Slashdot Mirror
Windows XP SP2 Delayed Until Late 2004
Aiua writes "BetaNews is reporting that Microsoft has pushed back the release date for the second Windows XP service pack to the third quarter of 2004 without giving any reasons." Update: 08/19 12:52 GMT by M : Another article claims it will be out three months earlier, no later than June 2004.
What?? You mean there are problems with XP?
-- "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur."
- Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound.
Due out November 12th 2003
when they ban enctryption only criminals wi$21*J *#JF$%!@#$':
If they're referring to fiscal year 2004, that's between January and March of next year, which isn't nearly so bad.
Reasons... who needs reasons? When you're Microsoft, you don't have to give reasons for anything. Especially in a time where you're coasting through a big vulnerability in your operating systems without really providing many answers. I figure by late-2004, a clean install of XP with SP1 should have about 50 additional critical updates for it (... there are 27 since SP1), and the entire installation process will take 2 hours (an hour to install XP w/ SP1 slipstreamed.. and an hour to install the 50 updates). What a shame.
Redhat
Debian
SuSe
Apple
Linux-Mandrake
Gentoo
FreeBSD
There is nothing wrong with being gay. It's getting caught where the trouble lies.
Isn't that the time that "Clean" up worm is set to expire?
Sig it.
Of course, the real reason for the delay is that after SP1, XP is almost completely bug free (except for thost pesky third-party apps that keep crashing...)
As I stated to daddypants, who IGNORED ME ahem, Michael, Wininformant has the real story. Due out in Q1-Q2 2004, not Q3-Q4.
My journal has hot
Could it be some unknown vulnerabilities that need to be patched or need bugs in their patches fixed? In SP1, they silently fixed some serious "script kiddie" internet explorer vulnerabilities that they would rather not admit to having. Could it be that they're trying to do this again?
The security community breathed a collective sigh of relief that there would be no new influx of security patches to patch the new service pack until late next year.
Then they went back to tracking the CURRENT vulnerabilities.
-- You can't idiot-proof anything, because they're always coming out with better idiots.
They finally understand what a buffer overflow is, and this time, they'll *really* *really* fix all of them.
WinInformant says that the statement meant Fiscal year 2004, which ends in June 2004 for Microsoft, and that SP2 is due out mid 2004.
The Register reported on 28 March this year that a service pack 2 build has been leaked. So if the Service Pack is more or less ready, what is Microsoft going to incorporate into it in 1.5 years ?
My mom never taught me to sign.
Convenient...
The story is basically saying that SP2 will incorporate things that MS "innovated" in the last year. Firewalls, anti-virus, etc, all stuff thats also supposed to be in Longhorn. Silly.
"If you're not confused by quantum mechanics, you really don't understand it." - Niels Bohr
Windows users will have to wait till 2004 for a new set of features that can be exploited.
When has that ever stopped Microsoft before?
. there used to be a sig here.....
(Isn't it a good /. tradition neither to read the article, nor to have any idea what it is about, while participating in the discussion?)
How is that a reason? The exploit that worm used was fixed months ago.
Yeah, it was fixed about a month ago, but this recent incident that had a huge effect on their customers _must have_ increased their willingness to improve the security of their products once and for all - thus the delay. Or perhaps I'm just daydreaming.. I don't know.
Sometimes it really concerns me when my computers have more "MS Hotfixes" installed than actual programs.
Hmm... I guess the more you install the better it runs. That sure sounds odd.
Hard loop..... huh?
Dynamic Designs
No, no. The Blaster hole was fixed about a month ago. People just didn't patch their products.
What I ment was that the Blaster incident was probably the last nail in their coffin - maybe they finally had enough and decided to take security a little bit more seriously from now on. That would explain the delay.
Something strange is happening at Microsoft ...
IE development ended (sort of)
Outlook express development ended
Service packs under long delay
Just an observation.
Skiers and Riders -- http://www.snowjournal.com
Errm... XP does have an automatic update facility, which can be set to automatically download critical updates... you can choose whether to be prompted before downloading and again and before installing... of course many people disable this because they don't want Microsoft installing stuff on their machines without them knowing.
Or, manually, you can simply click "Windows Update" in the start menu/programs, which will determine what patches are available and allow you to select/deselect which ones you want to download and install.
I'm not really sure how it could be much easier???
I copied this sig from someone else (but where did they get it from?)
No it was NOT fixed months ago. It was fixed about 3 weeks before the worm came out.
I love how misinformation about this gets out, shifting the blame from MS to the sysadmins of the world.
Freedom Is Universal
Linux-Universe
. Antivirus software for the platform is capable of downloading and applying updates to itself, and it wouldn't be a bad idea for Microsoft to take a page out of their book.
Let's see...
The blaster fix opened a hole on some systems
NT SP5 completely destroyed network connectivity
Tell me again why it should be automated downloads?
And by the way guys, this mindless MS bashing just isn't funny anymore. It long since ceased to be Redmond that was made to look stupid by these comments, it is now Slashdot itself, and by extension Linux. Which is a shame. True Linux and Open Source advocates would do well to consider some basic notions from the field of public relations.
If Microsoft want to makee auto-updating default for the clueless without offending business users who would (presumably) want it disabled, so they can control rollout of fixes themselves (both to reduce bandwidth by using the full downloads and the software delivery mechanism of their choice, and just because they want to give things a proper test first), why not do what I think they should have done all along - first only make it the default for XP Home Edition, and second make it a configurable during install.
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
For Joe User and for admins of relatively small business networks, 3 weeks is ample time to try out a service pack to make sure it doesn't break anything that you rely on and to roll things back if it does. For the admins of larger networks, where there may be an even larger number of applications that have to be compatibility tested, 3 weeks may not be enough. If previous MS supplied patches hadn't fscked up application stability in the past, this might not be an issue, but as they have, it is.
What I don't understand is why the process of discovering, downloading, and applying security patches has to be as difficult as it currently is.
Use the Red Hat Network Update Agent sometime if you want to see an updating process that's REALLY a pain in the ass.
For example, when trying to find a patch for the vulnerability that Blaster is currently exploiting on many systems...
Going to Google and typing "blaster patch" isn't easy enough? Considering the news coverage it's getting, you'd think that by going to any news site and doing a search for Blaster, you'd get some clue where to look next. Or, you could do what I did... SUBSCRIBE TO CERT. That way, you get the vulnerability notification the same day all the other professional system administrators do.
the vulnerability I thought it was, then find a download link, then be presented with a multipage license agreement -- all for one fix.
Two points I'd like to make. First, when is there a vulnerability that gets airtime on the major news channels (like CNN, Fox, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc.) that should NOT be fixed immediately? Second, clicking 3 times (Windows Update, Scan for Patches, Install) is a lot simpler than the 10 or so that Red Hat requires. (I only have Red Hat Network to compare to, so if there's any better way to update RH8, someone let me know.)
My thought is that Microsoft would do better to be a little more proactive in their approach.
You mean besides the bubble that pops up near the clock that says "You have updates. Click here to install."? You'd prefer a popup window that takes up 80% of the screen when it boots that says "Jesus Fucking Christ, update your system, dumbass!"?
I'd appreciate having the machine automatically seek out the patches I need and apply them (particularly the most critical) without requiring my intervention...
It already can do that. When you format a new machine, the first or second time it boots, a little bubble pops up near the clock that says "Set up automatic updates." One of the options (out of the 3) is "Automatically download and install patches." For those of us that don't know where to look without formatting our systems, that's under Start, Control Panel, System, Automatic Updates. I prefer to take a look at the updates before I install them though... just my preference.
"It's better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it." ~ Christian Slater, True Romance
Microsoft have been talking about making auto-updating enabled by default in a service pack which may be linked to the delay.
It doesn't matter...
The blaster patch on Win2K requires at least SP2 which requires 8 hours, 10 minutes to download via dial-up. Because of this, I disable auto-updates on any dial-up PC that I work on. It just isn't bandwidth effective.
IMHO, Microsoft should be *required* to send critical updates on a CD package via postal mail. The updates should be hands-free, though I doubt that we'll still have trouble getting newbs to run a fix on a PC that doesn't appear to be broken.
The other twist would be the built-in firewall software. Simply run updates to auto-configure it to block known exploits. Anyway that you look at it, there is a big problem.
Life is the leading cause of death in America.
Hmm, it's Tuesday. Must be "bitch about Microsoft not issuing updates". Tomorrow is "bitch about Microsoft issuing too many updates".
There is enough valid stuff to complain about when it comes to Microsoft, let's not start just speculating wildly.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
What do you mean, they bury it where no one looks? Every install of XP I've ever done, the Auto Update icon shows up on the start bar after using it a short while, and prompts you to run the Automatic Update Wizard. The wizard gives you the option to automatically download updates and prompt you to install them, which is the default behavior and the one I prefer as well. Or you can just have it auto-install them.
So, no one really has to look for it, unless they wish to change their wizard selections. If they do, it's on the auto updates tab in Control Panel > System.
Please subscribe to see the more insightful version of th