At 09:54 AM 5/7/2003 -0500, you wrote: > > Oh, and yes, you can install Windows updates from local archives. By > > Windows I mean Windows NT, Win2k, or XP. I don't even bother with Windows > > 95/98/ME machines. They are junk. Junk I tell you! > > > >I don't think it's much of a drift. The difficulty of managing windows >machines is a security flaw. Rebuilding your computer from a year old CD >leaves it open to year old exploits. I must defer to others on the >difficulty of running a local cache of updates and what that might add to >the rebuilds. I also have to take people's word for it that those updates >do or don't break unrelated things because I never used any of the updates >as a desktop user. Contrast this to apt-get update and upgrade. When I >rebuild a machine it's for fun, not because it did not work or there was >some tool I could not use with my "version" of Debian. When upgrades get >too combersome from a CD set, I spend $!5 or so on a new set. There are >ways to avoid that purchase, but I'm lazy. Even if Microsoft's code was >as good as free code, there's much less chance a Microsoft desktop being >as good as it could be.
It's really not that difficult to manage a group of Windows machines and updates. The people that complain the most are Windows admins that refuse to learn how to script custom solutions to ease their pain. I don't know how you can manage a large Windows install without scripting some things. It's just too hard. The major difficulty has really been in pushing out new applications, but that has really changed with MSI. You can of course automate InstallShield installs, but MSI takes this to a new level. Do I have a big X on my chest at this point? --- Dustin Puryear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Puryear Information Technology Windows, UNIX, and IT Consulting http://www.puryear-it.com
