Slashdot Mirror
IBM Tells Employees To Hold Off WinXP SP2
robpoe writes "As reported by ZDNet, IBM's technology department has warned internal users to not install Windows XP SP2 until IBM can fix some known issues with the way IE6 is updated, and Big Blue can make a customized version of the patch - 'The company's technology department said the delay is 'due to known application problems and incompatibility with IBM workstation applications.''" However, the article also mentions that: "One IBM employee in the company's internal technology department characterized the decision as routine."
Scary headline to read while I'm in the middle of installing it right now!
Never has a first post confused me more than this one. :)
Hey, lots of companies install policies on their IT assets that flat out prevent installing unauthorized patches on corporate systems.
This is a pretty big patch, and people have known for a while that it's going to change the way some things work. It makes sense to show caution before allowing a mass deployment. There's not much news here.
This is very much standard practice here at IBM. We aren't even supposed to use windowsupdate and instead use an internal tool that installs patches.
WinXPServicePackNews.com?
I think you need to read the blurb again. Particularly the part about "employees" and "internal users".
but aren't all major corps saying "LOOOK DUMBASS' WE CONTROL THE UPDATES DO NOT TAKE THE INITIATIVE TO UPDATE OUR BOXES UNLESS WE TELL YOU TOO!!!" I can say here where I work with over 500k employees that the admins are twitching knowing that security is going apeshit saying "Nope, nope, nope, can't install that, nope nope nope." and they desperately want to fix and patch the boxes in one fell swoop but know that it will break custom built apps. Here's for making all apps run on the web instead of locally!
Wheel of Time: Book by Book and Sumview (summary review) Bigdady92 style: http://bigdady92.blogspot.com/
Isn't this sort of decision standard in any large organisation? As with any upgrade, IBM will want to ensure that the upgrade isn't going to break any internal applications. No large organisation is going to want employees installing significant OS upgrades without central verification.
We have asked all of our XP users to hold off until we can verify it. So this should be a good practice at any company
Hehe...maybe slashdotters out there have become so overworked that they just moderate you according to your post title. Time to put that theory into practice.
I just installed it and now my I'm getting the BSOD. Dang it! I went to Linux to get rid of the !@#$ BSOD!
Oh, nevermind... my bad. That was just my screensaver and someone unplugged my mouse.
The only thing necessary for Micro$oft to triumph is for a few good programmers to do nothing". North County Computers
i'm sure the IT crew has more than a few things to do already!
Side note: just went cruising dell's site for any word on putting sp2 on the gf's new Dimension xps and didn't see much mention of it by way of "don't do this yet" or "my god people hurry and install", so i'm going to call tech support (i heard that chuckle) and see what they have to say on the matter. Prolly have it down by rote at this point after getting more than a few calls about it. If it were my pc, i'd do it just to see all the stuff and give it a shot, but the "my stupidass boyfriend fucked up my computer" doghouse is not where i want to be....ever!
Helpful Deployment Tools Here
How long do you think it takes for an organisation with over 300 thousand employees to change its employees' desktop environment? How many much smaller organisations still use NT 4?
Yeah, just like every company they wants to test all of the intranet sites that may take advantage of an IE security flaw.
love is just extroverted narcissism
IBM's technology department has warned internal users to not install Windows XP SP2 until IBM can fix some known issues
And of course, the first thing that happens is, this internal memo somehow finds its way to ZDNet. Looks like PR FUD to me.
It's good though, at least Microsoft gets a little of its own medicine once in a while...
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
This is especially important for XP SP2, because it does break a lot of stuff. In particular, it breaks the (enterprise class) products we produce in several places (I personally am working on our own hotfixes to be sent out ASAP). This is the sort of problem companies like IBM want to avoid. So, all things considered, this is a total non story.
"One IBM employee in the company's internal technology department characterized the decision as routine."
One Microsoft employee in the company's unspecified division of vaguery was alleged to have characterized a response which resembled "We OWNZ you biatch!".
No really, they did.
"It's not your information. It's information about you" - John Ford, Vice President, Equifax
The reason we're being told to hold off is that the new IE might not be compatible with some internal applications on the intranet (stuff like, payroll, expenses claims etc). There's no wording that SP2 breaks stuff in general, just that some critical IBM apps are effected. So stop scare mongering!
Windows XP Service Pack 1a was merely a release that made them compliant with the Java VM lawsuit. SP1a does not include Microsoft's version of the virtual machine.
Check your facts before you post.
The really funny thing is, I don't think there's a big pressing need to install this patch. Waiting a while is the best move to make.
What does this patch do for you? Well, I've been using RC2 for awhile, and here's what it's done for me:
1) Broken Thief III such that when I load levels, my computer crashes.
2) Screams bloody murder when an app opens a port - except for loopback - but even when I explicitly wanted that port opened it still raises a dialog.
3) Messed up MSN Instant Messenger's hotmail addin so it now links to Outlook and Outlook Express even though I don't even USE Outlook.
4) Messed up my MSN Instant Messenger buddy list by trying to group them into random categories I didn't even want
5) Installed more gooblygook into Windows Media Player that asks for copyright protections etc that I don't want and makes me go through the configuration screen all over again
6) Added a popup blocker I didn't want - that I can't easily turn off - into IE - that conflicts with Google Toolbar - instead of one easy click to get a popup on a site that you were expecting to pop up (such as a separate chat window for customer support), you now need to go into the options to turn popup blocking off, then click the google toolbar... twice the hassle.
And other nice oddities.
I say, wait until this beast has been patched...there's nothing worth running out for.
Tepp
I used to work desktop support for IBM and can tell you that IBM has its own web-based software distribution and installation service that it uses internally. The same thing was done for SP1 - users were told not to install from Windowsupdate.com and were instead told to install from the internal servers after the patches were changed to work better with the IBM internal machines - this is because there are modifications made to the Windows image used in system builds resulting in a custom IBM build of Windows so to speak. No real shocking news here.
A company testing new software before installing it on every system they have? Why I never! Next thing you know they'll be telling us that we should not run every attachment we get in our email.
1. Internal 2. Employees 3. Corporate firewall should already be protecting them.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
I bet they're just sucking up to the Linux crowd. First the public display of affection for open source, then the We-won't-sue-Linux french kiss. Now they drop the big one: "we don't trust MS either." Maybe they finally got a real marketing department. :)
**And the hotfixes still keep on coming.**
not only hotfixes but now there's this 250mb mega patch that you're supposed to install on sp1'd machines!
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Specifically it was NOT addressed to clients (note Sam doens't call them customers anymore).
It was a letter on the IBM Intranet addressed to the 300,000+ IBMers (for reference, I am one. I've read the letter. Of course, I do NOT speak for IBM). The letter does not mention specifics, but IBM develops a TON of software for use internally. These applications have to be tested with SP2 before they release SP2 internally.
This is completely routine, and has been done on many patches before this one. It is IBM being cautious and testing a new component with the thousands of other pieces of software that keep IBM moving. I for one, am glad our IT staff takes the time to do this.
any idas on how one would stop users, in a large corporation, from d/l this server pack? apart from blocking the www.microsoft.com/downloads and msdn.microsoft.com ??? asking the user to NOT d/l doesn't help much.
Consensus is good, but informed dictatorship is better
Actually we can install stuff on our destop and laptop machines, just so long as it isn't illegal ... they rely on our commonsense.
If we do stuff up our machines they'll just blank them off and re-image them, after all our work docs should be on the network drives.
Its better to have a system with known quirks than an system with unknown quirks
Rus
Cheap UK and US VPS
It could be the "updated" IBM version of SP2 is a nice clean Linux install...
*narf!*
The funny thing is the last sentence of the story: "One IBM employee in the company's internal technology department characterized the decision as routine".
So a routine decision makes the front page of Slashdot, clearly advertized as "IBM doesn't trust Microsoft".
The basic anti MS movement is still out there.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
"Sexy Man" is not an moderation option.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Well, you may probably not have noted, but there are lots of system calls in their old and new versions in the kernel for backward compatibility. There is lots of cruft in the 2.6 kernel, such as OSS, devfs, etc. Backward compatibility is important, even with the kernel.
I thought you had to have Admin rights to install the thing in the first place. In the second, I would think that most mega-corps would have their users classified as 'users' or 'guests'.
So is this message really for IT then?
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
...have installed SP2 on all their XP machines, and then ran it, longer than anyone has done since its release? If MS can go trouble-free for the past week on the PCs with SP2, then why are smaller (only slightly) companies like IBM feeling danger in insatlling it?
I'm sure IBM's business is run same as MS. Its not a hospital where great specialization is reqd in software and single error turns you in jail. If MS has released it after much confusion, I think it'd be good.
I have WinXP Home SP1 with all the latest updates applied. I downloaded the SP2 .EXE file from microsoft.com's download and attempted to install it.
The installation went fine except that somewhere in the middle of the installation I got "Access is denied." error. The installation program then went and de-installed what was partially installed and restored it to SP1 (Thank Goodness!). This was while logged in (as the only user in the system) with administrative privileges. Windows was rebooted and it booted fine in SP1.
I rebooted SP1 in Safe mode and logged in as the Administrator. I repeated the installation process with exact same error "Access is denied.". Again, reverted to SP1 successfully
I am thankful that it was possible to change back to SP1 and WinXP booted. But, I just can't seem to be able to install SP2. Now, I am scared than earlier about trying it for the third time.
Osho
Well duh, they want to make sure it works with all their software. I'm sure they are mostly talking about their close customers who rely on IBM for their business, and IBM can't be sure everythig will be smooth. But seriously this is the same as me telling all my office not to download and install it personally to wait untill I have tested it and I will deploy it for them
How does this get modded as informative? I'll be the first to burn MS as the stake, but IBM isn't rolling out because they failed to udpate thier OWN INTERNAL APPS, not becaue there is something wrong with SP2.> they failed to udpate thier OWN INTERNAL APPS.
You choose your operating system to work with your apps, not the other way around.
You don't run a corperation on bleeding edge, which is why RedHat Advanced server,seen as lowly by slashdot, is really a lot more appropriate for the corperate server room.
IBM hasn't updated their apps. This is normal. Unless there is something in the new version that Justifies it, or that version is EOLed by the vender, nor should they.
In spite of that, a "Service Pack" shouldn't break applications. To Sun, IBM, HP, Linux users, a "Service Pack" is a cluster of patches. To Microsoft, a "Service Pack" is whole lot of shit to foister on the clients without given them the option to install only what they need.
This is one reason why MS truly isn't ready for the datacenter.
IBM is just following standard change management/control procedures. Of course, they want to ensure that their own internal application still work after the apply of SP2. Whats wrong with that ? I hope most organisations will test SP2 out in test environments before rolling out to production PC's. This is just common sense. I pity some people who cant understand normal change control procedures. This is a mind set that unfortunately appears to be being lost - these are lessons learned nearly 30 years ago on mainframes. The same principles still apply today whether it be mainframe, nid-range or PC's. This has nothing to do with IBM's clients - this is for their own internal systems. Some people are implying that this is a plot to undermine Microsoft and promote Linux - IBM is a conundrum of ideas and directions - there are people pushing Windows and some people pushing Linux. I am not biased towards one or the other - just use the right OS for the right job. And further to what some people have expressed in this story that this is somehow a plot by IBM to undermine Microsoft - whoo ! what vivid imaginations some people have !
here is a link with proper color
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
...Why not ban the use of mouse? GUI OS's can be so irritating anyway... :)
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
IBM is being prudent in this case, because of the issues they identified with well known applications and their internal applications. I wouldn't be surprised if the are also holding off on the update until some of their internal applications are updated. A large portion of the company probably relys on these applications, and updating would cause too much downtime. They probably identifed the issues with these applications during the SP2 beta cycle, have updated them, and are beginning the process of updating images and rolling them out.
That being said, I'm wondering if we'll start seeing announcements from other companies that are doing the same thing. I'm thinking that HP probably has as many PCs if not more than IBM.
Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
There are security issues like people bringing in their worm-infested laptops. AS the admin of a small boarding school, I can tell you that that's the only way we managed to get hit last year. The policy here is that all machines get scanned and patched before they get connected to the network - period.
Nasty worms like this don't care about Internet access so much as they like to flood local LANS filled with unpatched computers. That's why, when I see companies or hospitals who don't patch before extensive, lengthy testing; I don't see this as a 'great' solution.
For a lot of these organizations (particularly those without extensive Layer 3 switching), the day may again come where a massive attack worm will wheedle it's way to every machine. It's happened before and will undoubtedly happen again.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
So IBM routinely decides that they won't apply Microsoft service packs until they have a chance to fix them.
Certainly sounds to me like they don't trust Microsoft.
Chris Mattern
Every large company has a hold off on SP2 order so their IT staff can hit reload on Slashdot for a week or so to see if any "SP2 sux0rs!!11" stories get posted. If we go 2 weeks without one, expect it to get rolled out.
Another site to check are some of the gaming forums. If it doesn't trash Doom3 and the Slashbots pretending to work don't report problems, it must be OK.
Ah, no. It isn't FUD. They just don't want SP2 to break any existing internal applications that run on XP. If you read just about every other posting on this article, you'd understand what I am talking about.
Companies have a difficult balance... testing patches and updates to software to ensure compatibility for their context, while getting patches in place to address vulnerabilities.
Anyways, I need to get back to trying to fix my Windows XP desktop at work. SP2 broke it severely, and I'm not doing a repair re-install of XP for the second time to try to get the damn thing operational again. Good thing I only run Windows in VMWare with Linux as my workstation's core OS ;)
perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
message to IBM from linux-2.6.7 in my T40 laptop: exfldio-0179: ***Warning: The ACPI AML in your computer contains errors, please nag the manufacturer to correct it.
Of course, this IS from the company that brought us Y2K.
2. IBM does not have a worldwide policy addressing the installation of patches and service packs.
3. IBM has never contacted employees instructing us not to install XP SP2 (a news article was posted on the internal website; in the past, we have received emails instructing us to use Windows Update to install patches).
4. IBM does not test every patch and service pack for compatibility.
5. IBM managers instruct us to us Windows Update to patch our computers.
6. IBM installs spyware on all our computers and validates the reports semi-monthly.
I'll let the reader determine which points are so important that IBM does not want us to install SP2.
If anybody remembers, WinNT SP6 caused Lotus Notes not to work, and many at IBM had trouble until MS released SP6a.
Ahahaha! I couldn't remember the name of it but, yeah... Lynx... Had to use that last month on a SuSE installation. It reminded me of a simpler time - back when my Atari 800 burned up the lines at 1200 baud... :)
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
I work for the Department of Defense, in an almost exclusively Microsoft environment, and the rollout of every Microsoft service pack, from NT 4.0 on, was delayed by the support group until it was tested with every application to make sure it didn't break it. The same is done for Oracle version upgrades, and any other upgrade or patch that has the possibility of adversly affecting the operation of the organization. So the fact that IBM has chosen not to roll it out immediately isn't anything more than ordinary prudence. Move along, nothing to see here.
You should try to stay INSIDE more often. Why go outside to interact with humanity when there are so many things to read on /.
To "fix" Issue#6. Hold down the left-CTRL key when clicking on the link that is being blocked.
What does this patch do for you?
It fixes alot of well known vulnerabilities, adds some great features to the firewall, adds a popup blocker, and the Security Center provides great support for some well-known virus scanners to make sure users are up to date on virus definitions.
Installed more gooblygook into Windows Media Player that asks for copyright protections etc that I don't want and makes me go through the configuration screen all over again
What gooblygook does it install into WMP? Or do you mean it just makes you go through the configuration screen (where you can just hit Next, Next, Finish - must be difficult). It saved all my previous settings and did not reset anything when I first loaded up WMP. You mention both, but really it doesn't appear to install anything new here - just verifies your previous settings.
Added a popup blocker I didn't want - that I can't easily turn off - into IE - that conflicts with Google Toolbar - instead of one easy click to get a popup on a site that you were expecting to pop up (such as a separate chat window for customer support), you now need to go into the options to turn popup blocking off, then click the google toolbar... twice the hassle.
You can't easily turn off the pop-up blocker? I know thats so hard to go to Tools, Internet Options, Privacy, and then uncheck the "Block Pop-Ups" box. I feel for you man!
...trust a link on a web page that said:
let us do it for you. ?!
When "it" means accessing your computer over the net and changing settings in your OS.
So if you deployed a Linux on 10000 machines on all your tech, marketing, IT, sales teams computers, and you had developped specific applications, drivers for some specific devices, and all the crap, you would just tell them: Sure, let's upgrate from 2.4 to 2.6 and cross your fingers?
The fact that they are cautious doesn't mean they distrust SP2. Like any major upgrage to a kernel (to any OS), it is going to break some of your specific devs, would it be only slightly.
This would be true for any OS. The fact that this one is Microsoft doesn't make it something against MS.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
I've used to work for IBM. Remember recieving my laptop (T21), don't recall any special notes on 'not downloading any patches'. OTOH, this patch changes so many things, that I understand why IBM is so paranoid about it. They don't want to deal with all the broken apps.
... Or may be never.
Personally, I'm going to hold on with this patch as well. Why do I need it anyway? When I ru Windows (and I have a dual boot), I only use Mozilla as a browser, have firewall, Active-X tracker, always up to date virus scanner, and several spybot scanners/detectors. So I would rather hold on till, say, the end of this year -- when dust settles down
This seems to be a valid theory!
I'm a little confused as to the seemingly excessive level of news coverage that XP SP2 is getting. As I type this, there's 3 stories involving XP SP2 on /.'s front page, all of which are linked to different sources. Why all the chatter for this particular release? ... ...
I don't recall XP SP1 or SP's for Win2K getting nearly this much media attention
Just a thought
Me? Debunk an American myth? And take my life in my hands?
OF COURSE you don't have your users install a service pack without sufficent testing!!
GEEZ!! This is news??!
I am the maverick of Slashdot
Damn, can't wait to train everyone to do that. Lots of sites require popups--webcasts, financial sites, grrr. Can't microsoft code something like Mozilla's "block all unrequested popup windows"? Sadly, I was expecting MS to do something like this.
Tinfoil hat much?
One IBMer opens up the intranet web page, sees the top story about SP2, and posts the info to Slashdot.
No puppetry... just normal IBMers who post to Slashdot.
TartanBlue
Doesn't look like the theory is applicable to all cases. You need to create a special exception for Trolls.
Here @ FedEx we tested some SP2 installs and it broke a bunch of our apps. We are also holding out on deploying this service pack to our machines so we can make a custom SP2. I think alot of companies are doing the same. TE
TerminalEcho
I wish that is the only problem I had, my pc wouldn't start after I installed sp2. Well at least the uninstaller in safe mode worked well.
I posted the same story around 10:00 am on technocrat.net. Wonder why it took so long to filter through here?
You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
I guess that's not an option.
Just got tired of seeing all these karma whores floating around :-)
Quick! Slashdot his bank account! Everyone should post here to get his fair share.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it dissolve.
Actually, windows update be it automatic or by visiting the site will read your registry and decide on what components you need. The 250mb file is *everything* for all configurations. Its the administrators version, not the end users version. The real size could be anywhere from 20-90 mb depending. Perhaps smaller, perhaps a bit larger.
Who cares about IBM, anyone installed this thing on WINE yet?
* Disclaimer: I work for Microsoft. You can either moderate at face value, or actually read what I have to say first. *
After working for the company for the past two summers as an intern, I've come to know a bunch of people who actually *gasp* work there. I'd say that 1/2 of them are Linux geeks who understand that while Linux is great and all, it will not cure AIDS, feed the poor, or save the whales/children. Neither will Windows. They're fucking OS's that you can either RUN or NOT RUN. Choose one and leave the preaching to the guys in the Vatican. The company is as evil as any other public company who is responsible to their bottom line and their shareholders (that goes for any company, not just software houses). Beyond that, its just a bunch of people who love to code, love what they do, and whether you believe it or not, are pretty fucking good at it (if you don't believe me, go through the interview/hiring process yourself and let me know how it goes).
It's come to the point where after having sat in both the "Microsoft sucks, everything they do is awful, evil, and will bring about a world dictatorship" camp and the "Eh, I'll work there for a bit and see what its like" camp, the only conclusion I can draw is that those who hate Microsoft with a passion, have some sort of underlying motivation for doing so. My whole life I had used Linux exclusively. My whole life I had coded solely in Linux. However, I decided to give it a shot, because I have a *gasp* open mind, and interviewed there. I went in almost viweing the entire experience as a joke, but I left loving the people, loving the campus, having a great time, and wondering whether or not I should consider this more seriously. So while I was being flown out to Seattle on MS's dime (hey, why not fly out to Seattle, all expenses paid for the weekend, even if I don't take the job) the rest of the kids in my CS program were bitching about how evil Microsoft is while at the same time complaining that they had nowhere to work. Unbeknownst to them, and many of the people here, there is this place called the "real world" and RMS's vision of an IP-unencumbered future is not a part of it. Rent, car payments, tuition, and food, are a _major_ part of it, however. Microsoft takes care of these things. Writing free software, for the vast majority of people, certainly does not.
Microsoft is just a software company. That is it. They are not some evil empire obsessed with world domination. They are not the fucking Third Reich. If you don't like them, don't buy their software. Is there any need to go any further than that? Do we really need to devote a front page article to the fact that IBM advised their employees not to upgrade their internal computers to XPSP2? When the newest Linux kernel comes out, do you honestly think that companies with hundreds of thousands of computers in their enterprise deployments tell all end-users to immediately upgrade? How about OS X users? How about ANY OPERATING SYSTEM ON THE PLANET? Regardless of what OS or software package we're talking about, if you have an internal user base of that many people AND you're running custom apps, you're going to advise people to hold off for a bit. Get over yourself.
I had offers from a bunch of companies, many of whom are much more highly respected by the group-think-drunk Slashdot community than Microsoft. Which full time offer did I take? Microsoft. Did they pay me more? Nope. Were their benefits better as a whole? Maybe. Is it the best company you can work for in the software industry if you can get over the "OMG!@# It's Micro$oft and that's evil" ideology that most 12 year old script kiddies hold? Yep.
I have no problem with you being a fan of Linux. I am too. In fact, I'm typing this message on a years-old IBM Thinkpad 600 running Slackware 10.0. However, I ask that just for one second, you take a step back from your own ideology. You can do one of two things. You can either admit that for all its flaws Microsoft makes a bunch of pr
I found this somewhere.
$ whatis themeaningoflife
themeaningoflife: not found
In related news, IBM tells employees not to look at the slashdot IT section colors, to avoid blindness.
wont complete an errorless install with any virtual drive programs installed, "atapi.sys" troubles for me (alcohol 120% here, but apparently daemon tools does the same), can't even disable a process from task manager to stop the error, either uninstall the program or tell it to continue installing while ignoring the error... i am a bit adventurous and all but i just have to say no when it comes to a brand new sp that is erroring during the install for now.
probably something that will get fixed and become interoperable before too long anyways, but for now I wouldn't rush into grabbing the couple hundred megs if you run any virtual drives
Many "server" orientated techies out there are oblivious to the fact that large organizations require the discipline of running a managed desktop. This means as much as possible desktops should be in a managed state through a consistent desktop image deployment followed by managed updates. This misconception that desktop users have more "freedom" is demonstrated by the confusion that this "internal" note within IBM has caused so many, when in fact it is a simple policy that prevents headaches. You think managing a server farm of 1000 servers is difficult? Try managing 100,000 desktops where globally you need to ensure you can deploy the same suite applications and support various country customizations like language support.
More than most Fortune 500s, IBM has a lot of different applications from developer tools to web applications used by their backoffice and sales staff. Nobody managing such a large desktop infrastructure would not do all they could to mitigate the headache having to fix desktops where the user thought through all the hype that it would be smart for them to download and install SP2. You may even laugh to know that in my experience (not at IBM of course) the techies are the worst of the lot. Thinking, hey I'll just install this because the IT guys will come install it sooner or later anyway...and I want a more secure desktop as the people on Slashdot keep telling me how insecure my XP box is. And then boom, there come the support calls:
"Half of all my applications don't work anymore"-Mr Smarty
"Did you install anything before this happend"-Support
"Nope. I was minding my own business and now half of my applications don't work, and I get this new icon in my system tray. Now I can't do my work."-Mr Smarty
"Are you sure you didn't install anything?"-Support
"Well, there was this update...uhm, XP SP2"-Mr Smarty
Click... -Support
MS released RC1 so that companies can test their internal applications and get themselves ready for the final showdown of SP2. But what they did instead? I guess they were just walking around in IT Dept. and drinking their coffee and browsing slashdot, in the hope that MS gets bankrupted before they release SP2 so IBM guys don't need to patch and fix their internal applications.
In our company of 300 employees, we tested SP2 way back to RC1 and from almost 14 days before , we were totally ready for the final release of SP2.
You should do the same
OK. I read the first part of this and just had to ask.. when they refer to IE6 and "Big Blue", do they mean the computer or are they using a monitor around the size of 35 inch when they crash?
Motorola's outsourced IT monkeys have also deemed SP2 not ready for rollout, and have warned employees not to install it on machines as well..
MS posted this article yesterday in Technet website, It's good to read it for more technical details.
Even if it wasn't routine, it's *stupid*.
I don't like Microsoft. Microsoft has happily screwed me in all kinds of ways, just as it has most people on this site.
People tend to flame Microsoft as much as possible to get back at them for the things that they *don't* have any influence over, like the "integration" of MSIE and Windows.
However, this particular issue has reached the ridiculous. I don't care how badly Microsoft has screwed you over in the past, you're starting to sound ridiculous. At this point:
* Microsoft has been bashed on Slashdot for delaying SP2.
* Microsoft has been bashed on Slashdot for releasing SP2 with bugs still in it (based on, I must point out, a *prerelease* copy).
* Microsoft has been bashed on Slashdot for releasing SP2 to pirates (and encouraging piracy, and thus "beating Linux" by putting out Windows for free).
* Microsoft has been bashed on Slashdot for *not* releasing SP2 to pirates, and thus hurting everyone else from zombie boxes.
* Microsoft has been bashed for adding compatibility-breaking security fixes (most notably, no execute on stack) to SP2.
* Microsoft has been bashed for not having no execute on stack.
* Red Hat has been lauded for adding no-execute on stack support to their own systems.
* Many major Linux distros have not been bashed for not adding no-execute-on-stack support.
At this point, Slashdotters should just drop the subject.
May we never see th
Just to make it clear, "you" refers to those Slashdotters bashing Microsoft over SP2 right and left, not the parent poster.
May we never see th
"One IBM employee in the company's internal technology department characterized the decision as routine."
I'd say.
Most of Microsoft's patches need fixing before you install them.
Anyway, what's wrong with pointing out how buggy even Microsoft's patches are? Especially when Microsoft is claiming to be the king of security.
Linux/Open Source/Anti Microsoft News
If you're having troubles stopping a process through the Task Manager, try the amazingly useful (and free!) Process Explorer from SysInternals. Be careful though, killing SMSS for instance is not a good idea!
Check out their other tools too, they rock e.g. TCPView is a nice graphical netstat, and FileMon & RegMon allow you to see what files/registry entries are being accessed. Very cool.Marketing my ass. It's called one IBMer among 400,000 (last count I saw) decided to submit an Intranet article to Slashdot. It was posted so that we wouldn't go and install SP2 and complain about internal apps not working - not so you could get your panties in a bunch.
I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
Personally, I doubt if I'll install it. I installed SP1 on 3 machines, and it made all of them noticibly slower. In addition, it made my home machine disable the kbd & mouse during (I think) the shutdown cycle, requiring a hard reset every other time I restart it. I'm also pretty sure I don't need DRM rammed down my throat.
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
Look at the bright side: People will start putting less popups in their sites (in most cases they are a Bad Thing(TM))
1. yes your right their are alot of internal web apps. Didn't Microsoft just release a patch for one of their web apps that sp2 kills late last week. 2. Uhh yeah they pretty much do...All corporate loads at least in N.A. are corporate loads which have ISSI installed. which does all the updates they want you to do. 3. Your right no email, but I have never ever got one email saying to use windowsupdate. At least not from any legitimate source. In fact I'm pretty sure I've gotten ones saying don't use it and let ISSI update for you. 4. Are you serious! Come on, what kind of company doesn't test patches. Esp. when they're pushing them out to 150,000 + machines. 5. I dunno about this. Unless your're not using company hardware, or not hooked up to internal network. 6. Yes they run security checks against all systems monthly. Which really doesn't do all that much, just checks your policy settings (open accounts/screensavers/etc..)and check for notes database encryption. Sounds to me like your just not very happy with your job...I will be the 1st to admit that yes there's alot of corporate crap at IBM, but not any more then any other huge corp. This is standard prcatice. They just want to make sure people don't install it before they release it. With all the hype surrounding it, can you blame them. This story is a complete non issue...The fact that it was even slashdotted is a joke.
1. yes your right their are alot of internal web apps. Didn't Microsoft just release a patch for one of their web apps that sp2 kills late last week.
2. Uhh yeah they pretty much do...All corporate loads at least in N.A. are corporate loads which have ISSI installed. which does all the updates they want you to do.
3. Your right no email, but I have never ever got one email saying to use windowsupdate. At least not from any legitimate source. In fact I'm pretty sure I've gotten ones saying don't use it and let ISSI update for you.
4. Are you serious! Come on, what kind of company doesn't test patches. Esp. when they're pushing them out to 150,000 + machines.
5. I dunno about this. Unless your're not using company hardware, or not hooked up to internal network.
6. Yes they run security checks against all systems monthly. Which really doesn't do all that much, just checks your policy settings (open accounts/screensavers/etc..)and check for notes database encryption.
Sounds to me like your just not very happy with your job...I will be the 1st to admit that yes there's alot of corporate crap at IBM, but not any more then any other huge corp. This is standard prcatice. They just want to make sure people don't install it before they release it. With all the hype surrounding it, can you blame them.
This story is a complete non issue...The fact that it was even slashdotted is a joke.
On planet Bizarro perhaps it would be possible to code an application to run with a service pack that isn't out yet, but here on Earth if you want applications to run on your OS it is best not to change things so drastically in a SERVICE PACK that it breaks a significant percentage of the applications that WERE written for the OS. So yes, it is the responsibility of the OS to run applications that were written for it. This goes for Linux and BSD too. If Linus wrote a patch that broke Mozilla I can guarantee you that the major Linux vendors would not push that change out to users before the conflict was corrected. A Linux distribution is what you need to compare to Windows not a custom kernel based on last night's kernel patches, and I frankly can't remember the last time the patches I got from a distribution vendor broke even 1% of the apps I have on my machine.
Don't get me wrong, this service pack would have been part of Windows XP when is was created if Microsoft weren't whipped by its own marketing department, and the security improvements in it are much needed. Microsoft is now facing the pain of having encouraged programmers to use the sloppy security of Windows to make applications "user-friendly",so they are going to spread that pain to all the developers that were unfortunate enough to listen to them.
Insert pithy comment here.
Where's that everso important and ranted about 2nd mouse button, the Mac users chuckled . . .
It was posted on the IBM Intranet so that we wouldn't go and install SP2 and complain about internal apps not working.
Not that getting our directions from Slashdot would be a bad thing...
I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
not a problem where I work, we are still using Windows 2000. That is, those of us we are now using 98SE.
in my life God comes first.... but Linux is pretty high after that
Francis Smit
If anything, you can somewhat trust IBM for things like this; if they decide that they're not going to do something because they're suspicious about quality, then I'm glad they let everyone else know.
Never hit your grandmother with a shovel, for it leaves a bad impression on her mind...
It's "routine" inside IBM, yet counterintuitive to the public. When a contradiction like that affects people as part of a significant current event, that's "News for Nerds". That stuff matters - the "routine" nature of the decision is a story in itself. Especially because there's so much anti-MS activity out here.
--
make install -not war