From: Kenn Humborg (kenn at domain research.wombat.ie)
Date: Mon 25 Oct 1999 - 10:49:58 IST
On Mon, Oct 25, 1999 at 09:14:02AM +0100, John P . Looney wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 23, 1999 at 12:09:37PM +0100, AJ Mc Kee mentioned:
> > In alll honesty what did they expect. It's only a matter of time if in
> > fact it has not already been done that "live updates" will do more harm
> > to people than actual use.
> Live updates are a fine idea. As long as it asks you do you want to
> download a new version of itself. If you have a problem with the way a
> specific company *implements* auto-updating of some sort, well, get to
> grips with it. The idea what I'll be told when a patch is out, without
> getting my mailbox full of mails for every software package I've ever used
> or registered - excellent!
Live updates are fine as long as they _never_ automatically install an
update (or can be configured this way). Auto-downaloding very much
depends on your net connection speed/cost.
> I'm heartily hoping some day that my red hat box will tell me "Exploit in
> cfingerd discovered. Would you like to download a new version for your
> closest mirror ?". And I'd say "No. I'll download it in work, and disable
> cfingerd for the moment".
That's autorpm. My Linux machines at work run autorpm each night,
download any updates from RH updates mirrors (but only for packages
I've actually got installed) and sends me an email if there is
something new. I then decide which I want to install.
At home, I just run it manually every so often when I dialup. it can
be configured to just report on what needs to be downloaded without
actually doing it, which is useful for running it automatically over
a dialup connection.
It's also got some sort of funky char-cell interactive interface
for deciding what you want to do with the packages it's just
downloaded for you, but I never use it.
A bit more work, and autorpm will be an awesome tool.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Thu 06 Feb 2003 - 13:04:47 GMT