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."
Every time I read about another "paid by Billy G" report it always reminds me of the joke.. How many Microsoft engineers does it take to change a lightbulb. None Microsoft defines darkness as the new standard..
Conversely, windows update only updates windows (not my other apps), and takes at least 15 minutes every time i run it.
Windows Update worked its magic on my workstation yesterday; I was busy and didn't reboot afterwards. For the rest of the morning (until I caved and rebooted the bloody thing) Windows Update popped-up an annoying dialog box every ten? fifteen? minutes inviting me to restart the PC. Needless to say, everytime the diaplog appeared it was when I was typing, and half a line of code got piped to Window's equivalent of /dev/null.
I think we should *thank* Microsoft for promoting Linux ;-)
This is where the serious fun begins.