It would be continual non stop update and reboot for our users. They complain, a LOT.
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 3:46 PM, Michael Niehaus < [email protected]> wrote: > From a Windows perspective, we routinely release non-security patches on > the “other” Tuesdays each month. In the Windows 10 case, since all updates > are cumulative, the contents of these are rolled into the following Patch > Tuesday security update, so if you skip “other” Tuesday ones, you’ll still > get the fixes eventually. For Windows 7, it’s more involved than that, > even with the proposed changes (hence the desire to simplify things – bring > an end to the current Windows 7 patching madness J). > > > > I’m not sure why you decline them if you’re just going to approve them > later, but the end result will be the same either way. > > > > Thanks, > > -Michael > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto:listsadmin@lists. > myitforum.com] *On Behalf Of *Aday, Karalene B (RCIS) > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 17, 2016 1:13 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* RE: [mssms] Microsoft set to change Windows patching in a > disasterous way > > > > Excuse me if I didn’t use the correct terminology. When “additional > updates” are released it impacts us greatly. We alsways decline them and > then approve them with all the other monthly patches. There are months > where there may be a large number released through out the month and it > impacts our workload and also leave room for error. Why are they released > during the month and not part of Patch Tuesday? > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto:listsadmin@lists. > myitforum.com <[email protected]>] *On Behalf Of *Michael > Niehaus > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 17, 2016 2:16 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* RE: [mssms] Microsoft set to change Windows patching in a > disasterous way > > > > Just curious, what 52 are you referring to? > > > > We routinely release additional updates throughout the month. It’s very > rare to have an out-of-band security update though, those are typically > only on Patch Tuesday. Flash tends to be the notable exception (we align > with when Adobe and others release their updates), and of course fixes to > serious 0-day exploits will always be important. > > > > Thanks, > > -Michael > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto:listsadmin@lists. > myitforum.com <[email protected]>] *On Behalf Of *Aday, > Karalene B (RCIS) > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 17, 2016 8:01 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* RE: [mssms] Microsoft set to change Windows patching in a > disasterous way > > > > I would also like to know how they are going to handle all of the out of > band updates they release each month. We pulled 52 out of bands last night > and I’m sure with their pattern that’s not the end of them for this month. > Patch Tuesday is kind of a joke when they continually do this. > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto:listsadmin@lists. > myitforum.com <[email protected]>] *On Behalf Of *Todd > Hemsell > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 17, 2016 8:57 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [mssms] Microsoft set to change Windows patching in a > disasterous way > > > > Less work for them. > > Here is the fix, use it or not. Even if it breaks other things. We will no > longer put in the extra effort to fix our security flaws, instead we will > put the burden on you to make sure 100% of everything you have is > compatible with these updates. > > > > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Ed Aldrich <[email protected]> wrote: > > How do you see this approach being driven as a profit-making process? > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto:listsadmin@lists. > myitforum.com] *On Behalf Of *Todd Hemsell > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 16, 2016 12:20 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [mssms] Microsoft set to change Windows patching in a > disasterous way > > > > Hey, it makes MS more profitable, that is all that matters,. > > > > Same with the forced advertising in a corporate OS you pay millions for > > Same as with the cloud > > Same as with everything > > > > Screw you, suck it up. lol > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 6:29 PM, Murray, Mike <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I’ve been told “get used to it” on the patch management list. Not good > enough. I think this is ridiculous. > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto:listsadmin@lists. > myitforum.com] *On Behalf Of *Roland Janus > *Sent:* Monday, August 15, 2016 4:08 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* AW: [mssms] Microsoft set to change Windows patching in a > disasterous way > > > > 1+ > > > > If they include such updates, like 3170455 which we also excluded, that’s > certainly going the mess up things.. > > > > *Von:* [email protected] [mailto:listsadmin@lists. > myitforum.com <[email protected]>] *Im Auftrag von *Miller, > Todd > *Gesendet:* Montag, 15. August 2016 22:42 > *An:* [email protected] > *Betreff:* [mssms] Microsoft set to change Windows patching in a > disasterous way > > > > https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/windowsitpro/2016/08/15/further- > simplifying-servicing-model-for-windows-7-and-windows-8-1/ > > > > Wow, this could be a disaster. > > > > We have had 4 or 5 cases in the last 12 months where we have had to delay > the installation of a security update so that applications could be > modified to work with updates. In a couple of cases, one ongoing, > Microsoft has released a security update, then acknowledged a bug in that > update and released a fix several months later. We currently have > KB3170455 denied in our environment because it breaks point – and –print > driver installation. In the new world, I will need to decide which is > worse – no security updates for 3 months, or break printing for all > non-admin users. Currently I can decide to pull or hold an individual > patch, but it looks like that option is being removed from Windows 7 and > 8. This comes at a time where it seems like patch quality has hit a > rough patch, making this decision more troubling. > > > ------------------------------ > > Notice: This UI Health Care e-mail (including attachments) is covered by > the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is > intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is > addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, > and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the > intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this > communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this > communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete or > destroy all copies of the original message and attachments thereto. Email > sent to or from UI Health Care may be retained as required by law or > regulation. Thank you. > ------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Legal Notice: This email is intended only for the person(s) to whom it is > addressed. If you are not an intended recipient and have received this > message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this > email or calling +44(0) 2083269015 (UK) or +1 866 592 4214 (USA). This > email and any attachments may be privileged and/or confidential. The > unauthorized use, disclosure, copying or printing of any information it > contains is strictly prohibited. The opinions expressed in this email are > those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of 1E Ltd. > Nothing in this email will operate to bind 1E to any order or other > contract. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
