Is this my week to babysit the idiots... 3

[Kjonnnn]

I've been going around this week, making sure everyone virus software has the latest updates (even though I have them set to check everyday. I've had people disable the software.)

And, on some of the newer machines, I have windows download the security patches from MS and wait for the users install them. I've also been going around making sure that the users have installed those patches before the 16th. Would believe I had 3 users blow it off, saying they don't trust MS so they NEVER do the updates?

Guess who's gonna be set on auto.

 

[Chopstik]

With some trepidation, I dare to enter this thread. To answer Stevehewitt's rant, nothing. Provided you have a high-speed connection and the ability to add the fixes at MS's convenience, there is not a problem using Windows Update. That said, I also think that the argument offered by Sleipnir is not that using Windows Update is, in itself, a problem. Rather, it revolves around the fact that MS can sell a product (frankly, any of its operating systems) that is constantly having to be updated due to flaws in its code.

I am a MS user/programmer (well, ok, technical user according to a friend's definition of programmer as someone who actually knows what they're doing most of the time) and have learned (like Pavlov's dogs) to deal with the many bugs/features in MS software. Of course, I learned with Windows 98 not to buy anything offered by MS during its first run. I wait until at least the second version (such as 98SE) or second SP until I upgrade because I frankly do not have the time or patience to deal with the many bugs/features found in the early versions of their software. Sure, I can use Windows Update, but it's a little inconvenient at times and should not be necessary if MS could produce a decent product in the first place.

One day, when I can afford the time, I will actually learn and use non-MS software just to see how things compare. According to many of my friends who already do this, I will be pleased. But for now, due mostly to job responsibilities (it is an MS-oriented office), I will deal with MS. I may not be happy with it all of the time, but it does (sometimes with coercion) what I want it to.

Sorry for the long thought... Must be an off morning... No caffeine yet...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so.
--Douglas Adams

 

[CajunCenturion]

I have several areas of concern with the MS update system.

One is that MS has on numerous occasions changed things in the kernel, and the API interface thereto. That has caused things to break. Now if the API were published, and API changes documented, you can plan accordingly to move forward.

Secondly, given the MS committment to Palladium and DRM, I often wonder, just what is being updated behind your back that you don't know about. Are you being setup for an MS based DRM auththentication without your knowledge? It is my understanding the the Windows Media Player has already (or soon will be) DRM capable, even if not activated. But one of the updates may just turn it on.

Now if it were open-source, and you could verify just what is being fixed/updated and/or enhanced, then trust levels in MS would improve, and we could see what we're doing to our systems.

Given the well documented, and legally tested business practices of MS, on what grounds do you blindly trust that their updates do, and only do, what MS says is required?

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[sleipnir214]

SteveHewitt:
Do you mean other than the fact that a distributed denial of service attack against the site, which the MSBlaster attempted, will mean that no one can update their machines? Nothing.

I have no problems with Windows Update just as a matter of the service's existence. It is a useful way of recieving interim updates to my software from Mi¢ro$oft. I use it and the equivalent from RedHat all the time.

I've just saying that it should be used in conjunction with regular updates to the distribution media. Like RedHat does.


CajunCenturion:
Please, don't get me started about the quality of Mi&cent'ro$oft's software engineering practices.

Want the best answers? Ask the best questions:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

TANSTAAFL!!

 

[Stevehewitt]

LOL, there is a lot of dislike for MS in this forum.

Well, only time will tell regarding non-MS software. I know that if I created a car that 90% of people used (estimated - probably higher for desktops but lower for servers) then I would almost guarentee that there would be more holes discovered that a car that tookup 10% of the market.

I personally have no problem. When I purchase MS OS from licencing or OEM it has the latest SP and 15 mins on a 56k connection will get me up to date.

CajunCenturion

As someone who struggles with VBA, looking at the source code of Windows would be as much good to me as a bicycle will do some good for a goldfish.

Maybe advanced and inteligent people like yourselves will read it and look at what its doing, but then again - why should I trust a complete stranger who I have no idea how much experience you really have or even what knowledge you have compared to Microsoft Corporation who have developed software for more years than I can remember, Internationally sold products and I have used many of their products for the past 10 years?

Sleipnir214

I've just saying that it should be used in conjunction with regular updates to the distribution media. Like RedHat does.

You must mean like the CD's I get sent with SP's on it free of charge (licenced software only though) and the OEM software that is even installed for you!!!
MS does what you want. The vast majority of software is done through licence plans for companies where SP's get sent to you free or people purchase it OEM with their new family PC. I can't remember the last time I purchased a boxed product. The only time people do is for an upgrade, and IMHO I would imagine that most people do it before the first SP has even come out!

There isn't even a discussion here! MS already do what you want them to do. The only other thing is to update their software that gets boxed and put on shelves, but I would image that it would sell too slowly for it to be a valid business change.

 

[sleipnir214]

Stevehewitt:
What does Mi¢ro$oft's install base have to do with anything in this discussion? Are you saying that the responsibility a manufacturer has to fix flaws is indirectly proportional to the number of flaws? That a car company doesn't have to put out that much effort to fix flaws in its cars if a sufficient number of flaws are found? That a car company doesn't have to put out that much effort to fix flaws in its cars if its products are sufficiently popular?


And I don't think CajunCenturion is talking about Mi¢ro$oft's open-sourcing Windows. I think he's talking about Mi¢ro$oft's publishing the documentation on the Win32 so-called-API. Just the system calls it provides, input parameter requirements, and expected outputs.

This, Mi¢ro$oft has never done, at least no the entire API. I suspect it's because the task is impossible, even for Mi¢ro$oft, because it seems Mi¢ro$oft doesn't differentiate between OS code and application code. So any Word programmer can modify the OS to suit his fancy.


But no, M$ does not do what I want. It does not matter how convenient it is to install Mi¢ro$oft's endless sets of patches. I'm simply saying that the job of installing major sets of critical flaws is not mine and not my OEM's. It's Mi¢ro$oft's.

My mother taught me that when I make a mess, it's my responsibility to clean up that mess. I think the same should apply to Mi¢ro$oft.

Want the best answers? Ask the best questions:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

TANSTAAFL!!

 

[theoxyde]

sleipnir214
The trouble is, since Mi¢ro$oft won't telling me what patches are installed, I can't know if I've spent my money on a flawed product until I get it home.

It is usually advertized as such. If it includes a service pack, it will usually say so on the box. The "10th Box" is usually one that didn't get shipped back when it was supposed to. Like books, unsold software often is periodically returned to the manufacturer and newer stock is put on the shelf. This does, however, depend upon the merchant.

Seen at a major online merchant's homepage:
Microsoft Windows XP Professional with Service Pack SP1a

When SP2 is released, a CD containing SP2 will be put into the box with the last of the SP1 install disks. New install disks will be made with SP2 integrated and make their way to merchants. Service Packs are a checkpoint at which all previous patches are completely integrated.

Are you saying that Mi¢ro$oft does not have an ethical responsibility to publish products with known critical flaws repaired, or just complaining about my analogies?

No, and Yes... respectively. MS does have a responsibility to keep their product updated. But I argue that they do an adequate job of those updates. I install Windows, I set up an internet connection, I tell it to update when I'm not using it and *voila* I have an updated system. From that point on, Windows update is fairly painless. Service Packs are large, but that's insignificant since I don't have to go see a Microsoft rep to get the update (like you would with an automobile recall). Fortunately for GM and Ford there aren't a bunch of kids trying to poke holes in gas tanks just to prove that their gas tanks are "fundamentally flawed... but look! Nobody poke holes in Toyota's gas tanks so theirs must be superior."

I'm simply saying that the job of installing major sets of critical flaws is not mine and not my OEM's. It's Mi¢ro$oft's.

Yes... and MS makes it so that you can update your computer while ingesting large amounts of beer and pizza while watching Friends or doing whatever else you like to do during the tiny portion of the day you aren't using your computer... how irresponsible of them.

Clarification: I am NOT defending Microsoft's swiss-cheeze security... but nthey are certainly NOT guily of not providing timely and convenient updates... even if you DO have to click your mouse button a few times (just don't strain anything in the process).

OMG! There's that blasted Windows Update icon RIGHT NOW! How inconsiderate of them for making me... oh wait, it's done.

 

[sleipnir214]

If this is something Mi¢ro$oft is doing, then I'm glad of it.

But to use the old expression, I'm from Missouri, the "Show Me" state. I remember NT, where the first CD they ever sold had kernel build 1385 on it, and the last CD they sold was kernel build 1385. And that although the CD shipped with SP-6a (and don't get me started on Mi¢ro$oft's revocations of service packs), SP-6a could not be installed on a base NT system -- you had to go to SP-6a via SP-3, even though service packs are supposed to be cumulative.

And they seemed to have dropped the ball on W2K, too.

I've seen the online merchants offering XP with SP-1 preinstalled. I just have yet to find one that has any in stock or a price available.

Want the best answers? Ask the best questions:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

TANSTAAFL!!

 

[greyted]

Now this makes for interesting reading.

http://security.ziffdavis.com/article2/0,3973,1214112,00.asp

Any people you know get an email from this company?




Ted

"The difference between a misfortune and a calamity is this: If Gladstone fell into the Thames, it would be a misfortune. But if someone dragged him out again, that would be a calamity."
Benjamin Disraeli.

 

[sleipnir214]

Just think what Mi¢cro$oft could accomplish if it's right hand knew what its left hand was doing.

Want the best answers? Ask the best questions:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

TANSTAAFL!!

 

[Kjonnnn]

SLEIPNIR214....

You CAN simply installed SP6 after the initial installed. Do it all the time. Unfortunatley, still have some NT boxes here.

 

[sleipnir214]

I've had some third-party software that barfed unless SP-3 then SP-6a were both installed. Apparently, that software was using some obscure call that didn't make it into the rollup past SP-3.

Want the best answers? Ask the best questions:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

TANSTAAFL!!

 

[Stevehewitt]

Although its relevant that in the past there may of been problems in the way that SP were rolled out, but now its a breeze. I haven't really seen anything saying XP with SR1a as I don't go that way to shop for IT stuff, but if its true then again, there is no argument - MS is doing what you are asking of them but not only just popping a SP CD in the box, but even pre-installing the SP for the user!

Its a lot easier for me to update my PC than it is to get my car fixed from a fault that puts my life in danger when I drive my car!

I can't agree with theoxyde any more . Here, Here!

 

[sleipnir214]

Stevehewitt:
I'll admit Mi¢ro$oft has made progress. But when you're living at the bottom of a bowl, any direction you go is up.

But I find it interesting that you've used the phrases "there may have been problems in the way that SP were rolled out, but now its [sic] a breeze" and "SP-1a" in the same paragraph.


Want the best answers? Ask the best questions:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

TANSTAAFL!!

 

[Stevehewitt]

Sorry, I don't get it.

Other developers use SPxy (x = number, y=letter).

E.G. Tobit's wonderfull David Professional (Like exchange, only a true messaging server app) release SP5. Had all the updates etc. Yet a few months later they release SP5a as version 'a' had a new client extension added to it. Nothing major, but it was handy as I didn't have SP5 when I went to their site, and with SP5a it was all-in-one: Just like you want it to be!

 

[ANFPS26]

"It's a small island, Arthur."

Jim

 

[sleipnir214]

Stevehewitt:

I don't know what other developers do, but Mi¢ro$oft gives their service packs sequential numbers: SP-1, SP-2, etc.

Except in the case where a service pack introduces worse bugs than it fixes. Then Mi¢ro$oft has to recall it. Once Mi¢ro$oft's programmers finally get their heads out of their recta, they re-release the service pack. When this happens, instead of continuing to call it "SP-1", Mi¢ro$oft calls it "SP-1a".

So you're saying that there may have been problems with service packs, yet the very service pack you're referencing had to be recalled and re-released because of its own bugs.

Want the best answers? Ask the best questions:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

TANSTAAFL!!

 

[theoxyde]

sleipnir214:

Except in the case where a service pack introduces worse bugs than it fixes. Then Mi¢ro$oft has to recall it. Once Mi¢ro$oft's programmers finally get their heads out of their recta, they re-release the service pack. When this happens, instead of continuing to call it &quot;SP-1&quot;, Mi¢ro$oft calls it &quot;SP-1a&quot;. <snip> yet the very service pack you're referencing had to be recalled and re-released because of its own bugs.

Not true.

This may have been true of NT service packs (not sure what the &quot;a&quot; version of SP6 was), but not true of XP. SP-1a was introduced for legal reasons pertaining to the Sun vs. MS lawsuit. SP-1 included the MS implementation of the Java VM (which is *vastly* superior to Sun's IMO) whereas SP-1a does not include said VM. Consequently, many people (myself included) value SP-1 instead because it has the same fixes, but includes the better Java VM. This was the *only* change made to SP-1 (besides the name).

NT was a service pack nightmare. SP-2 and SP-5 rightly should never have existed. SP-3 was a major milestone and included some major new stuff that I have long since forgotten.

Neither 2000 nor XP have given me any sleepless nights.

MDAC, however, is another story. 2.6 SR-4 was b0rked (b0rked - similar to &quot;broken&quot; but with much more swearing) from the get-go and I don't know how it ever made it out of testing. Fortunately, MS has shaped their act up since then and now produces updates that are reliable. There will be the occasional ugly duckling (a la Windows ME), but 2000 and beyond has only had one truly questionable update which can be blamed upon a certain vendor's (*cough*Intel*cough*) chipset drivers.

 

[theoxyde]

sleipnir214:
I've seen the online merchants offering XP with SP-1 preinstalled. I just have yet to find one that has any in stock or a price available.

http://www.newegg.com/app/viewproduct.asp?description=37-102-143&DEPA=6

If you want something other than OEM, order from CDW. It isn't advertized as SP-1, but they stopped shipping pre SP-1 versions several months ago.

Stevehewett:
Thanks for the props.

 

[Stevehewitt]

I think that sleipnir214 would have a very valid argument say 3 - 4 years ago, but I think MS have pulled their finger out and are doing pretty much everything that you are asking them to do.

I have had no problems with either Win2k or XP in terms of Service Packs.

 

[greyted]

A bit off topic I know but this made me smile.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=74&e=7&u=/cmp/13100775

Ted

&quot;The difference between a misfortune and a calamity is this: If Gladstone fell into the Thames, it would be a misfortune. But if someone dragged him out again, that would be a calamity.&quot;
Benjamin Disraeli.