No, it's not new. It is very frequent. And, the the case of NT 4.0 SP2, I can still remember the pain that occurred with that deployment. In that case, a primary (but not only) source of conflict was 3rd party AV.
The point of this discussion is increasing frequency of issues (even as we acknowledge growing complexity of systems). *ASB **http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker* <http://xeeme.com/AndrewBaker> *Providing Virtual CIO Services (IT Operations & Information Security) for the SMB market...* On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 9:39 PM, John Matteson <[email protected]> wrote: > *Microsoft patches blowing up Microsoft servers/applications isn't > anything new.* > > > > *Wasn't it NT 4.0 SP 3 that blew up servers that had been upgraded from NT > 3.5 and 3.51. No one knew anything about that until the day after the SP > had been released when the wailing of NT administrators and the gnashing of > teeth overcame the sound of music on hold at the Microsoft Tech support > center?* > > > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Andrew S. Baker > *Sent:* Sunday, December 14, 2014 6:37 PM > > *To:* ntsysadm > *Subject:* Re: [NTSysADM] Patch pulled kb3004394 > > > > *>>**However, when you get out into the wider cosmos - lots of hardware, > lots of software cruft, no rebuilds for years, questionable patch > interactions, etc. etc. - they really suck. * > > > > > > In general, I agree with you. However, I notice that Microsoft's > ongoing patching woes are largely occurring between Microsoft's own > products. It would be one thing if they were largely happening between > Microsoft and 3rd party products, but it's largely internal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *ASB**http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker* <http://xeeme.com/AndrewBaker> > *Providing Virtual CIO Services (IT Operations & Information Security) for > the SMB market...* > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Michael B. Smith <[email protected]> > wrote: > > At least for Exchange and Lync - and I suspect also for Windows - you are > making an incorrect assumption. > > > > <rant> > > > > Lync and Exchange are not patched the way you and I would patch them. > Automation makes it easier - and safer - to idle a server in a cluster, > format it, re-install WITH THE SLIPSTREAMED patch(es), and then put the > server back in service. This is something possible "at scale" - but not > practical for even many larger businesses, forget the SMB. > > > > The dogfood environment for Lync and Exchange matches the service > precisely. Same hardware, same software, same deployment methodology, same > support methodology. It is a microcosm of the "real world". Where "the > real world" is Microsoft's service environment. And in that microcosm, > things are tested very well. Occasionally, something still slips through > (as we saw in the Azure outage a couple weeks ago) but comparatively - it's > quite rare. > > > > However, when you get out into the wider cosmos - lots of hardware, lots > of software cruft, no rebuilds for years, questionable patch interactions, > etc. etc. - they really suck. And are continuing to get worse, especially > on prior-generation software - because no one in their environments runs it > live anymore. Most of Microsoft is on Win8.1 and Win10. Win7 is legacy. > Vista is the stone ages. XP? Paleozoic. > > > > </rant> > > > > P.S. Don't get me wrong - I have absolutely no desire to support XP (or > Server 2003) anymore. But Microsoft could've invested more of their genius > into making that migration/upgrade rock-solid. And it isn't. > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Andrew S. Baker > *Sent:* Sunday, December 14, 2014 8:31 AM > *To:* ntsysadm > *Subject:* Re: [NTSysADM] Patch pulled kb3004394 > > > > *>>**The company's update woes have been ongoing for a couple years and > steadily getting worse, so maybe it didn't layoff the right people. It's > truly making the company look bad, and there's a growing mistrust among > customers.* > > > > You would think that the organization would recognize the clear connection > between ongoing code updates and cloud services, but they do not seem to > recognize it. > > > > In short, if an organization cannot easily and effectively manage code > updates between their own products for on-premises code, what will allow > them to successfully manage code is a hosted environment, where the stakes > are going to be higher because the impact will almost certainly be felt > more broadly? > > > > > > > > > > *ASB**http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker* <http://xeeme.com/AndrewBaker> > *Providing Virtual CIO Services (IT Operations & Information Security) for > the SMB market...* > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 12:20 AM, Jon Harris <[email protected]> wrote: > > Microsoft pulled a patch today. Thank you Rod Trent for posting a link to > the article. > > > http://windowsitpro.com/windows-update/kb3004394-finally-pulled-additionally-reported-reason > > > In short anyone that has pushed it needs to remove it. > > Jon > > > >
