On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, Grant Bayley wrote:
>
> We hate to point out that patching systems is what IT staff do, so we
> don't quite see the dreadful loss of productivity here. One might as
> easily say that police lose productivity when they have to interrupt their
> doughnut runs by investigating crimes, or that doctors lose productivity
> when they have to abandon the back nine to treat patients.
I disagree. The impact of these patches will often involve more than the
Systems Admin. Especially when you may have to go through detailed testing
of your application to ensure the patch does not introduce any undesirable
effects. The extent of the testing required would depend on the systems
involved, and the nature of the patch to be applied.
The cost of this testing would likely be less than that of not patching
the system. Howeer do not make the mistake of thinking that 'patching'
systems is always easy and reliable. I have seen all sorts of supposedly
unrelated problems arise from simple vendor patches.
This is especially applicable with Microsoft systems. A number of updates
are usually back-doored in patches, with no details on what fixes are
contained in the patches or what systems/applications are affected.
Cheers
Jason.
-- --- Jason Ball Electronic Commerce Specialist Corporate Express Australia Ltd Phone: +61 2 9335 0374 Fax: +61 2 9335 0753 Email: jason.ball@ce.com.au
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.1 : Fri Aug 31 2001 - 03:10:02 EST