On Wed, 2 Aug 2000, Jeffry Smith wrote:
> 1. The RH updates are total over a period of time, W2K is SP1.
I'm not really sure what proves. NT service packs are not cumulative; each
one superceeds the last.
> 2. RH updates are for lots of things besides the "OS" (even including
> all the stuff MS calls OS that isn't)
Not really. Most of Red Hat's updates fix security holes and other failures
in critical services -- the same stuff MS considers "OS" level. RH usually
saves the "minor" stuff for new releases of the distro. (Of course, I would
consider the "sort -n" bug in 6.2 pretty critical, and it took them
*months* to fix it. *sigh* But I digress...)
RH does include an updated version of emacs in the 6.2 patch set, which I'm
sure helps explain why it is twice the size of the 6.1 patch set. ;)
> 3. RH updates are individual packages - you can update what you want
> to, ignore updates for what you don't install (or don't want to update
> because it's not security related & you're stable). Try updating IIS
> only with SP1
This is a good point, but has nothing to do with the size of the total patch
sets.
Which, really, is my point. The size of the patch sets available is not a
useful metric. It is the number of bugs, how serious they are, how quickly
they get fixed, and how hard it is to fix them.
With Red Hat Linux, it's usually just a matter of issuing a single command
("rpm -Uvh *.rpm") and sitting back and watching the fun. Services are only
interrupted when their package is being updated. Most of the updates can be
done remotely. The only time I have to reboot to install a patch is if it is
a kernel update. The only time I go single-user is for critical packages like
libc and init (and even those might be doable multi-user, I'm just cautious).
Compare that to NT where:
- The patch set is monolithic, as you noted
- It must be installed from the system console
- It requires at least one, and often multiple, reboots
- The system is often completely unavailable for almost an hour
- When things go wrong, you usually have to format the system disk and
start over from scratch
Kenny also makes a good point:
On Wed, 2 Aug 2000, Kenneth E. Lussier wrote:
> But since we're talking about about M$ service packs, my personal
> favorite was SP5. It introduced 13 security holes, 5 of which
> were re-introductions, since SP4 had fixed them. Now *THAT* is
> progress ;-)
So, I guess my point can be summed up as:
When it comes to patch sets, it isn't the size that matters. ;-)
--
Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Net Technologies, Inc. <http://www.ntisys.com>
Voice: (800)905-3049 x18 Fax: (978)499-7839
**********************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the
*body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter:
unsubscribe gnhlug
**********************************************************
