Patch availability change
in [Solaris]
|
Prev: <Beginner Question> - lu /sst
Next: difference between sun cluster "/dev/did" and "/dev/global" devices
From: Tim Bradshaw on 12 Feb 2010 11:00 On 2010-02-11 06:38:49 +0000, Chris Ridd said: > The only one I can find right now is 119964-19; patchdiag.xref lists > -20 as being current, and Sunsolve's patchfinder list thinks they're > all available to me. Guess I tried to get -20 slightly too early? There definitely are occasional lags between patchdiag.xref and what the patch server actually has.
From: jimp on 12 Feb 2010 11:20 Tim Bradshaw <tfb(a)tfeb.org> wrote: > On 2010-02-10 21:07:36 +0000, jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com said: > >> So what does the number of CPU's in a V440 have to do with OS patches? > > Per socket licensing is a lot friendlier than per core, which tends to > be the norm. Again, what does that have to do with OS patches? The OS is identical no matter how many CPU's or cores you have. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply.
From: Tim Bradshaw on 12 Feb 2010 14:40 On 2010-02-12 16:20:24 +0000, jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com said: > Again, what does that have to do with OS patches? > > The OS is identical no matter how many CPU's or cores you have. So is the RDBMS.
From: jimp on 12 Feb 2010 14:50 Tim Bradshaw <tfb(a)tfeb.org> wrote: > On 2010-02-12 16:20:24 +0000, jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com said: > >> Again, what does that have to do with OS patches? >> >> The OS is identical no matter how many CPU's or cores you have. > > So is the RDBMS. Yeah, so what? -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply.
From: Tim Bradshaw on 12 Feb 2010 15:18
On 2010-02-12 19:50:02 +0000, jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com said: > Yeah, so what? You will almost certainly be paying a license per core (possibly socket if you are lucky) for the RDBMS. That's just how life is: people with big machines pay more for their software support as well as their hardware support. It may not be fair, and it's particularly painful for hobbyists (generally) who discover they can buy old, many-socket, systems but can't get a cheap patch-download contract for them. Unfortunately basically no vendors care about those people. It's also hard to see how they would go about making exceptions for them - how do they distinguish between some big organisation with a couple of E4500s sitting somewhere running some legacy thing, who probably should not be getting a cheapo license, and me with the same machines sitting in my garage, which I bought for peanuts and like to play with? There's actually no real reason they *should* care - I'm not really helping them any with my vintage hardware, so why should they bother? The case where they should care is if I *am* helping them - perhaps I'm a software developer who it would be in their interests to support. I'm guessing (I don't know, though I think this used to be the case) that you can get special developer contracts which allow for just this sort of thing. |