Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • simultaneously presented with a dialog box

    Presumably this was a modal dialog box that stopped the machine from doing anything else? So you can't save any work?

    Does this mean that if you leave unattended Windows server machines in this autoupdate mode, you might find that your (mission critical) services have stopped working, and when you go to investigate you find that the machine is hanging waiting for an answer to this question? When even a forced immediate reboot would have been less damaging to your o

    • If you are using automatic updates on "mission critical" Windows servers you should be fired in the first place!

      • Surely the real problem here is not "automatic updates", but "mission critical Windows servers", no?

        As brave as it is to do automatic updates, willfully lagging behind is surely worse, isn't it? As the guy at my job who seems to have been given the task of keeping all the Windows desktops up to date, there's just no way I have time to run around to several dozen desktops every few days when yet another massive Windows / IE vulnerability is exposed & patched and do all the other, not-quite-so-soul-sucking parts of my job as well.

        You could use automatic updates but require manual intervention to install them, but most users have neither the interest nor the expertise to evaluate these as they come along: if you're lucky they'll just install every update (in which case you may as well have made it automatic to begin with), and if you're unlucky they'll go ignored and you have to go around and do everything manually anyway.

        What's the bigger evil? Bravely bleeding edge updates (and enough spare time to work on other things), or bravely lagging behind updates (and opening yourself up to all kinds of attacks)? It's a judgement call either way, but I think there's a strong case to be made for doing things automatically.

        Then again, there's an even stronger case for not running Windows on Servers That Matter, but that's a whole different issue :-)

        To me the best approach is something like OSX's softwareupdate command, or equivalent like RedHat's up2date, which can be run remotely & scripted. That way, one person can reasonably evaluate each patch, and if it works, can in a centralized way roll it out to as many machines as necessary. If there's a good way to do this on Win2000 and WinXP machines, I'm unaware of it.

        --


        --
        DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL.