100/yr, I would think they would sell a LOT of them. > > That's what they used to have, the basic plan was $120 a year. I agree > with your comment, I had a plan then, I don't now. > I believe it's still available but as of the last time I heard it cost more money. The last figure I'm sure of was $240 per year and I believe that there has been at least one increase in that rate. More money buys you more, or faster, service! If you want both more and faster be ready to cough up BIG bucks!!! |