Slashdot Mirror
Windows Cheaper to Patch Than Open Source?
daria42 writes "Is Windows cheaper to patch than open source software? Of course this Microsoft-commissioned report thinks so - but a number of people disagree, including a key Novell Asia-Pac exec, Paul Kangro. Kangro highlights problems with the report including the fact that it refers to problems faced by administrators before 2003: before significant improvements were made to Linux patching tools. 'We didn't have tools like Xen for Linux then,' says Kangro. 'When I patch my Linux box I don't need to bring it up and down any number of times.' Kangro also points out the report doesn't mention costs associated with rebooting systems after a patch is applied."
So you're complaining that you chose to install the patch that required a reboot? Why didn't you wait until after you completed whatever critical work you had to do? User makes choice. User doesn't like consequence. User blames vendor. Sigh.
That works great until miscellaneous dependency issues start arising. I suppose this is why some people refuse to use the package based updaters. I have tried learning to use linux to get a myth-tv box running, and while it runs fairly well, there is still a lot of things I can't get working. And now I'm stuck in some kind of dependency hell so I can't get miscellaneous packages I may need to install. When I go to install a Windows fix, it just seems to work.