It makes total sense for medium-to-large organizations (especially ones with walk-in users like universities) to be conservative and cautious about any upgrade, no matter if it is a Windows Service Pack or a new Kernel build for Linux or a new version of the Mac OS. After all, the chances then that someone's important program breaks goes up dramaticaly the more people who use the thing, so that's just going to make IT have to work harder (when I did that for a living, we'd wait a solid 6-12 months before deploying anything that wasn't a super critical security patch for any of our *nix machines, Windows or Macs, and even for super-critical stuff we'd try to find ways we could shut ports off at the router or whatever to avoid deploying patches). If you're a good IT person who understands your computer's security top to bottom, it is not a bad idea to be cautious and conservative about such things on your home machine too. However, if you don't know security at all, this is one of those rare times when I would say that the cost (in lost time and headaches) for deploying an update is smaller than the cost (in lost time, possible infection and other fun stuff) of not deploying. That's just my broad suggestion, of course. Everyone can (and should) make up their own mind, because I can't possibly know what your specific situation is.