A Continued Look at Linux vs Windows
Rogier van Vlissingen writes to tell us Paul Murphy has an interesting writeup on his blog about the continued Linux versus Windows debate with regards to some of the recent insights provided by various groups. From the article: "Disinformation comes in three major forms: innocent mistakes, intentional disinformation (aka FUD), and (self) delusion. Delusions are easily the most dangerous of these. In the IT context the most common delusion is simply that what we know is right in general or applicable to some specific issue when, in reality, it isn't. We know, and we act accordingly - with frequently catastrophic results."
Out of curiosity, have you ever used Up2date? Red Hat has, for quite a long time now, included a tool that works rather like Windows Update -- notifying you via a tray icon (or email, if you prefer) when there are new patches to apply.
The difference is that Up2date will upgrade a lot more components -- any applications you've installed, other than manual builds and unofficial RPMS -- compared to WU, which tends to be only useful for the core OS, IE, and WMP.
Debian-based distributions have Synaptic and the other APT front ends, which, honestly, outstrip Windows Update in practically every way -- even including graphical tools for managing configuration changes needed when updates are applied.
I am a paid Linux consultand/admin. If I would have read what they wanted me to do... I would have said no. Methodology in supporting a linux server is all wrong. Still one admin mangaged to pull it off. He probably didnt fully follow there rules.
I've mangaged to live update a server with Fedora core 1 all the way through each core release till 4 and kept it live and running.
security updates? 'yum check-update' 'yum upgrade $X'
If you run Linux like Windows, expect Linux to have the problems of Windows too.
Since when do blogs represent news?
The Sony rootkit story came from a blog...