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."

Comments

Not exactly objective....

[Anonymous Coward]

So microsoft says windows is cheaper to patch, whereas Novell (who own Suse) say linux is cheaper to patch.

Can someone tell me why this is news?

A point we often miss

[rbanffy]

We, Unixers, usually miss the point that, while we don't have to reboot the whole computer at each and every important patch, we have to bring services down and then back up when they are significantly patched. For a database server it's not the system uptime that counts - it's the database uptime. If it goes down, I could as well have rebooted the whole server - the phone will ring just the same.

While this is a whole lot better than Windows, they are getting closer.

And... Well... The fact it was paid by Microsoft says nothing about the report. I sure would like to see the other reports paid by Microsoft that say FOSS is cheaper, more reliable, more ethical and that are tucked away somewhere in a folder marked "secret"