On Thu, 2005-09-29 at 16:27 +0000, Ingimar Robertsson wrote: > On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 11:04:52AM -0400, Lamar Owen wrote: > > Red Hat has a bug in > > bugzilla on this issue for RHEL3 that predates U4, yet the bug won't be > > addressed until U7! And even then the two-line patch has to be backported; > > can't let the customer see a higher version number! > > That is interesting. I thought this was their policy until yesterday > when there was an update on wget which bumped the wget version from 1.9.1 > to 1.10.1. And this update in fact broke a couple of my scripts which > used the "--http-passwd" option which in 1.10.1 is "--http-password" with > no backward compatibility to the older "--http-passwd" option. > > In my case this wasn't serious, just short review of the man page, fix > the scripts and rerun. But had this be some commercial software from a > big vendor, things could have broken badly. > > This article looks like a slow news day story but has valid points but > the one thing I can't understand is how Microsoft automatic updates can > be less error prone than RedHat's. I have seen patches and of course > service packs create so much havoc in Windows that I personally don't > think they still have had any updates on their system and are therefore > still happy with it. ;-) This is something that I've never seen (until > the above mentioned wget issue) with RedHat Enterprise. ---- A lousy Ford dealer could make you hate Ford cars and a lousy ISV could make you hate the OS - it goes to show that you can't always please everyone. The way the article was written, it would appear that someone wanted to pump up Microsoft but that's not so surprising is it? Craig -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.