3 ms·

I have a very conservative rule: No updates for 60 to 120 days. This applies to PC, Mac, phones, tablets, routers, embedded devices, appliances, firmware in ge

I have a very conservative rule: No updates for 60 to 120 days. This applies to PC, Mac, phones, tablets, routers, embedded devices, appliances, firmware in general. This has served me well for quite some time. I fully appreciate the time and effort put forth by those who have the time to deal wih the range of inevitable "oh shit's" that almost invariably come with every software release. Not something I have time for or interest in any more. The only times I have violated this rule was when somthing was already so broken that a new version would still be considered an improvement even with warts. Just one of those more conservative engineers.

zenjzen 12y ago
Completely agree. However, if everyone adopted this viewpoint, it wouldn't be effective. Shhh! Don't tell everyone. ;)
0x0 12y ago
Are you going to wait 60 days before patching something like this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8361574 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8361574 ? :)
- robomartin 12y ago
  Didn't read my post. See my other reply.
reedloden 12y ago
60-120 days? Your equipment will all be fully compromised by then. I can understand not updating for feature/bug fix updates, but for security updates, you should be patching as soon as possible.
- robomartin 12y ago
  Did you actually read my entire post? What did I say about breaking this rule? Also, there's a huge, HUGE, difference between critical well-vetted security updates and a whole host of other updates that have no material value and can potentially cost you a bundle. I'll give you an even more extreme example: Some of our engineering workstations are still running Vista. Why? Because upgrading to 7 or 8 offers nothing of value and will trigger a few weeks of upgrading major applications and software dependencies. We will finally be forced to make the update this year because Solidwork, Solidworks FEA Simulation, the associated CAM and other software require 7 as a minimum. We are far more likely to build new machines from scratch than to upgrade the existing machines. Part of the reasoning is backup during the transition.
sparkman55 12y ago
For all *.0 releases, this is a great idea!

zenjzen 12y ago

Completely agree. However, if everyone adopted this viewpoint, it wouldn't be effective. Shhh! Don't tell everyone. ;)

0x0 12y ago

Are you going to wait 60 days before patching something like this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8361574 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8361574 ? :)

robomartin 12y ago
Didn't read my post. See my other reply.

reedloden 12y ago

60-120 days? Your equipment will all be fully compromised by then. I can understand not updating for feature/bug fix updates, but for security updates, you should be patching as soon as possible.

robomartin 12y ago
Did you actually read my entire post? What did I say about breaking this rule? Also, there's a huge, HUGE, difference between critical well-vetted security updates and a whole host of other updates that have no material value and can potentially cost you a bundle. I'll give you an even more extreme example: Some of our engineering workstations are still running Vista. Why? Because upgrading to 7 or 8 offers nothing of value and will trigger a few weeks of upgrading major applications and software dependencies. We will finally be forced to make the update this year because Solidwork, Solidworks FEA Simulation, the associated CAM and other software require 7 as a minimum. We are far more likely to build new machines from scratch than to upgrade the existing machines. Part of the reasoning is backup during the transition.

sparkman55 12y ago

For all *.0 releases, this is a great idea!