Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Windows Cheaper to Patch Than Open Source?

Posted by Zonk on from the fud-for-breakfast dept.

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."

5 of 473 comments (clear)

  1. Xen by mattdm · · Score: 5, Informative

    [...]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,' [...]

    Oh, come on. Practically speaking, we don't have Xen for Linux *now*. Sure it's cool and all (which is why it's slipped into this basically unrelated story) but it's not nearly ready for the Linux mainstream and I'd be surprised if more than a handful of people are using it heavily in production.

    1. Re:Xen by DBarker · · Score: 5, Informative

      I think that Paul Kangro may have been talking about "Zen" for linux a Novell product (See link http://www.novell.com/products/zenworks/sneakpeek. html ) that is an update to Ximian Red Carpet Server and red-carpet client used for distributing patches to linux distributions and applications as well as imaging, and asset (inventory of hardware and software) management.

  2. apt vs windows update by xmodem_and_rommon · · Score: 5, Informative

    Really? The 'apt-get update && apt-get upgrade' i did earlier today on my debian (testing) box took less than a minute, and isntalled not just the latest security patches but also the latest versions of all my software. That was pretty-much free.

    Conversely, windows update only updates windows (not my other apps), and takes at least 15 minutes every time i run it.

    1. Re:apt vs windows update by SomeoneGotMyNick · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's a couple of mouse clicks.

      OK. Sound easy. Let's do it.

      Clicks Start | All Programs | Windows Update
      Hmm.... just sends me to a MS web page. Meanwhile, for some reason I can't shut down the IE window until it finishes "checking" my computer for updated "Update Software"

      Clicks Start | All Programs | Accessories | System Tools.
      Hmm..... Nothing there for Windows Update.

      Left click on the Windows Update icon in the system tray (it's GOTTA be there..)
      Up pops a "Ready to Install" update screen.

      Whoops, I forgot I should RIGHT-CLICK the icon to get a detailed menu of choices. I right-click
      Up pops a "Ready to Install" update screen, no menu

      Ah, Control Panel...
      Click on Start | Control Panel
      Double Click on Automatic Updates
      There we go. A window with a green shield and a red shield and 4 radio buttons. Wait, they're all ghosted out!! And I'm logged in as an Administrator. I can't believe I go so far only to be blocked from changing the settings....

      apt-get and emerge seems so much easier to use...

  3. Can't agree by dark+grep · · Score: 4, Informative

    I just can't agree with that report. From 1999 to 2002 I did work for a datacentre with 150 Linux servers and 26 NT and then Windows 2000 server servers. Keeping figures on those I can say that the total downtime due to upgrades and patching for both groups in total was almost the same.