Re: PTF maintenance - WAS: IPL hangs at C900 2967

On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 18:02, Ingvaldson,
Scott<scott.ingvaldson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Why does a company with a "staff" working on their Windows servers and
another "staff" working on their M/F think that they can run an i with
no admin at all and no one even looking at it for three years? ÂIMO that
is both our blessing and our curse.

If it weren't for auto update, most of our customers wouldn't install
Windows updates either. At the small shops without any IT-personnel
onsite, i usually enable Windows automatic updates for everything,
including servers.

Yes, we've had issues with updates that failed. But i still prefer
going onsite to a customer because an automatic update has to be
rolled back, rather than reinstalling two servers and 30 clients
because they've gotten themselves infected with a virus exploiting a 2
year old vulnerability.

IMO, the lack of auto update on the IBM i is a big problem in our
small business deployments. Of course, there's not explenation why
customers with onsite staff update their IBM i.

In our previous discussion we had an intelligent System i Admin calling
a problem updating a system that had not been touched in three years
"IBM's mistake." ÂI would argue that the mistake was not updating PTFs
for three years. ÂLetting them blame IBM just helps the decision makers
decide that it's time to scrap that "old legacy system."

Don't worry, i didn't blame IBM in front of the customer, i blamed
their procedure of not installing updates.

But i still think that this was IBM's fault - after all, if i've got a
Windows XP with SP1 on an old machine, and i go ahead and try
installing SP3 and everything breaks, i'd still consider it
Microsoft's fault (unless, of course, the error was caused by a system
modification outside of Microsoft's influence).