Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 1st Jun 2009 17:50 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Thread beginning with comment 366981
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[15]: Pay or run unstable
by akrosdbay on Thu 4th Jun 2009 16:55
in reply to "RE[14]: Pay or run unstable"
You totally misunderstand - deliberately - because you want to paint over the fact that there are no security updates available.
Yes there are. They are in the support repo.
Talking about Solaris's brilliant way of upgrading your system is irrelevant and totally orthoganal to the main point because there are people who clearly have mental issues accepting the current situation. How about providing security updates within a rollback system, eh?
But they are available. You really have no point just more FUD and trolling.
RE[16]: Pay or run unstable
by segedunum on Thu 4th Jun 2009 22:49
in reply to "RE[15]: Pay or run unstable"
Yes there are. They are in the support repo.
Squirm, squirm, wriggle.
One of the many OPs has established this because you have to stay with development and 'upgrade' if you want 'updates'. If you stay with release then you won't get them nuless you pay, which is kind of pointless if you want to stay 'stable'.
Also, you can't install newer packages from a single release in development. The only way of getting around this, again, is to completely upgrade your running dev version which, again, isn't exactly a 'stable' thing to be doing. Notice that I threw in the word 'stable' a few times there.
But they are available.
Available to whom, you one brain-celled twit? You cannot perform security updates on an existing installation unless you pay. Notice that word there - updates. You'll notice it has been used throughout the comments.
I'll let you and your one remaining brain cell wrestle with that.





Member since:
2005-07-06
Linux is not OpenSolaris, but a unix-clone.
The two are different and that is abundantly obvious.
I've heard this refrain singing in my head for the past ten years. "Oh, Oh, Solaris is so stable and it's a real Unix that enterprises use!" Anyone who says that to me clearly has mental issues over what has happened to Sun and Solaris during that time and are unable to accept it.
You totally misunderstand - deliberately - because you want to paint over the fact that there are no security updates available.
Yer, I can create a new installation and yer I can roll back to my old one if the upgrade is erroneous, but if it is then I'm not going to get my security updates am I? Upgrading to a new version of a system has potential far reaching implications when all you want are some minor updates to software that will maintain compatibility. No sane person in their right mind who wants to run a stable system does that, regardless of how many times he can roll back.
Talking about Solaris's brilliant way of upgrading your system is irrelevant and totally orthoganal to the main point because there are people who clearly have mental issues accepting the current situation. How about providing security updates within a rollback system, eh?
Sorry. I just need to mop up after pissing myself with laughter. Where did you dig this up from? Sun Marketing 101 down the hall?