Enterprise open source Toolkit
Story: Row over report praising Windows patching
Posted by: Aaron Hodgson (Tuesday 24 May 2005, 9:59 AM)
I believe that Patching a windows system is far more expensive than patching a Linux system. Where I work
the firewalls are all Linux boxes where as 98% of the other servers are Windows Servers of various type NT4 or 2000. Before considering a Windows Update I have to book downtime to allow for either a reboot or unexpected problems with the patch, which means loss of production time and the company paying me overtime, and more import me getting an ear bashing from the misses for being late home.
On the Linux boxes I just set them to auto update and let them sort them selves out with no fear of any problems.
Until Microsoft can sort out the need for the system to be rebooted I can't see how they can claim their system has a cheaper TCO when it comes to patching, more to the point we would not need to patch MS products if they tested the code properly in the first place.
Full Talkback thread
Story: Row over report praising Windows patching
-
When will Microsoft realise that these self-funded... Anonymous -
Picking a single daisy in a field full of bra... Scott Marlowe -
I was reading this thread when I was sen... Anonymous -
The pains of rebooting after a patch are the bigge... David Wright
-
Compared to what disto of Linux. Mac do this too -... Anonymous
-
Microsoft must be getting desperate. So far open s... Steve J
-
My Linux boxes and server run 24/7. Updated r... Anonymous
-
The "fact" could be different from another point o... Lupa
-
Cost of roll-back?
Ever had to roll-back a highly... Arthur B.
-
I believe that Patching a windows system is far mo... Aaron Hodgson
