On 03/20/2011 09:52 AM, Matthew Willsher wrote:

> Isn't the same true for SL users as TUV's users? That they don't want to
> be burden by the extra updates? Keeping them in with the main stream
> bugs and enhancements means that SL admins don't have the luxury of that
> choice.
>

Admins can always enable the fastbugs repository, and they would then 
get those updates.
Over the years what I have seen is that most admins keep that repository 
disabled, and only enable it to update the one package that has the 
bugfix they want.

> My point of view on this comes from the ideology that SL should stick to
> the model used by TUV as much as possible, although I do understand the
> SL target audience may have different goals and that the model used by
> SL is developed to fit that goal. Would it be true to say that one of
> the main goals of SL is to reduce administration costs by allowing it's
> users to change as little as possible once a system is up and running,
> rather than TUV's approach of a constantly, albeit slowly, moving target?
>

You are correct.  This is one point in which we are different TUV.

Our target audience likes to stay on one release and have as little 
changes as possible.
In SL, you will not automatically get bugfixes unless they come bundled 
with a security update.  This is different from TUV.
You will not automatically move up to SL 6.1.  This is very different 
from TUV's default install.  But, if you pay them extra money, TUV will 
allow you to do this.

Troy
-- 
__________________________________________________
Troy Dawson  [log in to unmask]  (630)840-6468
Fermilab  ComputingDivision/SCF/FEF/SLSMS Group
__________________________________________________