Sun's new patch policy for Solaris 10 'software updates'!
Kralizec Craig
Hi everyone,
Just a note that if you are upgrading to Solaris 10, and you want full access
to all recommended and security patches for the new OS, you have to buy a
'service plan' from Sun if you don't have any other existing maintenance or
service contract. There is an announcment about the change linked from the main
SunSolve page at "http://sunsolve.sun.com". Sun's also changed the terminology
to sound like like Microsoft (!), so patches are now 'software updates'. 8-)
I just had a look now and the cheapest service plan is US$120 a year and they
are basing the pricing on the number of processors you use (which are called
'sockets'), so for a typical dual-CPU system like an Ultra 60, the minimium
service plan price is US$240 for one year or just over US$600 for an extended
3-year plan! Ouch.
If you don't have a service plan the only patches you can download for free are
security and hardware driver updates! That probably won't bother grass-roots
users (students, non-profit businesses, educators, etc.) but it will affect
small buiness significantly.
The new policy is more restrictive than the previous policy under which Sun
made recommended and security patch kits available for free to everyone. Do you
think this will turn a LOT of end-users away from Solaris (and Sun's hardware
in general)? I tend think that it will - especially small businesses, etc.
It'll put Solaris only in the market for medium to large enterprises and other
segments are likely to skip Solaris in favour of an open-source Linux of *BSD
OS. Particularly since Sun is now favouring Opteron-based hardware designs and
effectively building 'Sun-badged PC-type' workstations and lower-end servers.
Regards,
Craig.
--
SUN RIPENED KERNELS - Surplus Sun Microsystems Equipment, Parts + Accessories
Waterfall, NSW, Australia - Operated by Craig Dewick - Founded in 1996
Main site: www.sunrk.com.au - Ebay Shop: www.ebayshops.com.au/sunripenedkernels
Ph: +612-9520-2547 - Fax: +612-9520-2557 - Mobile: 04-2163-0547 (int. +614)
Bruno Delbono
> The new policy is more restrictive than the previous policy under which
> Sun made recommended and security patch kits available for free to
> everyone. Do you think this will turn a LOT of end-users away from
> Solaris (and Sun's hardware in general)? I tend think that it will -
> especially small businesses, etc. It'll put Solaris only in the market
> for medium to large enterprises and other segments are likely to skip
> Solaris in favour of an open-source Linux of *BSD OS. Particularly since
> Sun is now favouring Opteron-based hardware designs and effectively
> building 'Sun-badged PC-type' workstations and lower-end servers.
I agree. Most companies who run Solaris, would buy support anyways...I
think sun should allow another category for hobbyists.
--
int main(){int O=0,s[]={0x84,0xe4,0xea,0xdc,0xde,0100,0xa6,'\\'\
,0100,0x88,0xca,0xd8,0xc4,0xde,0xdc,0xde,0100,0xf8,0100,0170,0x\
c4,0xe4,0xea,0xdc,0xde,'\\',0xe6,'\\',0xc8,0xca,0xd8,0xc4,0xde,\
0xdc,0xde,0x80,0xda,0xc2,0xd2,0xd8,'\\',0xc2,0xc6,0174,0100,0xf\
8,0100,0xd0,0xe8,0xe8,0xe0,0164,0136,0136,0xee,0xee,0xee,'\\',0\
xda,0xc2,0xd2,0xd8,'\\',0xc2,0xc6,0x0};while(O<66){(s[O]==0)?pr\
intf("%c\n",(47<<2)>>2):printf("%c",s[O]>>1);++O;}return s[--O]\
;}
Dave
> Kralizec Craig wrote:
>
>> The new policy is more restrictive than the previous policy under
>> which Sun made recommended and security patch kits available for free
>> to everyone. Do you think this will turn a LOT of end-users away from
>> Solaris (and Sun's hardware in general)?
I'm not so sure it will. Some maybe, but not a LOT as you put it.
>> I tend think that it will -
>> especially small businesses, etc.
Solaris is one of the least expensive OS to run now. Windoze is
expensive. The bigger linux distros are not free any more (probably
similar to Solaris + basic support contract). The other UNIX verisons I
can think of (AIX, IRIX, HP-UX) are all expensive. Tru64 was cheap for
home use. That is dying anyway.
*BSD is another matter I would accept. When I installed that in the dim
and distant past it was clear nothing was enabled for security reasons.
You would soon spend the equivalent cost of a low-end support contract
in configuring a usable system for desktop use.
>> It'll put Solaris only in the market
>> for medium to large enterprises and other segments are likely to skip
>> Solaris in favour of an open-source Linux of *BSD OS.
I only use mine at home and I don't think the patch situation will make
me stop using it. In fact I upgraded (well fresh install actually) to
Solaris 10 within the last few days. I was aware of the patch situation.
> I agree. Most companies who run Solaris, would buy support anyways...I
> think sun should allow another category for hobbyists.
>
Whilst I would not complain about free patches, it must be said Sun do
give use quite a bit away - more than any other company I can think of.
They have got to make some money.
Sun Studio 11 is free, which is a real bonus.
Given a choice, (free Sun Studio 11 or free patches) I know what I would
take. How about you?
If you conclude the free compiler is the better than the free patches
and you used Solaris before, I think you will have to agree it is even
better value now. (At least on SPARC. For x86 there is obviously gcc
which works better on x86 than it does on SPARC)
The real killer cost with Solaris for me would have been drivers for my
GPIB board. They are free for Linux, but about £400 for Solaris. That
was a third party (National Instruments) not Sun though.
Lots of 3rd party commercial software is more expensive on Solaris than
Linux, but you can't blame Sun.
PS, why are people now copying posts to the UK and Australian Sun
newsgroups? I would expect people in those countries (like myself in the
UK) would look at comp.sys.sun.admin and comp.unix.solaris. The national
ones should really be for items specific to those countries.
--
Dave K
http://www.southminster-branch-line.org.uk/
Please note my email address changes periodically to avoid spam.
It is always of the form: month-year@domain. Hitting reply will work
for a couple of months only. Later set it manually. The month is
always written in 3 letters (e.g. Jan, not January etc)
Logan Shaw
> Given a choice, (free Sun Studio 11 or free patches) I know what I would
> take. How about you?
For home use, I would take free patches. gcc is perfectly adequate for
many uses.
If you *need* compiler better than gcc, then Sun Studio 11 being free is
definitely a better deal than patches being free, though...
- Logan
Richard B. Gilbert
Sun is in business to make money. You can download Solaris 10 for
free. Programmers have to be paid. Technical writers have to be
paid. The phone company charges something like $8000/month for a T3
line which they probably need for the Sunsolve web site and probably and
another for docs.sun.com. Where should they make the money to pay their
bills? If you think $120 per annum is expensive, maybe you should ask
HP what they charge for a service contract!!!!
Will Hartung
news:Pine.GSO.4.63.05...@lios.apana.org.au...
> The new policy is more restrictive than the previous policy under which
Sun
> made recommended and security patch kits available for free to everyone.
Do you
> think this will turn a LOT of end-users away from Solaris (and Sun's
hardware
> in general)? I tend think that it will - especially small businesses, etc.
> It'll put Solaris only in the market for medium to large enterprises and
other
> segments are likely to skip Solaris in favour of an open-source Linux of
*BSD
> OS. Particularly since Sun is now favouring Opteron-based hardware designs
and
> effectively building 'Sun-badged PC-type' workstations and lower-end
servers.
It's really quite simple. Either you run an "open source" OS on your
systems, or you run a "commercial" OS on your systems.
If you run an open source one, then you get to manage, patch, upgrade, etc.
as one would any other open source system. Which means relying on community
based toolsets and systems to aggregate and provide those kinds of services.
If you run a commercial system, then you get to rely on your vendor, most of
whom want to be paid for such services.
Solaris is in the state now. You can use OpenSolaris, you can download
Solaris Express, you can build based on source code snapshots, etc. No doubt
in time perhaps someone like Blastwave will have a patching service of their
own to make incremental upgrades, much like what Sun does now (in fact, even
using the same tools, but rather providing a different URL, who knows).
That's why Sun feels they can do what they're doing. You have all the
options available to any other OpenSolaris user, or in fact, any Linux or
BSD user. The downside is OpenSolaris is not yet as mature as BSD and Linux
in terms of community support and infrastructure, having been reliant on Sun
all this time. Well, that tap is turned off.
On the other hand, if you'd like to leverage Suns offereings, you need to
pay them. Their prices are pretty darn cheap. They MUCH cheaper than Red
Hat, which offers pretty much the same services, but you can't get an
"update only" offering like Suns. Red Hat basically dings you for a 4-CPU
machine whether your running 1, 2, or 4 CPUs. Suns will scale with the
socket. Run it on a Dual Core Opteron and pony up the $10/month and giggle
all the way to the bank.
If you find Suns prices too high, feel free to create "sunhat.com",
aggregate the patches, deploy the servers, pay for the bandwidth and power,
and offer it to the community.
I really don't understand what people were expecting here, or why they're
surprised, or, nay, even disappointed by this. What did you expect Sun to
do?
Regards,
Will Hartung
(redr...@sbcglobal.net)
Rich Teer
> I really don't understand what people were expecting here, or why they're
> surprised, or, nay, even disappointed by this. What did you expect Sun to
> do?
+1
People also seem to be forgetting that the quarterly (or so) updates,
which include just about all patches, are also free.
So people like me (hobbysists), students, small businesses who can't/
don't want to afford a service contract can use the Update releases
of Solaris for $0. Solaris Express is also a $0 option, but given its
pre-release status, ought not to be deployed in production.
For commercial interests, for whom having timeley access to the latest
patches is an issue, support contracts are the way to go.
Yeah, it would be nice if Sun could give everything, including service
and all patches, away for free, but they have to make money somehow.
--
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member
. * * . * .* .
. * . .*
President, * . . /\ ( . . *
Rite Online Inc. . . / .\ . * .
.*. / * \ . .
. /* o \ .
Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 * '''||''' .
URL: http://www.rite-online.net ******************
Bruno Delbono
> On Mon, 5 Dec 2005, Will Hartung wrote:
>
>
>>I really don't understand what people were expecting here, or why they're
>>surprised, or, nay, even disappointed by this. What did you expect Sun to
>>do?
>
>
> +1
>
> People also seem to be forgetting that the quarterly (or so) updates,
> which include just about all patches, are also free.
>
> So people like me (hobbysists), students, small businesses who can't/
> don't want to afford a service contract can use the Update releases
> of Solaris for $0. Solaris Express is also a $0 option, but given its
> pre-release status, ought not to be deployed in production.
Wait...where I can find these?
http://sunsolve.sun.com/pub-cgi/show.pl?target=patches/patch-access
http://sunsolve.sun.com/pub-cgi/show.pl?target=patches/patch-license&nav=pub-patches
Anywhere else?
However much I like the idea of Solaris express, I don't want to
reinstall the OS every month, 6 months or so. Not to mention, CentOS
provides exactly what RHEL does. OpenSolaris is not mature enough to be
a distribution in itself yet, nay?
Casper H.S. Dik
>However much I like the idea of Solaris express, I don't want to
>reinstall the OS every month, 6 months or so. Not to mention, CentOS
>provides exactly what RHEL does. OpenSolaris is not mature enough to be
>a distribution in itself yet, nay?
There's no need to "reinstall".
I upgrade around 10 systems every two weeks mostly through hands-off
jumpstart, some using live upgrade.
If you use liveupgrade, the process itself is fairly straightfoward with
only a few minutes downtime when booting into the new OS (and the ability
to fall back)
Casper
--
Expressed in this posting are my opinions. They are in no way related
to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
be fiction rather than truth.
Graham J Lee
> Kralizec Craig wrote:
>
>> The new policy is more restrictive than the previous policy under
>> which Sun made recommended and security patch kits available for free
>> to everyone. Do you think this will turn a LOT of end-users away from
>> Solaris (and Sun's hardware in general)? I tend think that it will -
>> especially small businesses, etc. It'll put Solaris only in the market
>> for medium to large enterprises and other segments are likely to skip
>> Solaris in favour of an open-source Linux of *BSD OS. Particularly
>> since Sun is now favouring Opteron-based hardware designs and
>> effectively building 'Sun-badged PC-type' workstations and lower-end
>> servers.
>
>
> I agree. Most companies who run Solaris, would buy support anyways...I
> think sun should allow another category for hobbyists.
>
build-from-source exercise? I think that may be what hobbyists get to do...
Jarosław Rafa
> I upgrade around 10 systems every two weeks mostly through hands-off
> jumpstart, some using live upgrade.
>
> If you use liveupgrade, the process itself is fairly straightfoward with
> only a few minutes downtime when booting into the new OS (and the ability
> to fall back)
Hmmm...
I was always wondering, whether the people who use automatic upgrades
(regardless of OS, be it Solaris or Linux) aren't afraid of the
possibility that the upgrade will destroy their own modifications made
to the system...
I'm always afraid of this, because I always modify a lot of things in
the system (modify startup scripts in /etc/rc*.d, add many programs,
replace some of them - like Apache or sendmail - with versions compiled
from source etc.) and I think an automatic upgrade process would
probably just overwrite my modifications...
What do you think?
--
Regards,
Jaroslaw Rafa
r...@ap.krakow.pl
--
Spam, wirusy, spyware... masz dość? Jest alternatywa!
http://www.firefox.pl/ --- http://www.thunderbird.pl/
Szybciej. Łatwiej. Bezpieczniej. Internet tak jak lubisz.
Jarosław Rafa
> Sun Studio 11 is free, which is a real bonus.
>
> Given a choice, (free Sun Studio 11 or free patches) I know what I would
> take. How about you?
>
> If you conclude the free compiler is the better than the free patches
> and you used Solaris before, I think you will have to agree it is even
> better value now. (At least on SPARC. For x86 there is obviously gcc
> which works better on x86 than it does on SPARC)
You DO have a free compiler - gcc for SPARC is there too...
And there's a very good reason to use gcc and not Sun's compiler:
probably you all agree that Solaris - compared to, for example, Linux -
lacks many programs that are sometimes *essential* to operate an
Internet server (which is, I guess, the most often used application for
Sun hardware - am I wrong?). You have to install some of them from
source, and installation from source goes best with gcc, because the
makefiles - and sometimes even the source code itself - are written
primarily with that compiler in mind ;-).
Casper H.S. Dik
>I'm always afraid of this, because I always modify a lot of things in
>the system (modify startup scripts in /etc/rc*.d, add many programs,
>replace some of them - like Apache or sendmail - with versions compiled
>from source etc.) and I think an automatic upgrade process would
>probably just overwrite my modifications...
>What do you think?
Any required modification to a startup script is a bug.
What types of modifications are you talking about?
Any modification to a file marked "f" and not "v" or "e" in]
/var/sadm/install/contents in unsupported insofar patches and
upgrades will ignore such modifications.
Casper H.S. Dik
>You DO have a free compiler - gcc for SPARC is there too...
With Studio being free, you certaainly have a free compiler.
>And there's a very good reason to use gcc and not Sun's compiler:
>probably you all agree that Solaris - compared to, for example, Linux -
>lacks many programs that are sometimes *essential* to operate an
>Internet server (which is, I guess, the most often used application for
>Sun hardware - am I wrong?). You have to install some of them from
>source, and installation from source goes best with gcc, because the
>makefiles - and sometimes even the source code itself - are written
>primarily with that compiler in mind ;-).
That is the unfortunate side-effect of gcc's "embrace and extend"
attitude towards the "C" programming language.
Doug McIntyre
>Casper H.S. Dik napisał(a):
>> I upgrade around 10 systems every two weeks mostly through hands-off
>> jumpstart, some using live upgrade.
>>
>> If you use liveupgrade, the process itself is fairly straightfoward with
>> only a few minutes downtime when booting into the new OS (and the ability
>> to fall back)
>I was always wondering, whether the people who use automatic upgrades
>(regardless of OS, be it Solaris or Linux) aren't afraid of the
>possibility that the upgrade will destroy their own modifications made
>to the system...
>I'm always afraid of this, because I always modify a lot of things in
>the system (modify startup scripts in /etc/rc*.d, add many programs,
>replace some of them - like Apache or sendmail - with versions compiled
>from source etc.) and I think an automatic upgrade process would
>probably just overwrite my modifications...
>What do you think?
If you run a non-sun Sendmail, then don't install the Sendmail
packages. No package means no patch applied. Likewise for Apache.
Very easy to not worry about it.
Tim Bradshaw
>
> I'm always afraid of this, because I always modify a lot of things in
> the system (modify startup scripts in /etc/rc*.d, add many programs,
> replace some of them - like Apache or sendmail - with versions compiled
> from source etc.) and I think an automatic upgrade process would
> probably just overwrite my modifications...
> What do you think?
I think that if you have modifications which you aren't installing by
(configuration managed) finish scripts in jumpstart, then that's
probably a bug and you'll get what you deserve. Of course (almost)
everyone has this issue, but it doesn't prevent it being a bug,
especially as it means (for most people) that after a while no-one
understands the configuration of the machine at all, which means that
upgrades or reinstalls become this horrible, painful, saga.
--tim
Colin B.
> Casper H.S. Dik napisa?(a):
>> I upgrade around 10 systems every two weeks mostly through hands-off
>> jumpstart, some using live upgrade.
>>
>> If you use liveupgrade, the process itself is fairly straightfoward with
>> only a few minutes downtime when booting into the new OS (and the ability
>> to fall back)
>
> Hmmm...
> I was always wondering, whether the people who use automatic upgrades
> (regardless of OS, be it Solaris or Linux) aren't afraid of the
> possibility that the upgrade will destroy their own modifications made
> to the system...
> I'm always afraid of this, because I always modify a lot of things in
> the system (modify startup scripts in /etc/rc*.d, add many programs,
> replace some of them - like Apache or sendmail - with versions compiled
> from source etc.) and I think an automatic upgrade process would
> probably just overwrite my modifications...
> What do you think?
Others have addressed the correctness of such changes already. I'll just
re-emphasize Casper's last point: Live Upgrade provides you with the ability
to fall back, and it's as easy as booting from the not-yet-upgradaed Boot
Environment.
If anything breaks, reboot to recover. It doesn't get any easier than that.
Colin
Colin B.
>> Sun Studio 11 is free, which is a real bonus.
>>
>> Given a choice, (free Sun Studio 11 or free patches) I know what I would
>> take. How about you?
>>
>> If you conclude the free compiler is the better than the free patches
>> and you used Solaris before, I think you will have to agree it is even
>> better value now. (At least on SPARC. For x86 there is obviously gcc
>> which works better on x86 than it does on SPARC)
>
> You DO have a free compiler - gcc for SPARC is there too...
> And there's a very good reason to use gcc and not Sun's compiler:
> probably you all agree that Solaris - compared to, for example, Linux -
> lacks many programs that are sometimes *essential* to operate an
> Internet server (which is, I guess, the most often used application for
> Sun hardware - am I wrong?). You have to install some of them from
> source, and installation from source goes best with gcc, because the
> makefiles - and sometimes even the source code itself - are written
> primarily with that compiler in mind ;-).
Everything you say in this paragraph is true, except that I suspect SAP
and Oracle are the biggest applications on Sun hardware.
However, just because it's true doesn't make it good. Sloppy,
compiler-dependent code isn't something we should be encouraging.
Colin
Logan Shaw
> Others have addressed the correctness of such changes already. I'll just
> re-emphasize Casper's last point: Live Upgrade provides you with the ability
> to fall back, and it's as easy as booting from the not-yet-upgradaed Boot
> Environment.
>
> If anything breaks, reboot to recover. It doesn't get any easier than that.
This only works if you discover the breakage before you've made any
other significant changes to the new (upgraded) filesystem. If you,
for example, create some new users in /etc/passwd, between upgrading
and discovering a problem, aren't you going to have to manually
propagate all those changes back to the pre-upgrade filesystem?
That's really not as nice as being able to back out a patch, which
just modifies the affected files rather than moving the entire
filesystem back to snapshot at some point in the past.
- Logan
David Magda
> I'm always afraid of this, because I always modify a lot of things in
> the system (modify startup scripts in /etc/rc*.d, add many programs,
> replace some of them - like Apache or sendmail - with versions
> compiled from source etc.) and I think an automatic upgrade process
> would probably just overwrite my modifications...
> What do you think?
If you're compiling from source I would personally look at NetBSD's
pkgsrc. It can be used on Solaris (amoung other OSes) and has built-in
infrastructure for upgrading. It also has a mechanisum ("pkgviews")
for having multiple versions of one package installed.
--
David Magda <dmagda at ee.ryerson.ca>
Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under
the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well
under the new. -- Niccolo Machiavelli, _The Prince_, Chapter VI
John D Groenveld
Will Hartung <redr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>I really don't understand what people were expecting here, or why they're
>surprised, or, nay, even disappointed by this. What did you expect Sun to
>do?
While it should have been expected based on past execution, I was
disappointed that the move to the Sun Connection business model has
resembled a Keystone Cops film.
John
groe...@acm.org
Jarosław Rafa
> With Studio being free, you certaainly have a free compiler.
Does the free Sun Studio 11 run only on Solaris 10 or does it run on
earlier versions too?
Dan Foster
> Casper H.S. Dik napisał(a):
>> With Studio being free, you certaainly have a free compiler.
>
> Does the free Sun Studio 11 run only on Solaris 10 or does it run on
> earlier versions too?
If you go to:
Enter 'sun studio 11' as search terms.
The first link returned is:
http://www.sun.com/software/products/studio/index.xml
Then click on 'System Requirements' (under the Product Home box on left)
It says it works on Solaris 8, 9, and 10.
-Dan
Casper H.S. Dik
>Casper H.S. Dik napisał(a):
>> With Studio being free, you certaainly have a free compiler.
>Does the free Sun Studio 11 run only on Solaris 10 or does it run on
>earlier versions too?
Requires 8 and above (and probably some patches):
http://www.sun.com/software/products/studio/index.xml
Craig Dewick
>On Mon, 5 Dec 2005, Will Hartung wrote:
>> I really don't understand what people were expecting here, or why they're
>> surprised, or, nay, even disappointed by this. What did you expect Sun to
>> do?
>+1
>People also seem to be forgetting that the quarterly (or so) updates,
>which include just about all patches, are also free.
>So people like me (hobbysists), students, small businesses who can't/
>don't want to afford a service contract can use the Update releases
>of Solaris for $0. Solaris Express is also a $0 option, but given its
>pre-release status, ought not to be deployed in production.
Agreed.
>For commercial interests, for whom having timeley access to the latest
>patches is an issue, support contracts are the way to go.
Also agreed. However there are probably just as many, or more, users of Sun
hardware who don't use the equipment from a commercial perspective (such as
myself), and it's these people who are going to be affected in the longer
term.
That'll undermine the grassroots user base of Solaris on surplus hardware
(doesn't mean it's old hardware - could be very new but bought or acquired
as used), and might create a rift where we'll see Solaris ignored for
anything except current hardware product.
>Yeah, it would be nice if Sun could give everything, including service
>and all patches, away for free, but they have to make money somehow.
True. However Sun also used to offer StarOffice for free, and they now make
people buy it. Perhaps that's to compete with OpenOffice, which is free and
open-source.
Sun's probably not deliberately doing it (or perhaps they are), but it seems
like the current changes will turn away hobbyists, enthusiasts, students,
etc. from using Solaris which is still the best OS for Sun hardware in
general terms, but the alternative OS's have other advantages which are not
related to being free and open-source, such as being far less
'bloatware'-ish. One of the problems with Solaris is that it's so consuming
of system resources - there needs to be a way to limit that (customising the
installation can do this to some degree).
Craig.
--
Post by Craig Dewick (tm). Web --> "http://lios.apana.org.au/~cdewick".
Email me at "cde...@poison.lios.apana.org.au". Explore my public-domain Sun
Microsystems technical data archive at "http://www.sunshack.org". Sun Micro
enthusiasts/users webring at "http://n.webring.com/hub?ring=sunmicrosystemsu".
Casper H.S. Dik
>Rich Teer <rich...@rite-group.com> writes:
>>So people like me (hobbysists), students, small businesses who can't/
>>don't want to afford a service contract can use the Update releases
>>of Solaris for $0. Solaris Express is also a $0 option, but given its
>>pre-release status, ought not to be deployed in production.
>Agreed.
Apparently at this time that's not even strictly allowed according
to the license.
>That'll undermine the grassroots user base of Solaris on surplus hardware
>(doesn't mean it's old hardware - could be very new but bought or acquired
>as used), and might create a rift where we'll see Solaris ignored for
>anything except current hardware product.
The patch situation has returned to what it was two/three years ago.
So I'm not sure if it is that bad.
My question to you is: when did you last *need* a non-security patch?
I have sporadic recollections of this, but mostly caused by bad patches
and not GA bugs. And the quality of Solaris @ FCS has improved over time,
IMHO.
>True. However Sun also used to offer StarOffice for free, and they now make
>people buy it. Perhaps that's to compete with OpenOffice, which is free and
>open-source.
Did we? I don't remember we ever offered StarOffice for free; it comes
for free with Solaris, still, though.
>Sun's probably not deliberately doing it (or perhaps they are), but it seems
>like the current changes will turn away hobbyists, enthusiasts, students,
>etc. from using Solaris which is still the best OS for Sun hardware in
>general terms, but the alternative OS's have other advantages which are not
>related to being free and open-source, such as being far less
>'bloatware'-ish. One of the problems with Solaris is that it's so consuming
>of system resources - there needs to be a way to limit that (customising the
>installation can do this to some degree).
I'm still not sure why there's such a perceived need for patches.
Martin Paul
> My question to you is: when did you last *need* a non-security patch?
The framebuffer patches might be one example - at least in the past
it was often highly desirable to have those in a recent revision,
and they aren't R/S usually.
Not having the SRSS 3.0 patch (118979-01) is quite a nuisance, as
without it most wheel mice don't work (I see that 118979-02 is S
as of today). Sometimes it's good that a patch gets marked S as
a security fix is delivered in rev. 01, and you'll get all newer
revisions, too, even if they aren't security related.
> I have sporadic recollections of this, but mostly caused by bad patches
> and not GA bugs. And the quality of Solaris @ FCS has improved over time,
> IMHO.
True, but: When I encounter a problem I usually check for a patch
for that certain piece of software before anything else. Often it's
already fixed. If you can't access the patch, you'll have to spend
some time on analyzing the bug, and probably only end up by finding
out that it's already fixed in a non-R/S patch, which you can't access.
Overall, a frequent answer to queries on c.u.s. about obscure problems
often is "are you up to date on patches ?" ..
mp.
--
Systems Administrator | Institute of Scientific Computing | Univ. of Vienna
John D Groenveld
Casper H.S. Dik <Caspe...@Sun.COM> wrote:
>The patch situation has returned to what it was two/three years ago.
Maybe.
I've not yet read what patches of the old Recommended patch clusters
would not be included under the new policy of free security, driver,
possibly data integrety patches, and their dependencies.
>My question to you is: when did you last *need* a non-security patch?
The last time I installed Sun Studio.
John
groe...@acm.org
Rich Teer
> I'm still not sure why there's such a perceived need for patches.
Too many people are used to the poor quality (and hence, the need
for frequent patches) of *ahem* other operating systems.
--
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member
. * * . * .* .
. * . .*
President, * . . /\ ( . . *
Rite Online Inc. . . / .\ . * .
.*. / * \ . .
. /* o \ .
Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 * '''||''' .
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich ******************
Andrew Gabriel
Casper H.S. Dik <Caspe...@Sun.COM> writes:
>
> My question to you is: when did you last *need* a non-security patch?
> I have sporadic recollections of this, but mostly caused by bad patches
> and not GA bugs. And the quality of Solaris @ FCS has improved over time,
> IMHO.
Some months back, I persaded a Linux guy to install S10 GA on
one of his systems. I left space for a second root filesystem
so I could demonstrate the wonders of Live Upgrade. Unfortunately,
the essential Live Upgrade patch is no longer available to him,
so that was the end of that. I could probably have dug out my
copy of it, but his enthusiasm (in so far as it ever existed)
vanished at that point. That was kind of a shame -- I've seen
a couple of other Linux zealots left somewhat gobsmacked by LU
in the past.
--
Andrew Gabriel
Logan Shaw
> My question to you is: when did you last *need* a non-security patch?
If you install Sun Studio 11, does it require any non-security patches?
What about the latest JVM?
> I have sporadic recollections of this, but mostly caused by bad patches
> and not GA bugs. And the quality of Solaris @ FCS has improved over time,
> IMHO.
Well, Solaris 2.4 wasn't too hot at FCS. ;-)
- Logan
Casper H.S. Dik
liveupgrade patch? You mean the pkg* tools patch?
(For live upgrade, you generally need to install the packages
from the release you're about to upgrade too).
Point noted.
Martin Paul
> Casper H.S. Dik wrote:
>> My question to you is: when did you last *need* a non-security patch?
>
> If you install Sun Studio 11, does it require any non-security patches?
Yes. See:
http://developers.sun.com/prodtech/cc/downloads/patches/ss11_patches.html
There are four patches listed as recommended for Solaris 10/SPARC, of
which only one is marked Security:
% pca -a | egrep '118676|118683|117461|120753'
117461 08 = 08 RS 7 SunOS 5.10: ld Patch
118676 01 = 01 246 SunOS 5.10: patch for Solaris make and sccs utilities
118683 01 = 01 197 SunOS 5.10: Patch for assembler
120753 02 = 02 15 SunOS 5.10: Microtasking libraries (libmtsk) patch
You can access the READMEs, but not the patches themselves. The above
link also states:
And remember, you can always get the latest revision of the patch
from SunSolve.
Which is of course only partly correct.
Maybe the patches are included in the Studio 11 download package, but
those will be aged in a few weeks anyway, and the newer revisions won't
be available then.
Giving away a piece of software for free, but holding back OS patches to
make it work correctly (or, patches which Sun recommends) is, uhm, not
the best thing to do.
and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk
> and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk (Andrew Gabriel) writes:
> >Some months back, I persaded a Linux guy to install S10 GA on
> >one of his systems. I left space for a second root filesystem
> >so I could demonstrate the wonders of Live Upgrade. Unfortunately,
> >the essential Live Upgrade patch is no longer available to him,
> >so that was the end of that. I could probably have dug out my
> >copy of it, but his enthusiasm (in so far as it ever existed)
> >vanished at that point. That was kind of a shame -- I've seen
> >a couple of other Linux zealots left somewhat gobsmacked by LU
> >in the past.
>
>
> liveupgrade patch? You mean the pkg* tools patch?
There's a document which says what patches you need for LU,
but I just realised that's also no longer available, sigh.
I'm not in front of a Solaris system at the moment, but the
patch I was thinking of is 117435-02 (/sbin/biosdev).
> (For live upgrade, you generally need to install the packages
> from the release you're about to upgrade too).
Yes, I kept meaning to raise an RFE to say LU should re-exec
itself from the install media to avoid this problem. However, the
packages seem to have migrated to the 2nd CD now, which
would make that harder in some cases.
--
Andrew Gabriel