I don't think it's the newly build stuff that companies are worried about. It's the old legacy stuff that's on life support that no one wants to modernise or maybe they cannot.
I guess what I'm getting at, is that sure if they design new things they will follow modern patterns but there is so many things that are not modern. They don't have the time or incentive to just go and rebuild all this stuff. There is zero benefit to them on a bottom line, unless there is some burning fire, a way they can extract more money, or save tons of money. So, they just keep them on life support and run in a keep the lights on mode until something happens. These are the systems all sysadmin's just wish went away and there's many of these types of things all over the place.
Real life is more complicated, and even if the organisation willpower and politics are aligned in a way to _want_ to fix it, this takes a long time.
Chastising someone on HN because they own a system that probably wasn’t designed and might not have the power to fix seems at best, a little unfair.
I didn't chastise anyone.
Would it not just mean that you have more computers to update in your redundant/tolerant cluster?
For bonus points you're also not babysitting manually provisioned servers but instead have your software installs automated. So any failure on a server or OS update isn't seen as a maintenance piece but rather just terminating the old server and letting your pipeline auto-build a new server. This is often referred to as "treating your servers as cattle rather than pets", though not everyone likes that analogy.
Honestly, a kernel update has to be a routine, low effort, low stress task. It's a common event that should be seen as part of the normal operation of the system, not as some exceptional event that means someone has to work on the weekend.
Then there isn’t any stress to doing it, it’s routine and automated.
