Re: checkpoint firewall -1 sp3

From: B. Switzer (bswitzer@myprivacy.ca)
Date: 02/15/03 

From: "B. Switzer" <bswitzer@myprivacy.ca>
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 14:13:27 -0500

And what would break?

Hardware? You're on your own anyways.

Software?
- as in os / disk failure? Backups.
- other? If it don't work now, it's never going to.

'if something breaks' is a somewhat specious argument.

If we're talking bug fixes, software updates ( feature and or security
enhancements ), and these are of concern to you, then absolutely. However,
if these are of concern to you, you'd be on a service (/ provider) contract,
and staying latest and greatest anyways.

I absolutely agree - software written at any particular point in time can
only deal with the issues of the day. If new threats are discovered, or
hardware / os 'improvements' occur, and you care 'cause they apply to your
environment, then keep current. We all know that threats, os, and hardware,
evolve every day.

But if the box is doing what you need it to do, then why continually pay
through the nose? You bought the software, it's yours to use, and presumably
the most significant bugs were discovered and fixed within your update
period, however long that might be.

There is a cost / benefit / risk formula somewhere that each has to
determine on their own. The costs go up to fix the more esoteric risks, and
it's really hard to know how likely the risk is, to judge how many $$$ to
throw at protecting yourself from that risk.

My question '> >And why would he *have* to? (Upgrade.)' was honestly asked.
I'd love to have the time and $$$ to keep our installation latest and
greatest - however, I've yet to come up with a sufficiently convincing
argument on the points above to the powers that be, to make them continually
invest in changing a solution to a problem already largely solved and in
place. Particularly when you have to develop the new solution in parallel so
you have no down time and you can't jeopardize what's already been done.

Comments?

"Greg Hennessy" <spamcatcher@example.com> wrote in message
news:3gpm4v0e926tuip36ged96tg5jffkh42tv@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 02:47:23 -0500, "B. Switzer" <bswitzer@myprivacy.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >And why would he *have* to? (Upgrade.)
> >
> >[We're on NT, so I can't speak to Solaris.]
>
> Because if something breaks you are on your own.
>
> greg

Relevant Pages

  • Re: SP2 - Why bother?
    ... > Your problems are largely caused by your mixing hardware and software ... A SunSparc with Windows emulator? ... plant from a PC only. ... Choices that I make, have associated risk, the risk of programs not working, ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: HardBound and SoftBound (was "The State of Software")
    ... Why waste hardware effort on something that is a essentially a management ... Companies are often unwilling to pay the real cost of correct and safe ... There are lots of incentives to push risk off on the ... We have plumbing codes, building codes, fire safety codes, codes for ...
    (comp.arch)
  • Re: Complete freedom from Microsoft announced today!
    ... > It was a risk I did not think they would take - and I was wrong. ... > With Intel Apple was pushed into a corner by IBM. ... If Dell can pre-load Linux what, besides Apple, would prevent them from pre-loading OS X? ... > suffer from with trying to support so much hardware - likely ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Dual Disk SATA
    ... it's due to hardware issues. ... I'm entirely with you regarding backup. ... there is always a risk of backups not ... running applications off of the second SATA disk? ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Does OS X for intel run on my PC?
    ... Cost 50 cents, to make a CD, that you could sell ... But hardware costs hundreds to sell for more hundreds, ... I wish apple would open up the flood gates and let me buy a copy for my ... But hey thats taking a risk, and not an apple thing to do. ...
    (uk.comp.sys.mac)