Fog Creek Software
Discussion Board




more earth to microsoft

When they come out with a rollup patch like they just did for IE, why don't they put out new patched versions of IE on Windows update. 

I just upgraded a server to IE 6 because some software required a later browser than was loaded.  So load IE 6 reboot and come back and get the obigatory new patches that IE 6 requires.

Fewer reboots win the day in a server room, people.  Microsoft needs to get a clue about the enterprise.

sysadmin
Tuesday, August 03, 2004

Microsoft doesn't have to worry about winning the day in the server room, they have to win the hearts and minds of the execs who set the server room's budget.  That means a big name with an expensive support contract.  Period.

muppet
Tuesday, August 03, 2004

Which server software needed a new browser version?  That's right up there with the "services" that need a user constantly logged in with an unlocked console.

Greg Hurlman
Tuesday, August 03, 2004

Ok Greg, don't laugh.  SUS.  I kid you not.

sysadmin
Tuesday, August 03, 2004

El Oh El.

Good ol' SMS strikes again.

Greg Hurlman
Tuesday, August 03, 2004

I think they think patches are "optional".

Matt B
Tuesday, August 03, 2004

Some are optional, such as the one that removes all the offensive characters from a font.

Simon Lucy
Tuesday, August 03, 2004

Only Service Packs are applied to new builds.  The other patches are at a system administrators discression which is why they aren't included.  i.e. If patch abc is known to break your business application xyz, then you probably don't want it pre-installed on all of your machines. 

Taking the mentality that you have to have versions with some patches installed and others not all available quickly spirals out of control.  With just 5 patches available, MS would have to have 120 different versions available for download.

And as I mentioned earlier, if you're basing your mentality about MS management software off of SMS 2.0 or earlier, you might want to try and convince someone to look at SMS 2003 as it's leaps and bounds better than SMS 2.0.

[Insert Philo's usual disclaimers here]

Elephant
Tuesday, August 03, 2004

No, I am not using/comparing/looking at/thinking about SMS.  I was referring to Software Update Server (SUS) needing the new IE. 

sysadmin
Tuesday, August 03, 2004

D'oh... must need more coffee!

That's somewhat lame on SUS's behalf... are you running on SUS 2.0?  Was that ever released?

SUS 1.0 was your typical 1.0 for a free product - a good product, but lots of room for improvement.

I stand by my statement that server software shouldn't require a browser update - that's still rediculous.  If the server's browser is out of date for what the software needs, just pop a dialog & write a KB that states that if the server's browser is < version X, then you'll have to run the app from another machine.

Browser = client software = bad on a server.  While there should be an option to not install a browser on a server, we all know that won't happen with a MS OS.  Hooray for the hard-admin configuration installed on Server 2k3 by default at least.

Greg Hurlman
Tuesday, August 03, 2004

At least Win2003 leaves my media player their.  It is so nice to have that in the server room:)  God forbid we get a server without  toys like media player.

"That's right up there with the "services" that need a user constantly logged in with an unlocked console."

We have some ERP software that has a java "service" that runs like this.

sysadmin
Tuesday, August 03, 2004

Oh, SUS was 1.0 with sp 1.

sysadmin
Tuesday, August 03, 2004

*  Recent Topics

*  Fog Creek Home