Slashdot Mirror
MS Patches Go For Quality Over Quantity?
greengrass writes "eWeek.com is running a story about another Microsoft 'study'. This one discusses how good Microsoft is at providing patches for their OS. This is Part 2 of 3 in a series of articles, the first of which compared Linux and Windows on legacy systems." From the article: "Bill Hilf, who is director of Platform Technology Strategy at Microsoft and heads its Linux and open-source lab, told eWEEK in a recent interview that 'the differentiator for customers is not the number comparison, but which vendor makes the patching and updating experience the least complex, most efficient and easiest to manage.'"
I'll be the first to point this out (as I'm sure it's been pointed out many times on slashdot)--Gates has openly stated in an interview with Focus Magazine that users aren't interested in bug fixes.
... ever.
I've read other interviews with Gates in which he went further to explain himself by saying that the feedback they received from users was rarely requesting a bug fix. He listed a percentage in the high nineties that was feedback suggesting new features. And so, with each upgrade and patch, the aim wasn't for security or bug fixes but instead for new features which a lot of people asked for. The engineers will blame him for taking that approach but I'm sure the businessmen will laugh and follow Gates all the way to the bank.
Now, to be fair, it seems he has changed his stance (which--calm down--I believe people are allowed to do). And I applaud them if they really are trying to rectify what they made mistakes on in the past with their new patching strategy. There is (obviously) much debate about if they actually are trying to fix it and if these are actually quality patches. I'm sure the flamewar that ensues on this article will demonstrate that adequately.
I will make a speculation though. IN MY OPINION, the largest thing Microsoft has to fear is a perfectly secure operation system they have created and distributed throughout the world. This is because they will no longer have "upgrades" or new versions of Windows to offer costumers. Yes, some customers are looking for new features, but oftentimes I find myself on my Windows machine just begging it to behave properly as a cut and dry OS. If the rumors of Vista are true and it is an efficient and secure operating system that can function in plain jane deterministic manners, then I want it dual booting with Linux and nothing more
My work here is dung.
that the head of their "Linux and open-source lab" is also their "director of Platform Technology Strategy"? Why ever should that be?
"Our interests are to see if we can't scale it up to something more exciting," he said.
...but which vendor makes the patching and updating experience the least complex, most efficient and easiest to manage.
My office recently donated some P3 machines to a homeless shelter. The process of wiping the drive and installing Win 2000(SP4) and updating it to be current took nearly 4 hours for one machine. This was a machine that had just the OS. I had to run Windows Update and reboot at least a dozen times. Each time, I'd select and install all patches available. Due to prerequisite patch dependencies, however, each update/reboot cycle would make another 10-15 patches available. Hardly efficient. You'd think they could roll it all up into one huge patch and make it available. (And yes, I can understand the need for some places to avoid certain patches - make that the option, not the norm!)
Be a real patriot: Question authority. Think for yourself. Formulate your own conclusions.
Nor have I had any issues with Windows Update on XP or Windows 2000/2003 Server or Professional. While patches may be a little lacking in expediency (sp?) it couldn't be easier to do. I love that I can have my office XP computer patch itself while my servers download but do not install patches without my explicit command. I can't imagine Windows Update - and especially automatic Windows Update being easier to use, even for non-power users.
Right now, I think that OSX and Windows XP/2000/2003 really have the best in patching, with certain Linux distros being up there as well. Easily getting updates to users is no longer an issue, it's the speed/efficiency with which said patches become available that is to be compared.
Excuse my speling.
Making The Bar Project