Microsoft Quietly Releases Windows 2003 SP2

This is one of the reasons I prefer Debian. by khasim · 2007-03-13 12:25 · Score: 0, Troll

And Ubuntu.

Microsoft's fondness of the MEGA patch just means too many things that can go wrong. With Debian, if I update an app or library or whatever ... it pretty much stays updated. I don't have to go back and re-install the same update later.

Re:This is one of the reasons I prefer Debian. by Captain+Splendid · 2007-03-13 12:29 · Score: 1

Very good point. Why does MS prefer big honkin' files over a more granular approach anyway?

--
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
Re:This is one of the reasons I prefer Debian. by suv4x4 · 2007-03-13 12:36 · Score: 5, Informative

Very good point. Why does MS prefer big honkin' files over a more granular approach anyway?

Microsoft doesn't prefer it: their corporate customers do, as they have to perform lengthy and expensive tests to confirm all of their mission critical apps work with the SP (imagine doing it after every patch).

Also the GP said that in Linux updates just mean the app is "updated" and there aren't any backwards incompatibilities... Hehe, I'd love to be that naive myself. Just consider however, we don't all run amateur home servers for our php blogs.
Re:This is one of the reasons I prefer Debian. by mobby_6kl · 2007-03-13 12:47 · Score: 5, Informative

Most of the updates in SP2 have been already released as separate patches by now. If the system was kept up to date, this SP will only download/install only the few things that are missing and you don't have to go back and re-install anything.

Basically, an SP is mainly a a convenient way of getting an outdated system fully patched-up.
Re:This is one of the reasons I prefer Debian. by gkhan1 · 2007-03-13 12:51 · Score: 1

This also highlights one of the great advantages with open source: free redistribution. The big reasons why debian, ubuntu and other linuxes can do such seamless updates is because of the package managers; because you have one unified system of downloading and installing apps, you can update them without any hassle at all. This wouldn't be possible on windows since the overwhelming majority of apps are not open source, meaning that you can't have a unified repository where you can download them from. That would be copyright infringement. This makes it so that every single app that wants to stay current has to make their own versions of an automatic updater, often making it gruesomely annoying to start whatever you need because of some damn pop-up (Acrobat Reader, I'm looking at you!). In ubuntu,, when something needs updating, a little star shines at the top of my screen, I click on it and enter my password, and bobs-yer-uncle, it's done.
Package managers are such an ingenious solution to handling software, and it is something that could only have come from the open source world.
Well done, linux people! Well done!
Re:This is one of the reasons I prefer Debian. by baadger · 2007-03-13 12:55 · Score: 1

If the system was kept up to date, this SP will only download/install only the few things that are missing and you don't have to go back and re-install anything.

No it won't. The full 350Mb appears on Windows Update even if you're fully patched up.
Re:This is one of the reasons I prefer Debian. by kestasjk · 2007-03-13 12:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

I don't like mindless pro-Linux droning either, but personally I prefer to deal with small updates every day, which are very unlikely to affect anything, than a traumatic experience every month which is rather likely to affect something, where you'll have no idea which of the bundled hotfixes are doing the damage.

Also you have to balance out the bonus of having the bug/security hole fixed immediately; shouldn't it be done right away to avoid worse problems?

--
// MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
Re:This is one of the reasons I prefer Debian. by Nasarius · 2007-03-13 13:00 · Score: 1

While nothing beats Paludis-flavored Gentoo for me, I remain surprised that no one has made a usable package manager for Windows. It's one of those things that have been perpetually on my "gee, I wish I had the time to write that" list. There are a wide variety of open-source apps for Windows, and there will be many many more when KDE4 is released later this year. It's an enormous pain in the ass to have to individually download and run installers, and keep on top of updates for Gaim, Eclipse, Azureus, Firefox, Thunderbird, OpenOffice, VLC, Audacity, GIMP, etc, when you know there's a better way.

--
LOAD "SIG",8,1
Re:This is one of the reasons I prefer Debian. by dosius · 2007-03-13 13:06 · Score: 1

It would maybe be nice to port apt and start an apt repo (might need to change the extension for the deb files to avoid confusion with Linux debs), but you'd have to really affk with it to get it to work with Winsock, unless you use Cygwin...

-uso.

--
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
Re:This is one of the reasons I prefer Debian. by Threni · 2007-03-13 13:06 · Score: 3, Informative

> No it won't. The full 350Mb appears on Windows Update even if you're fully patched up.

That's not what happens with XP, so I'm guessing that if what you say is true then it's a mistake and not a stupid idea on Microsoft's part.
Re:This is one of the reasons I prefer Debian. by CastrTroy · 2007-03-13 13:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

But those tests are only so lengthy and expensive because just about anything can change. If you know that there's a change in Samba, you only have to test the things that depend on Samba, you don't have to retest everything in the system. The fact that you have to test so many things when you upgrade is just a microsoft thing. There isn't a lot of things that break if your patch consists of actually just fixing a single, or small number of bugs.

--

Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Re:This is one of the reasons I prefer Debian. by Joe+The+Dragon · 2007-03-13 13:18 · Score: 1

people like to slipstream updates to the install source.
Re:This is one of the reasons I prefer Debian. by maxume · 2007-03-13 13:21 · Score: 1

http://www.installpad.com/
http://blog.genotrance.com/applications/appsnap/

More at:

http://lifehacker.com/software/downloads/geek-to-l ive--automatically-download-and-install-your-favor ite-software-211373.php

--
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Re:This is one of the reasons I prefer Debian. by suv4x4 · 2007-03-13 13:27 · Score: 3, Informative

But those tests are only so lengthy and expensive because just about anything can change. If you know that there's a change in Samba, you only have to test the things that depend on Samba, you don't have to retest everything in the system. The fact that you have to test so many things when you upgrade is just a microsoft thing. There isn't a lot of things that break if your patch consists of actually just fixing a single, or small number of bugs.

What you're talking about is simply the wrong perception of a guy who never dealt with the issue at hand.

Tell me: how can it be less testing to test individually all components that could be affected by a patch, versus testing for all components that could be affected by a list of patches. Especially if several patches affect the same exact components.

A SP isn't a black box. You get a list of the small fixes that are contained inside, so you again know what is being changed.

Also, testing just what could obviously break is a terrible way to test. A read a story about someone, who after upgrading to Linux kernel 2.6 started having random lockups in PHP/Apache.

What changed? After long and extensive testing, it turned out that sessions use /dev/rand/ which is fed entropy from HDD, mouse, keyboard and network activity. In 2.6 network activity was no longer used (security issue), and the server hand no mouse, keyboard, and all files were on a NFS share. So /dev/rand/ was "running out of entropy" and blocking.

How would YOU guess that your 2.4 -> 2.6 kernel upgrade would cause PHP sessions to lock up under heavy load, when you look at the list of changes?? Answer: you wouldn't.

You'd deploy this on the live servers and experience mysterious downtimes all the time. And THIS is why enterprises test throughly all critical apps, even for the smallest patches.
Re:This is one of the reasons I prefer Debian. by gregleimbeck · 2007-03-13 13:31 · Score: 2, Interesting

This is not so much of an issue for me now, but in the past I have had to spend days going through change management to install anything on a server, be it a hotfix, service pack, whatever. I, for one, welcome our big honkin' file overlords.

--
P.S.,

This is what part of the alphabet would look like if Q and R were eliminated.
Re:This is one of the reasons I prefer Debian. by fastgood · 2007-03-13 13:32 · Score: 2, Informative

-
Another point to big service packs is that once SP(n) is released, marketing can admit SP(n-1)
is really quite insecure on WIN(r-3) and how WIN(r) is now strongly recommended for your shop
Re:This is one of the reasons I prefer Debian. by Nimey · 2007-03-13 13:41 · Score: 1

O RLY? What patches install the security center, improved firewall, and IE6 SP2 in Windows XP SP1?

I'm waiting for some wit to post links to ZoneAlarm and the like.

--
Hail Eris, full of mischief...

E pluribus sanguinem
Re:This is one of the reasons I prefer Debian. by Lloyd_Bryant · 2007-03-13 13:54 · Score: 5, Interesting

Also, testing just what could obviously break is a terrible way to test. A read a story about someone, who after upgrading to Linux kernel 2.6 started having random lockups in PHP/Apache. Apples and Oranges. A change to the kernel potentially affects EVERYTHING on the system. Anyone doing a kernel upgrade *should* be retesting everything on the system.

The issue with MS products is their downright incestuous relationship with each other. An update to IE can potentially affect Word. A patch for a security bug in IIS can cause SQL server to go wacky. The reason that business prefers Service Packs to patches is because they've learned the hard way that if you change ANYTHING on a Windows box, you have to recertify EVERYTHING.

--
Don't tell me to get a life. I had one once. It sucked.
Re:This is one of the reasons I prefer Debian. by suv4x4 · 2007-03-13 14:06 · Score: 3, Informative

Apples and Oranges. A change to the kernel potentially affects EVERYTHING on the system. Anyone doing a kernel upgrade *should* be retesting everything on the system.

Windows doesn't have a monolithic kernel like Linux. Are you going to flame now all OS with hybrid kernels and microkernels?

You wouldn't be right anyway, since there are tons of library dependencies in Linux apps where updating a component could cause a chain reaction affecting all libs that use it, the libs that use the libs, and some app that uses the latter libs, you never suspected.
Re:This is one of the reasons I prefer Debian. by matrixhax0r · 2007-03-13 14:13 · Score: 1

I dunno, fixes and features only in SP's seems pretty popular with Microsoft. That's "black box" in your sense.

--
If it's no on fire, it's a hardware problem.
Re:This is one of the reasons I prefer Debian. by pherthyl · 2007-03-13 14:35 · Score: 1

What're you talking about? The kernel affects _everything_. If I upgraded the kernel and then things started going wonky it would be the first thing I suspected. That's about the most obvious candidate for when something breaks.
It seems like you consider a upgrading the kernel between major versions a minor patch. I don't know where you're getting your information, but the kernel is central to the system. Even minor updates need major testing since it could affect anything on the system.

Aside from that, I agree with you. SPs are not any harder to test for than individual patches, easier in some cases.
Re:This is one of the reasons I prefer Debian. by cheater512 · 2007-03-13 14:47 · Score: 1

Thats a major kernel upgrade. Not a service pack.

What your describing is more along the lines of upgrading from Windows 98 to Windows 2000.
Re:This is one of the reasons I prefer Debian. by Anonymous Coward · 2007-03-13 15:30 · Score: 0

I'm fully patched up, and Server 2k3 SP2 shows up as 84.7 MB in Windows Update.
Re:This is one of the reasons I prefer Debian. by suckmysav · 2007-03-13 15:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

More to the point, if I see an update come through on Ubuntu that is for "gnome-desktop-calendar" then I can be pretty sure that even if it is borked, it won't bork my entire system, and even if it does, I will know where to look in order to fix it.

On the flip side, if I apply W2K_SP2.exe to my server and something breaks I have a much more difficult time identifying the problem and often the best short term course of action is to roll back the entire service pack.

--
"You can't fight in here, this is the war room!"
Re:This is one of the reasons I prefer Debian. by necrogram · 2007-03-13 15:59 · Score: 1

This is a return to the way MS used to do SP's. All SP's used to be were bug fixed and back ported updates (like NTFS 5.0 supprt for NT4). Nothing major was added to SP's. now they throw a lot more shit in the SP's and change even more shit. SP2 for 2k3 looks like i can fast track it in with out having to go through reams of documentation and testing.
Re:This is one of the reasons I prefer Debian. by Ultra64 · 2007-03-13 17:15 · Score: 1, Funny

Everytime I see this I can't get over how fucking funny that bird looks.
Re:This is one of the reasons I prefer Debian. by wayward_bruce · 2007-03-13 17:48 · Score: 1

Also the GP said that in Linux updates just mean the app is "updated" and there aren't any backwards incompatibilities... Hehe, I'd love to be that naive myself. Just consider however, we don't all run amateur home servers for our php blogs.

Yes, your PHP blog is the mission critical application that just won't do without a monolithic update process.
Re:This is one of the reasons I prefer Debian. by Threni · 2007-03-13 20:06 · Score: 1

> O RLY? What patches install the security center, improved firewall, and IE6 SP2 in Windows XP SP1?

What's that got to do with what I put in my post?
Re:This is one of the reasons I prefer Debian. by Anonymous Coward · 2007-03-13 21:54 · Score: 1, Insightful

Okay, it's unlikely a bugfix to the color management subsystem is going to affect the accounting program, but when millions of dollars over tens of thousands of workstations are potentially affected, are you going to take that risk?

Big corporates aren't; not with that level of money on the line. Each patch causes everything to be restested, it doesn't matter HOW big or small the patch is. Bigger patches save time, overall, because that means there's fewer of them meaning (per year) less time spent testing. Less headaches for IT depts too, because there's less patches for them to tick off and keep track of.

Small and frequent patches are a huge sinkhole of time for an IT department.

See, I'd rather test my programs against a single "march 2007" update than having to test against all the different possible bugfixes that accumulated during march. Doing daily updates as you speak makes for a huge effort just to stay in the same place.

Also, the one big patch lets me read mailing lists and find out what other corporates have done. If a huge multinational runs into an issue with a SP, I know that I have to be careful with that SP even though my company is a ten thousandath of the size. But a minor update? There's not going to be enough weight to that for me to hear about issues it causes.

Yes, I know, there are times that patches need to be expidited due to security issues, which I can live with.
Re:This is one of the reasons I prefer Debian. by utnapistim · 2007-03-13 22:10 · Score: 2, Informative

I don't like mindless pro-Linux droning either, but personally I prefer to deal with small updates every day, which are very unlikely to affect anything, than a traumatic experience every month which is rather likely to affect something, where you'll have no idea which of the bundled hotfixes are doing the damage.

Ummm ... yes, but that is you, not a corporate customer.

A few years back I was working for a company developing a large financial platform, and they were testing a few months before getting to the next service pack (then, the sys-admin installed it on all computers). This was being done on separate machines, and a full battery of tests had to be run, before approving the upgrade company-wide.

You simply cannot afford that, when you have a lot of small upgrades, spread over the same period. Also, when considering the same updates but distributed differently (small updates vs. service-pack) their likeliness of affecting something is exactly the same.

--
Tie two birds together: although they have four wings, they cannot fly. (The blind man)
Re:This is one of the reasons I prefer Debian. by baadger · 2007-03-13 22:24 · Score: 1

In which case I guess it's specific to XP "x64 Edition" users.
Re:This is one of the reasons I prefer Debian. by turbidostato · 2007-03-13 22:32 · Score: 2, Informative

"You wouldn't be right anyway, since there are tons of library dependencies in Linux apps where updating a component could cause a chain reaction affecting all libs that use it, the libs that use the libs, and some app that uses the latter libs, you never suspected."

Yes.

Still, I have yet to have *any* problem on a security update on Debian "stable" on about six years. How's that possible?

I'll tell you: Microsoft updates are not *security* updates; they overly change the way Windows behaves so it's no wonder something breaks because of it. If they were as concious as Debian people are about fixing *only* security holes and doing it by introducing the less possible changes and no behaviour change at all, you could bet Windows patches wouldn't be such a nightmare.

Please understand that has nothing to do with being Windows or Linux but about how serious they are about how upgrades have to be done: Debian is rock solid; Red Hat a bit of a concern; Gentoo almost doesn't pay attention to it; Microsoft is about as good as Gentoo.
Re:This is one of the reasons I prefer Debian. by drsmithy · 2007-03-13 23:44 · Score: 1

Package managers are such an ingenious solution to handling software, and it is something that could only have come from the open source world.
Package managers are an ugly hack to work around the two biggest problems in the open source world: fragmentation and instability, both of which lead to dependency hell.
Re:This is one of the reasons I prefer Debian. by SCPRedMage · 2007-03-14 01:07 · Score: 1

Switching from 9x to NT is more akin to switching from OS/2 to Linux than a switching from 2.4 to 2.6, considering that the NT kernel was in no way derived from 9x.

Let me fix that for you:
What your describing is more along the lines of upgrading from Windows 2000 to Windows XP.

--
My sig can beat up your sig.
Re:This is one of the reasons I prefer Debian. by segedunum · 2007-03-14 01:53 · Score: 1

Windows doesn't have a monolithic kernel like Linux.
Thanks for proving you don't know what you're talking about.

You wouldn't be right anyway, since there are tons of library dependencies in Linux apps where updating a component could cause a chain reaction affecting all libs that use it, the libs that use the libs
No, certainly not in the way Windows is.
Re:This is one of the reasons I prefer Debian. by Anonymous Coward · 2007-03-14 03:44 · Score: 1, Informative

I'm so glad I don't have to test too many things:
joe@joes-laptop:~$ sudo apt-get dist-upgrade
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
Calculating upgrade... Done
The following NEW packages will be installed:
gtkhtml3.14 libgtkhtml3.14-19 libkexiv2-0 libwxbase2.8-0 libwxgtk2.8-0
linux-headers-2.6.20-10 linux-headers-2.6.20-10-generic
linux-image-2.6.20-10-generic linux-restricted-modules-2.6.20-10-generic
The following packages will be upgraded:
acpid app-install-data apport apport-gtk apport-qt apt apt-utils at-spi
bsdutils capplets-data console-setup cupsys cupsys-bsd cupsys-client
cupsys-common deskbar-applet desktop-file-utils dia-common dia-gnome
dia-libs digikam eog epiphany-browser epiphany-extensions espeak espeak-data
evince evolution evolution-common evolution-data-server
evolution-data-server-common evolution-exchange evolution-plugins
evolution-webcal f-spot feisty-session-splashes file-roller foomatic-filters
gdebi gdebi-core gdm gedit gedit-common gnome-about
gnome-accessibility-themes gnome-app-install gnome-applets
gnome-applets-data gnome-control-center gnome-desktop-data gnome-doc-utils
gnome-icon-theme gnome-keyring gnome-media gnome-media-common gnome-menus
gnome-orca gnome-panel gnome-panel-data gnome-power-manager
gnome-screensaver gnome-session gnome-system-monitor gnome-system-tools
gnome-terminal gnome-terminal-data gnome-themes gnome-utils gtk2-engines
gtk2-engines-pixbuf hal hal-device-manager kate kcontrol kde-style-polyester
kde-systemsettings kdebase-bin kdebase-data kdebase-kio-plugins kdepasswd
kdeprint kdesktop kdm kfind khelpcenter kicker klipper kmenuedit konqueror
konqueror-nsplugins konsole ksmserver ksplash ksysguard ksysguardd ktorrent
kubuntu-artwork-usplash kubuntu-default-settings kubuntu-desktop
kubuntu-docs kwin language-pack-en language-pack-en-base
language-pack-gnome-en language-pack-gnome-en-base libasound2 libatk1.0-0
libatspi1.0-0 libbonobo2-0 libbonobo2-common libbonoboui2-0
libbonoboui2-common libcairo2 libcamel1.2-10 libcupsimage2 libcupsys2
libcupsys2-dev libebook1.2-9 libecal1.2-7 libedata-book1.2-2
libedata-cal1.2-6 libedataserver1.2-9 libedataserverui1.2-8 libeel2-2
libeel2-data libegroupwise1.2-13 libespeak1 libexchange-storage1.2-3
libgail-common libgail-gnome-module libgail18 libgnome-desktop-2
libgnome-keyring0 libgnome-media0 libgnome-menu2 libgnome-window-settings1
libgnome2-0 libgnome2-common libgnomekbd-common libgnomekbd1 libgnomekbdui1
libgnomeprint2.2-0 libgnomeprint2.2-data libgnomeprintui2.2-0
libgnomeprintui2.2-common libgnomevfs2-0 libgnomevfs2-bin
libgnomevfs2-common libgnomevfs2-extra libgpgme11 libgtk2.0-0 libgtk2.0-bin
libgtk2.0-common libgtksourceview-common libgtksourceview1.0-0 libgucharmap6
libhal-dev libhal-storage1 libhal1 libkonq4 liblircclient0 libmetacity0
libmozjs0d libnautilus-burn4 libnautilus-extension1 libnm-glib0 libnm-util0
libnspr4-0d libnss3-0d liboobs-1-3 libpanel-applet2-0 libpango1.0-0
libpango1.0-common libpoppler1 libpoppler1-glib libpoppler1-qt libslab0
libtotem-plparser1 libvlc0 libvte-common libvte9 libwnck-common libwnck18
libxul-common libxul0d linux-686 linux-generic linux-headers-generic
linux-image-generic linux-libc-dev linux-restricted-modules-common
linux-restricted-m
Re:This is one of the reasons I prefer Debian. by Anonymous+Cowled · 2007-03-14 07:20 · Score: 1

Baadger said:
No it won't. The full 350Mb appears on Windows Update even if you're fully patched up.
Threni said:
That's not what happens with XP, so I'm guessing that if what you say is true then it's a mistake and not a stupid idea on Microsoft's part.
Nimey said:
> O RLY? What patches install the security center, improved firewall, and IE6 SP2 in Windows XP SP1?

Threni said:
What's that got to do with what I put in my post?

Umm... everything?

A service pack isn't just a collection of hotfixes - it will have hotfixes in it, but it is also a collection of OS additions which were either not complete when the OS was released or were not even conceived at the time. You WON'T be able to find all the components of a service pack (e.g. as Nimey suggests - the XP Security Centre, which includes the firewall) on windows update without downloading the service pack itself
Re:This is one of the reasons I prefer Debian. by LinuxDon · 2007-03-14 07:25 · Score: 1

Quote: "Also, testing just what could obviously break is a terrible way to test. A read a story about someone, who after upgrading to Linux kernel 2.6 started having random lockups in PHP/Apache."

I have had the same issue, the apache SSL module needs the random stuff from /dev/random. You need to run 'rngd' in order to fix this (it fills the entropy pool with random data generated).
No "long and extensive testing" needed to figure that out.

And, as other people have mentioned, upgrading 2.4 -> 2.6 is like upgrading from Windows 2000 -> 2003.

But the point I want to make is the following:
Look how precisely it is possible to pinpoint the -exact- problem.

Whereas I see most MS people fiddling around like it's a big magic box where just about anything can happen (this includes myself when administering a MS box).
And actually, compared to the openness of Linux updates, a MS SP really -IS- a black box.
Re:This is one of the reasons I prefer Debian. by cheater512 · 2007-03-14 09:15 · Score: 1

Nah I considered that but they use the same kernel. Virtually no difference between the two under the skin.
Re:This is one of the reasons I prefer Debian. by SCPRedMage · 2007-03-14 10:16 · Score: 1

I'm not going to argue about how different WinXP is from Win2K. But the fact is that the WinXP kernel is an evolution of the Win2K kernel, just like the 2.6 kernel is an evolution of the 2.4 kernel. But the NT kernel isn't derived from Win9x at all, making your analogy flawed. Saying that Win9x is related to Win2K is like saying Linux is related to Unix; the look alike, and they function similarly, but were developed separately.

--
My sig can beat up your sig.
Re:This is one of the reasons I prefer Debian. by cheater512 · 2007-03-14 11:06 · Score: 1

Win2k was released in the year 2000. XP was 2001.
Believe it or not but XP is identical to 2k under the skin. Maybe at best a point release like 2.6.19 to 2.6.20.

Funnily enough the NT kernel and the 9x kernel are related. They are brothers.
NT is just a bit older than 9x.
Re:This is one of the reasons I prefer Debian. by SCPRedMage · 2007-03-15 03:52 · Score: 1

The 9x "kernel" has a name: MS-DOS. NT is not based off of DOS, therefore the NT kernel is not related to 9x.

And didn't I say I wasn't going to argue about XP-vs-2K? You're arguing with yourself, there...

--
My sig can beat up your sig.

Re:I guess, we can make an apt comparison with... by Duhavid · 2007-03-13 12:27 · Score: 1

No, you cant. Not allowed.

What I find interesting is that there was an update to sp2
listed in the upgrade that I just finished to a 2003 server.

--
emt 377 emt 4

Where is XP sp3? by Joe+The+Dragon · 2007-03-13 12:28 · Score: 4, Informative

even just a update roll up would be nice. When you install a new xp sp2 system there is a lot of updates that you need to.

Re:Where is XP sp3? by Anonymous Coward · 2007-03-13 12:31 · Score: 0

The last I heard about it, it's due out this fall... (~November)
Re:Where is XP sp3? by Izago909 · 2007-03-13 13:39 · Score: 2, Informative

There are two good options. They don't have every last update for the various flavors of XP (home, pro, and media center) but they have the majority of them.

Autopatcher and Offline Updater

Both have options for 2000, XP, and 2003 Server
Re:Where is XP sp3? by Anonymous Coward · 2007-03-13 13:57 · Score: 0

Right here
Re:Where is XP sp3? by Zantetsuken · 2007-03-13 14:04 · Score: 1

SP3 for Windows XP Professional is currently planned for 1H CY2008. This date is preliminary.
MS Windows Lifecycle page
Re:Where is XP sp3? by Professor_UNIX · 2007-03-13 14:07 · Score: 3, Funny

When you install a new xp sp2 system there is a lot of updates that you need to.
You should start with a fresh install of Vista first, there are a lot less patches available right now so it will go quicker. :-)
Re:Where is XP sp3? by el+americano · 2007-03-13 14:22 · Score: 2, Funny

I'm still waiting for SP5 for Windows 2000. I think I'm going to be waiting a long time.

--
Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others. -Groucho Marx
Re:Where is XP sp3? by pe1chl · 2007-03-13 21:56 · Score: 1

I wonder why it is so difficult to generate a service pack from all critical fixes on Windows Update every couple of months?
Even when it is only called a "rollup package" it would be sooo much more convenient...

A fresh install of Windows XP SP2 now needs about 100 fixes to be installed, of which about 80 are critical security fixes.
When you don't turn off system restore during the install it takes ages...

(I know, because we install systems from the network with unattend.txt rather than using imaging)
Re:Where is XP sp3? by nosfucious · 2007-03-13 22:37 · Score: 1

True.

But there is a security roll up from (AFAIR) about 6 months ago.

Not exactly recent, but that whacks a log of post-SP4 patches in one go.

--
Q:I was listening to a CD in Grip and it sounded horrible! What's up? A:Perhaps you are listening to country music
Re:Where is XP sp3? by user0815 · 2007-03-13 23:18 · Score: 1

That true ;-)
Re:Where is XP sp3? by Blackknight · 2007-03-14 04:26 · Score: 1

XP will never see another service pack now that Vista is out. What incentive is there for MS to update old products?

XP x64 as well by Anonymous Coward · 2007-03-13 12:28 · Score: 2, Informative

I fired up Windows Update on my XP Pro x64 rig today and it had a 350MB patch for me.

Didn't seem to change much, if anything.

Re:XP x64 as well by NeverVotedBush · 2007-03-13 13:03 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Didn't seem to change much that you noticed, that is. Microsoft has been gradually adding DRM and anti-piracy tidbits which all slow down the system and tend to phone home.
Re:XP x64 as well by brouski · 2007-03-13 15:29 · Score: 1

I can't seem to find the "-1: FUD" on my moderation screen.

--
Proud member of the American Non Sequitur Society. We might not make much sense, but boy do we love pizza!
Re:XP x64 as well by snowgirl · 2007-03-13 19:10 · Score: 1

Didn't seem to change much, if anything.

Microsoft is no longer planning to push out anything like Windows XP SP2, where there are vast changes to the OS during a Service Pack. You're actually seeing the ideal case right there, where nothing has gone wrong.

--
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
Re:XP x64 as well by dylan_- · 2007-03-13 21:48 · Score: 1

I can't seem to find the "-1: FUD" on my moderation screen.
That's because Microsoft have hidden it!!

--
Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
Re:XP x64 as well by baadger · 2007-03-13 22:21 · Score: 1

Actually it did change one thing. The update for Windows Media Player 11 has disappeared off of Windows Update, but WMP 10 is still installed.

Also if you look in Add/Remove Programs (and check Show Updates) you'll see all your hotfixes are gone. Interesting that IE7 is still a seperate installation and wasn't pushed out in this SP. I guess thats because they're only really thinking about 2003 Server. I wonder if IE7 will become irremoveable in x86 XP SP3?

It's a service pack. It's what they should be, *minor* feature updates and hotfix rollup's.
Re:XP x64 as well by petermgreen · 2007-03-14 09:44 · Score: 1

imo XP sp2 was really a new version of windows but they made it a service pack because the main area of improvement (security/malware resistance) was not something that most users would pay for but was something the lack of was getting them a lot of bad press for.

--
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register

WPA2 Support by solevita · 2007-03-13 12:32 · Score: 3, Funny

At long last! Finally we can un-wire all those unsightly server rooms and start providing data in the same style that we consume it. I for one welcome our new servers-in-beds overlords.

Re:WPA2 Support by afidel · 2007-03-13 15:20 · Score: 1

It's a common codebase for XP-x64, I assume the WPA2 stuff is targeted there =)

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Re:WPA2 Support by Anonymous Coward · 2007-03-13 16:21 · Score: 0

Oh for a mod point!

Old News? by arpwatch · 2007-03-13 12:32 · Score: 1

This being the intertubes and all, isn't this kind of old news? I am fairly certain our university upgraded their 2003 servers last week, even though the Microsoft published date reads 3/12/2007.

Re:Old News? by electrosoccertux · 2007-03-13 14:25 · Score: 4, Funny

Just got off the phone with Digg and they want your middle-school ass back.

correct me if I'm wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2007-03-13 12:34 · Score: 0

but I think WK2003 still is Microsoft's latest and greatest "server" OS.

Re:correct me if I'm wrong by VampireByte · 2007-03-13 12:39 · Score: 1

You are correct sir.

--
Run and catch, run and catch, the lamb is caught in the blackberry patch.
Re:correct me if I'm wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2007-03-13 12:39 · Score: 0

Ya, but Longhorn Server (Windows Server 2008) will prolly be out within a year, and after that there'll be a flurry of variants released: SBS2k8, Midmarket Server and Windows Home Server(WHS) (to name a few) are all lining up in the queue atm...
Re:correct me if I'm wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2007-03-13 12:49 · Score: 0

Thanks. Too bad I botched the name, D'OH

Re:It's not funny by Anonymous Coward · 2007-03-13 12:40 · Score: 2, Funny

STFU Malda

Re:It's not funny by 1310nm · 2007-03-13 12:41 · Score: 1

Aww, thanks for the encouragement Sparky! It means a lot coming from...wait...who are you?

Where's my XP SP2b? by DigiShaman · 2007-03-13 12:42 · Score: 3, Interesting

Seriously, I NEED an XP SP2b package (all updates up to IE7).

I'm not making a comment. I'm asking a serious question here! XP SP2b OEM disks are already being sold in stores.

--
Life is not for the lazy.

Re:Where's my XP SP2b? by Anonymous Coward · 2007-03-13 13:44 · Score: 0

if you use autopatcher you can but the post sp2 updates are stupid huge i think autopatcher thru february was just shy of 500mb. too bad that doesnt include apps or drivers.
Re:Where's my XP SP2b? by ni5mo · 2007-03-13 14:05 · Score: 2, Informative

Try the RyanWM Integrator.
He has an update pack to 2007/02/16.
Re:Where's my XP SP2b? by Anonymous Coward · 2007-03-13 14:49 · Score: 0

I have an OEM XP SP2b CD and it has nothing to do with IE7. SP2b was a REALLY quiet upgrade, and to be honest I'm not exactly sure what it provides over SP2. But when I was ordering SP2 I saw they has SP2b so I might as well get that. I assume it has some of the hotfixes released since SP2, but it does NOT contain anything related to IE7. In fact I still haven't installed IE7 (and don't plan to for as long as possible). There is virtually no mention of SP2b on any Microsoft website aside from being listed in a few "applies to" sections on a handful of Knowledge Base articles. I defy anybody to find a verifiable list of updates contained in XP SP2b.
Re:Where's my XP SP2b? by Anonymous Coward · 2007-03-13 16:16 · Score: 0

integrate your own lazy bish and burn it to CD
Re:Where's my XP SP2b? by Sfing_ter · 2007-03-13 17:02 · Score: 1

ctupdate runs a script that goes to ms and downloads the latest updates and puts them into an iso for you to burn.
http://www.vulnerabilityassessment.co.uk/ctupdate. htm

--
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
Re:Where's my XP SP2b? by prandal · 2007-03-14 09:10 · Score: 1

Try Autopatcher:

http://www.autopatcher.com/
Re:Where's my XP SP2b? by Anonymous Coward · 2007-03-25 00:06 · Score: 0

Get www.autopatcher.com xp sp2 update. It patches to today everything from XP SP2 onwards. Can be

Quietly? by AlHunt · 2007-03-13 12:44 · Score: 3, Funny

> Microsoft Quietly Releases Windows 2003 SP2

Quietly releases?

Posting it here certainly made it a lot noisier.

--
1 in 4 Maine children in struggle with hunger.

Re:Quietly? by Amouth · 2007-03-14 05:03 · Score: 1

i noticed it yesterday about 2pm while setting up a new virtual server.. really made my day - :-|

--
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'

Re:It's not funny by dreamchaser · 2007-03-13 12:45 · Score: 1

I continue to maintain that some psych major will have a field day studying the various pathologies that exhibit themselves on /. Parent poster is a case in point.

What made this release so "quiet"? by kestasjk · 2007-03-13 12:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

Some of you are asking what made this release so "quiet".

What happened is in the black of night Ballmer, dressed in his ninja outfit, shimmied along the walls of the MS datacenter with a CD with this service pack on. He used his glass-cutters to silently sneak through a window, and snuck up into the vent before guards could see. Using a series of mirrors to deflect the trip-lasers he then lowered himself down from a vent grate, and uploaded the Windows 2003 service pack onto the server.

Why was it released so quietly? Who knows, but I'm sure there's something evil at work here. Thanks to the submitter for pointing out that this release was suspiciously quiet.

--
// MD_Update(&m,buf,j);

Re:What made this release so "quiet"? by Anonymous Coward · 2007-03-13 13:37 · Score: 0

What happened is in the black of night Ballmer, dressed in his ninja outfit, shimmied along the walls of the MS datacenter with a CD with this service pack on. He used his glass-cutters to silently sneak through a window, and snuck up into the vent before guards could see. Using a series of mirrors to deflect the trip-lasers he then lowered himself down from a vent grate, and uploaded the Windows 2003 service pack onto the server.

The only sound a faint, under the breath mumbling of "developers, developers, developers..."
Re:What made this release so "quiet"? by Speed+Pour · 2007-03-13 14:01 · Score: 4, Interesting

To answer that question is simple, it's a server platform. If they did an SP update for XP or Vista (gawd knows they should hurry given all the problems), it would show up on ever web page they have. Since win2k3 was never meant to go to an average consumer, it's just not worth advertising through most mediums.

If that isn't a good enough answer, just look at the list of what's new...There's nothing of significant value, and all of the security/bug fixes are already addressed with regular critical updates. Who cares about this update? It's a 'value improvement' update at the very most.

Now for my question...why was this made into a slashdot article? Judging by the number of comments so far, it's clearly not of much interest to anybody...and anybody who's running the os will receive a notification in the next few days anyway.

--
- Nobody would know what RTFA meant if it didn't need to be said all the time
Re:What made this release so "quiet"? by blankoboy · 2007-03-13 15:11 · Score: 1

That would be one big ass ninja and vent no less!
Re:What made this release so "quiet"? by afidel · 2007-03-13 15:23 · Score: 1

The fact that the about 2003 SP2 page still linked to the RC2 page, or the fact that it wasn't all over the front page at microsoft.com

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Re:What made this release so "quiet"? by SurturZ · 2007-03-13 16:44 · Score: 1

developers. developers. developers.
Re:What made this release so "quiet"? by SurturZ · 2007-03-13 16:47 · Score: 1

developers. developers. developers.
Re:What made this release so "quiet"? by Plug · 2007-03-13 17:33 · Score: 1

It also went onto the download site several hours before the website was updated to show it was out of Release Candidate stage.
Re:What made this release so "quiet"? by professorfalcon · 2007-03-13 19:09 · Score: 2, Funny

That's not how I heard it.

What happened is that with the sun high in the sky and the wind at his back, Balmer, dressed in his pirate outfit, sailed his mighty ship through the walls of the MS datacenter with a CD with this service pack on it. He ordered parallel volleys across the bows of the blade servers from both the starboard and port sides of his mighty vessel. And of course, he made the guards walk the plank. After destroying the lasers and the grate with his hook arm, he uploaded the Windows 2003 service pack onto the server.
Re:What made this release so "quiet"? by StressedEd · 2007-03-14 01:53 · Score: 2, Funny

..it's just not worth advertising through most mediums.
Perhaps that is why so few people were aware of the update, they don't posess psychic powers.

--
Be nice to people on the way up. You will meet them again on your way down!

ninja Ballmer by game+kid · 2007-03-13 13:09 · Score: 2, Funny

He shall be remembered forever as the first ninja in history to squirt shurikens and throw chairs at targets.

--
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.

Re:ninja Ballmer by Nimey · 2007-03-13 13:38 · Score: 3, Funny

Squirt shurikens from /where/?

--
Hail Eris, full of mischief...

E pluribus sanguinem
Re:ninja Ballmer by Anonymous Coward · 2007-03-14 01:54 · Score: 0

His brown zunehole

Re:It's not funny by UncleTogie · 2007-03-13 13:11 · Score: 1

I continue to maintain that some psych major will have a field day studying the various pathologies that exhibit themselves on /.
Wow... and here all this time I thought it was PEOPLE displaying them, not the various pathologies displaying themselves....

--
Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!

Re:I guess, we can make an apt comparison with... by The+Clockwork+Troll · 2007-03-13 13:11 · Score: 2, Funny

What I find interesting is that they improved upon the operating system with only 32 bits of code.

I guess that means that the entirety of the release is a HALT instruction?

I'm here all week.

--

There are no karma whores, only moderation johns

Sounds like? by Anonymous Coward · 2007-03-13 13:17 · Score: 0

Microsoft has quietly released 32-bit Windows 2003 Service Pack 2

...the same way the guy at the back of the elevator "quietly releases" flatulent gas. In which case, the poster is the infuriated person next to him, covering his face and coughing like mad.

All you wanted to know and more, here!

Re:I guess, we can make an apt comparison with... by gregleimbeck · 2007-03-13 13:20 · Score: 3, Informative

My god, how often do you run updates? When I tried to update one of my test boxes running RC2 it detected that SP2 was already installed. I had to uninstall the RC version for it to detect that the "official" release was needed.

--

P.S.,

This is what part of the alphabet would look like if Q and R were eliminated.

Now, where's XP Service Pack 3?? by ErichTheRed · 2007-03-13 13:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

Good to see Microsoft is still releasing service packs for Server 2003. However, I really want to see SP3 for XP. Building an XP box, even from SP2 media, requires over 75 patches in our environment! It takes nearly 50 minutes of cranking every time we have to build a new master disk image. Not all of us upgrade instantly.

It's nice that Microsoft makes the patches available separately. For those who don't do it, you wouldn't believe how much work it is testing patches and narrowing down which one broke an application. However, I think they should have one monster rollup available at least every few months. Most of that 50 minutes is spent dependency-resolving, isolating and backing up the files that each patch replaces. Doing that once is better than 75 times.

One thing I don't like about MS is that they tend to abandon customers who can't or won't upgrade to the next version of a product. I'd love to be on IE7, but we're stuck on 6 until several dependencies get fixed. I'm not too wild about Vista, but know that we have to go that way in the next year or so just to ensure we get the latest security fixes. Microsoft guarantees they'll backport fixes for a while, but you can bet they're doing all the active research on Vista. I can't agree with people who say they should still support NT, but most of the enterprise-class vendors have a much more lenient upgrade policy. (OpenVMS is at least kind of supported 3 versions back, IIRC.)

Re:Now, where's XP Service Pack 3?? by Anonymous Coward · 2007-03-13 13:34 · Score: 1, Informative

learn to slipstream moron, you can take this 50 minutes to learn and make a custom cd, instead of bitching and being proud of it in slashdot.
Re:Now, where's XP Service Pack 3?? by Anonymous Coward · 2007-03-13 13:46 · Score: 2, Funny

It takes nearly 50 minutes of cranking every time

they let you do that at work? in front of each computer?
Re:Now, where's XP Service Pack 3?? by PhilBrut · 2007-03-13 14:23 · Score: 1

WSUS

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/updat eservices/default.mspx
Re:Now, where's XP Service Pack 3?? by Nimey · 2007-03-13 15:22 · Score: 1

That doesn't help. WSUS does two things: reduce your site's bandwidth usage (since you've got a local mirror) and let you control which patches are installed on client boxen, including on a per-box or per-group basis.

--
Hail Eris, full of mischief...

E pluribus sanguinem
Re:Now, where's XP Service Pack 3?? by Anonymous Coward · 2007-03-13 15:43 · Score: 0

If patches break your applications then I suggest you get better applications.
Re:Now, where's XP Service Pack 3?? by Anonymous Coward · 2007-03-13 16:37 · Score: 0

wuauclt /detectnow

WSUS will elimate that pesky part of downloading the updates. For those of us with rather poor bandwidth (Such as a T1 or two), it makes all the difference in the world. It still doesn't forgive ignorance, however, of failing to just make a damn CD with the updates slipstreamed (Or a *gasp* BASE IMAGE).
Re:Now, where's XP Service Pack 3?? by rdebath · 2007-03-13 19:48 · Score: 1

Don't be stupid, hotfixes/updates don't slipstream properly if at all.
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb; en-us;814847
WSUS is about the best you can do with anything resembling reliability.
Re:Now, where's XP Service Pack 3?? by drsmithy · 2007-03-13 23:55 · Score: 1

One thing I don't like about MS is that they tend to abandon customers who can't or won't upgrade to the next version of a product.
Uh, compared to who ? Apple don't support OS X back more than 2 - 3 years (if that), most Linux distros won't go further back than $CURRENTVERSION-1 (12 months or so).
Microsoft's support lifecycle - 5 years of mainstream support, 10 years of maintenance support - is one of the longer ones in the industry. Not really something they can be criticised particularly harshly about. For comparison, Red Hat's is 2.5 - 3 years of mainstream support and 7 years of maintenance support.
Re:Now, where's XP Service Pack 3?? by Jugalator · 2007-03-14 00:52 · Score: 1

http://smithii.com/slipstream_xpsp2

--
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Re:Now, where's XP Service Pack 3?? by misleb · 2007-03-14 03:19 · Score: 1

you wouldn't believe how much work it is testing patches and narrowing down which one broke an application.

Oh I think I woudl believe it. Troubleshooting ANY problem on Windows makes me want to tear my hair out. There isn't a whole lot you can do once you've sacrificed your last chicken to the Win32 gods hoping that the next mouse click with be the one that, for no apparent reason, makes things start working again.

-matthew

--
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
Re:Now, where's XP Service Pack 3?? by neafevoc · 2007-03-14 03:47 · Score: 1

You can always slipstream post-SP2 patches to an XP SP2 disc... along with drivers and what not. Start here: http://www.ryanvm.net/msfn/
Re:Now, where's XP Service Pack 3?? by WBurton · 2007-03-14 04:14 · Score: 1

I've started implementing http://www.autopatcher.com/ whenever I have to reinstall XP. It allows you to pick and choose which updates get installed, and it does it all automatically, without having to reboot a bunch. It has significantly reduced my rebuilding time. Plus, it all fits on one CD.
Re:Now, where's XP Service Pack 3?? by Blackknight · 2007-03-14 04:30 · Score: 1

Building an XP box, even from SP2 media, requires over 75 patches in our environment.

That's because you don't know what you're doing. You can set up a RIS server and slipstream the updates into your OS image or use nlite and build a custom install CD with all of the updates already there. Nlite also lets you integrate extra drivers and tweaks tons of settings, it's really nice.

Get it at http://www.nliteos.com/

I came, I saw, I... WTF????? by qzulla · 2007-03-13 13:30 · Score: 5, Funny

15 hr 7 min on dial up

Crap! I run my server on dial up. Guess this is going to be a long night.

Thanks a LOT, /.

qz

Enterprisey experience speaks rubbish :) by bonefry · 2007-03-13 13:36 · Score: 1

Just consider however, we don't all run amateur home servers for our php blogs.

Just because a patch is ready for download, doesn't mean that you have to install it. You can make it your company's policy to update only on the 10th of every month for example.

But if there is a major security flaw for a certain application that you hear of from your security advisor, then on the contrary there are reasons to update right away.
Common sense and experience of many other (including mine) says that small and frequent patches are to be preferred to large monolithic patches ... because large and monolithic patches tend to break things, and I don't want to remember the nightmare that was Windows XP SP2.
Also small and frequent patches are easier to test by your average IT department.

And please ... like we don't work with "enterprisey" applications that affect the bottom line.
If it is one thing I learned is that the level of incompetence in almost all major companies is breathtaking ;)

Re:Enterprisey experience speaks rubbish :) by SCPRedMage · 2007-03-14 01:16 · Score: 1

Just because a patch is ready for download, doesn't mean that you have to install it. You can make it your company's policy to update only on the 10th of every month for example.
I'd think that any corporation that relies on Windows with an IT department worth their paychecks would be running a WSUS (Windows Server Update Services) server; that way, NO updates will install until AFTER you've approved them. Not to mention the fact that it'll make the clients pull the updates from an internal server, saving massive amounts of external bandwidth. Throw in the ability to remotely track clients to make sure that they're staying up to date, and you'd have to be an idiot to NOT run it.

--
My sig can beat up your sig.

Re:I guess, we can make an apt comparison with... by Duhavid · 2007-03-13 13:39 · Score: 1

A better question would have been "why was it me,
running the update"?

But the answer is "not nearly often enough".

--
emt 377 emt 4

Re:It's not funny by spoco2 · 2007-03-13 13:46 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Who the fuck are you people who just come on here and completely unreasonably go apeshit at people? It's just not cool.

Re:It's not funny by Anonymous Coward · 2007-03-13 13:58 · Score: 0

Yeah really what a rambling pyschotic cocksucker!

x64 Bit Version by NoMoreFood · 2007-03-13 14:01 · Score: 1, Interesting

"(The 64-bit edition is still showing as a release candidate on the site.)"

FYI: It may not be showing up on the site, but it's showing up on my wife's computer via Windows Update. (The Windows XP x64 version, at least).

Re:How funny. by psaunders · 2007-03-13 14:17 · Score: 1

I just submitted this, and it got rejected and then this shows up on the front page. Interesting!

The post says "Several readers noted..." - does this mean you were one of those several? How does it work if, say, ten people submit the same story in the space of half an hour?

--
Karma police, arrest this man. He talks in math. He buzzes like a fridge. He's like a detuned radio.

Large patches are needed for some companies by mlts · 2007-03-13 14:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

A number of companies have applications which are only supported by the vendor at selected patchlevels, with no other software allowed. Microsoft releasing large collection of patches as service packs makes the job of vetting various hardware and software configurations easier. Its easier for a vendor to state that their application runs on Windows 2003 SP2, rather than Windows 2003, with a large amount of patch numbers needed.

Plus, (IMHO of course), it was time for a service pack for Windows 2003 anyway.

Re:It's not funny by Anonymous Coward · 2007-03-13 14:47 · Score: 0

HAY! Shut the fuck up asshole. I'll eat you and your family if you ever post here again!!!!!!!

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED

XP SP3? Microsoft? by Misterfred22 · 2007-03-13 15:04 · Score: 0, Redundant

Now if we could just get XP SP3 before 2008... Service Pack Roadmap

Microsoft may have a monopoly in many areas... by trudyscousin · 2007-03-13 15:43 · Score: 1

...but: Releasing an operating system quietly?

Uh uh.

It so happens that Apple released Mac OS X 10.4.9 today, and the updater didn't make a single sound while it was installing it. (Though the hard disk was making all kinds of thrashy sounds, but I don't think they count.)

--
Those who can, do. Those who can't, write technology blogs.

Re:It's not funny by pintpusher · 2007-03-13 15:46 · Score: 0, Troll

HAY is for HORSES.

I believe you meant "HEY!..."

moron.

--
man, I feel like mold.

Re:It's not funny by Anonymous Coward · 2007-03-13 15:58 · Score: 0

it wus spelt that wey on purpose, to see how many people like you would respond

ill be wating for moar corectoins....

Oh, you laugh by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · 2007-03-13 16:00 · Score: 0

Not all servers are connected to the internet. There are some installations that are so secure they are not remotely accessible by any means. I actually did download win2k sp4 via modem which I then sneakerneted to the real installation. Now, did I really need to know it was going to take 17 hours, thats debatable. But at Least I know someone in redmond cares about me.

--
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.

Re:Oh, you laugh by akeyes · 2007-03-13 16:19 · Score: 1

If a 'server' is 'not remotely accessible by any means', what exactly does it 'serve'?
Re:Oh, you laugh by Anonymous Coward · 2007-03-13 17:39 · Score: 0

Umm... local file server?
Re:Oh, you laugh by TheNetAvenger · 2007-03-13 18:54 · Score: 1

Not all servers are connected to the internet. There are some installations that are so secure they are not remotely accessible by any means. I actually did download win2k sp4 via modem which I then sneakerneted to the real installation. Now, did I really need to know it was going to take 17 hours, thats debatable. But at Least I know someone in redmond cares about me.

Ya, this is important to people, oh wait, most people would at the very least go to a freaking Hotspot or the library and slam the update on a Flash USB or CD... So why on hell did you download this via dial up again? :)
Re:Oh, you laugh by snowgirl · 2007-03-13 19:19 · Score: 1

Ya, this is important to people, oh wait, most people would at the very least go to a freaking Hotspot or the library and slam the update on a Flash USB or CD... So why on hell did you download this via dial up again? :)

Win2k SP4...

On their official page of release dates: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/260910
Windows 2000 Service Pack 4
Release date: June 26, 2003

I would say this was in the range of "some people just had dialups at that time".

--
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
Re:Oh, you laugh by Anonymous Coward · 2007-03-14 01:53 · Score: 0

Release date: June 26, 2003

I would say this was in the range of "some people just had dialups at that time".

Today's date: March 14, 2007.

Best internet connection available where I live: 28.8 kbps dialup.

Nearest city with population > 100K: only 36 Km (22 miles).

Huge portions of North America still only have dial-up available. Satellite, with its insane latency and buggy proprietary packet compression protocols is just not an option.
Re:Oh, you laugh by TheNetAvenger · 2007-03-14 03:37 · Score: 1

This is when you and your neighbors within 5-10 miles of each other invest in a T1 line, and distribute good old 802.11 between each other and split the costs.

This isn't rocket science, and can be an easy way to ok bandwidth for everyone with costs lower than cable high speed for people depending on your population density.

I was from a rural area that still has limited high speed, but everyone I know that still lives there has pooled together wireless communities, many even making a business out of it.

Sadly the US does suck when it comes to customer delivered High Speed, too bad people didn't elect Gore(or at least get him in office), someone that wanted to force the Telcos to provide the end user bandwidth they got discounts to provide.
Re:Oh, you laugh by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · 2007-03-14 06:15 · Score: 1

Cause, I was in Haiti. No library, no hotspot.

--
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.

And that's +5 Informative? by khasim · 2007-03-13 16:32 · Score: 3, Insightful

How would YOU guess that your 2.4 -> 2.6 kernel upgrade would cause PHP sessions to lock up under heavy load, when you look at the list of changes?? Answer: you wouldn't.

Actually, I can think of a dozen different ways it would.

You're talking about going from one MAJOR kernel version to a different MAJOR kernel version.

You'd deploy this on the live servers and experience mysterious downtimes all the time.

Why would you deploy a MAJOR change on production servers without massive testing?

A "service pack" would be more like lib-foo_2.1.2 going to lib-foo_2.1.3.

Which is different than going to lib-foo_2.2.0.

Which is far different from going to lib-foo_3.0.0.

Which is far different from going to kernel 2.6.x from kernel 2.4.x.

Re:And that's +5 Informative? by Anonymous Coward · 2007-03-13 21:49 · Score: 0

This is completely irrelevant and you know it.
That change was probably made in some minor revision of either 2.4 or 2.6 and you would have encountered it with a minor upgrade that made this feature change, and maybe even with a "kernel security fix" (like those distributed by Novell/SuSE) that keeps the kernel at the same revision.

It is always soooooo easy to say that "you should have done extensive testing". But testing in no way guarantees that you find problems. That is why there are so many problems in computer systems: people use testing to find them, which is a flawed method.
Re:And that's +5 Informative? by bhiestand · 2007-03-13 23:17 · Score: 1

You're talking about going from one MAJOR kernel version to a different MAJOR kernel version. Yes, that is what we're talking about.
Why would you deploy a MAJOR change on production servers without massive testing? That is exactly what the GP said. To paraphrase, "Why would a large corporation roll out an update without thorough testing? They wouldn't. Doing proper, thorough testing costs money, and it saves us money when they only release non-critical updates every so often."
A "service pack" would be more like lib-foo_2.1.2 going to lib-foo_2.1.3. No, it wouldn't. Perhaps you are accusing the regular Tuesday Updates with Service Packs. While Windows does not have a monolithic kernel, it does have various combinations of files, libraries, and programs which perform the same functions. In a service pack, a multitude of these files are updated. Native support for new hardware is introduced. Memory leaks, overflows, and security holes are plugged. New features of the operating system itself are introduced. To compare this massive replacement of core system files to the MINOR upgrade of a package is absurd at best.

If you want an example, please consider the Windows 95 B and C releases (4.03.1212-1214), which added USB functionality.

Although MS has always used a very odd version numbering system, I think it is fair to call Windows 95-98 version 4.x, 2000 5.x, and XP 6.x, and SP1 6.1, although I admit that that numbering system discounts Windows 2003 and doesn't jive with Microsoft's numbering.

--
SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
Re:And that's +5 Informative? by sh3l1 · 2007-03-14 02:17 · Score: 1

[b]MAJOR[/B] Sorry, had to do that.

--
Help Me! I'm trapped in the tubes! Oh noes! Here comes a internet!
Re:And that's +5 Informative? by Anonymous Coward · 2007-03-15 09:15 · Score: 0

Although MS has always used a very odd version numbering system, I think it is fair to call Windows 95-98 version 4.x, 2000 5.x, and XP 6.x, and SP1 6.1, although I admit that that numbering system discounts Windows 2003 and doesn't jive with Microsoft's numbering. NO NO NO NO NO Windows 2000 is not a descendant of the Windows 9x line. Windows 2000 was originally going to be NT 5.0. If you run ver in a command prompt in Windows 2000 it will return something like "Windows 2000 [Version 5.0]" XP is NT 5.1, 2003 is NT 5.2. I'm not sure if Vista returns as 6.0 or not. The predecessor to 2000 is NT 4, and NT 4's predecessor was 3.51, then 3.5, and then NT 3.1.
Re:And that's +5 Informative? by bhiestand · 2007-03-15 23:09 · Score: 1

Although MS has always used a very odd version numbering system, I think it is fair to call Windows 95-98 version 4.x, 2000 5.x, and XP 6.x, and SP1 6.1, although I admit that that numbering system discounts Windows 2003 and doesn't jive with Microsoft's numbering.

NO NO NO NO NO

Windows 2000 is not a descendant of the Windows 9x line. Windows 2000 was originally going to be NT 5.0. If you run ver in a command prompt in Windows 2000 it will return something like "Windows 2000 [Version 5.0]"

XP is NT 5.1, 2003 is NT 5.2. I'm not sure if Vista returns as 6.0 or not.

The predecessor to 2000 is NT 4, and NT 4's predecessor was 3.51, then 3.5, and then NT 3.1. Sorry, I wasn't trying to imply that they are the same line. I know they were entirely different operating systems for a long time, although XP seems to be some weird hybrid between the two. I was simply trying to point out that a service pack was more than a minor security update.

--
SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling

is there really by Anonymous Coward · 2007-03-13 16:50 · Score: 0

somebody that uses windows as a server? world is dying..

Re:How funny. by 1310nm · 2007-03-13 17:11 · Score: 1

So everyone did their updates at the same time as me. Windows updates are generally available in the morning, I do mine after work on Tuesdays. How strange that "several readers" do their updates at exactly the same time as me and submit a story about it. More like someone saw the story I submitted and took it for themselves. It's not that it's bothering me, it just makes me wonder if Slashdot is gamed, sort of like Digg.

XP 64 is semi-consumer by Myria · 2007-03-13 17:33 · Score: 1

XP 64, which is a non-server edition of Windows 2003, was sold to consumer markets a little bit. Of course, the people using XP 64 are probably technically savvy and read about it on Slashdot.

Microsoft released a simple, direct service pack today and it works well. It's about time they did that. My only complaint is the size: are there really 350 megabytes of binary diffs to apply?

--
"Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager

Re:XP 64 is semi-consumer by drsmithy · 2007-03-13 23:39 · Score: 1

My only complaint is the size: are there really 350 megabytes of binary diffs to apply?
The original release of Windows 2003 ? Almost certainly - that was ~3.5 years ago.

yep, sure saved me a lot of time. by sideshow · 2007-03-13 18:05 · Score: 1

Just installed Win2k3 on a server a couple hours ago. It was nice to see ~3 critical updates rather then the 50+ I had to install last week.

--

Hollow words will burn and hollow men will burn.

Re:It's not funny by Anonymous Coward · 2007-03-13 18:42 · Score: 0

you spelt "wey" rong. returd.

It's Apple conspiracy by wumpus188 · 2007-03-13 19:36 · Score: 1

You think they doubled max volume levels in 10.4.9 without purpose?

I love sp2 by Anonymous Coward · 2007-03-13 19:40 · Score: 0

I installed the release candidate a little over a month ago and the problems I had with my notebook once or twice a week not going into hibernate requiring a reboot before hibernate would work again have gone away.

Because of this uptime on my computer is now over a month which hasn't happened in many many years :)

Now only if I could get MS to do something about rediculous DDE delays with lots of apps running using the shell and shortcut keys that have existed and I've whined about since the NT 3.51 era... I wouldn't really have any windows gripes left.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2007-03-13 19:43 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

XP64 is Windows 2003 by Anonymous Coward · 2007-03-13 22:06 · Score: 0

internally at least. XP64 carries the same version number (5.2) as 2003 (32bit XP is v5.1). XP64 was built from the same code as 2003 but with the server-specific stuff removed and the XP-specific stuff added.

MOD PARENT UP AND DOWN by Spacezilla · 2007-03-13 22:26 · Score: 1

+1 Informative and -1 Troll :)

Re:It's not funny by Anonymous Coward · 2007-03-13 23:23 · Score: 0

What, your parents named you "1310nm"? What's your sisters name, "fa6162"?

Window 2003? by thomasa · 2007-03-13 23:47 · Score: 0

Oh, you mean Windows Server 2003. I was confused. Did you mean XP? No there already
is a SP2 for that.

Re:I guess, we can make an apt comparison with... by hotdiggitydawg · 2007-03-14 00:50 · Score: 1

Well, it is a significant upgrade from the previous release, which was a BSOD instruction...

Review vs. Testing, and more... by ThosLives · 2007-03-14 00:53 · Score: 1

Testing, in my opinion, is only for things that you don't have a deterministic way of proving "by construction". For instance, in something as simple as the change noted above regarding /dev/random, this should have been noted just based on documentation alone - no need for testing.

One problem is documentation is either insufficient, inaccurate, or completely missing.

I also would put some of the blame on both system and application developers: this is one of the problems with the shared library concept. My philosophy is "If you have something that, if the implementation changes things will break, make sure that implementation cannot change - that is, use a static library."

The other rule of thumb is "Never rely on side effects." The trick there is sometimes side effects are not obviously a side effect....

--
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)

KB931940 Not in Knowledge Base? by Anonymous Coward · 2007-03-14 00:55 · Score: 0

The hotfix regression script references KB931940 to see what to do about any previous hotfixes which are regressed, but it does not exist. Anyone else find that odd?

List of regressed hotfixes by DanMc · 2007-03-14 01:03 · Score: 5, Informative

I analyzed the script and extracted the list of possible hotfix regressions. None of them appear to be standard hotfixes. None are installed as part of a WindowsUpdate or SP1. If you have these on your system, you probably installed them after searching the KB to solve a specific problem. Many of the updates do not have public KB articles or descriptions, so you'd have to have gotten the patch after being sent the patch from MSPSS. Here are the public hotfixes that are regressed:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/898073 = [IE6 crashes on] digest proxy authentication [to https sites] http://support.microsoft.com/kb/918005 = Battery power may drain more quickly [after unplugging or undocking] http://support.microsoft.com/kb/918837 = power management is turned off [after disabling WakeOnWirelessLAN] http://support.microsoft.com/kb/924078 = [error opening] Properties [...] for a network printer on [WinXP] http://support.microsoft.com/kb/924301 = AutoComplete feature [broken after following javascript link in IE6] http://support.microsoft.com/kb/925020 = [Lockup when using] USB device on a multiprocessor computer http://support.microsoft.com/kb/925240 = warning message [...] new password that does not meet the requirements http://support.microsoft.com/kb/925513 = Error code Winsock [...] "WSAECONNABORTED (10053)" http://support.microsoft.com/kb/926047 = [Misplaced] AutoComplete box [...] in Internet Explorer 6 http://support.microsoft.com/kb/926132 = ...WMI does not clear event registrations when the corresponding sink... http://support.microsoft.com/kb/926754 = STOP: 0x000000D1 (parameter1 , 0x00000002, 0x00000000, 0xf27b4e8e) http://support.microsoft.com/kb/926940 = SQL Server 2000 Service Pack 4 stops responding http://support.microsoft.com/kb/927291 = Dfsutil /import" command takes a long time to finish http://support.microsoft.com/kb/927493 = Winsock programs may exhaust the system's non-paged pool http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929620 = increased paging to the hard disk when you run an SAP R/3

These fixes are regressed, but they're not published on the public Knowledge Base:

"919757" "925290" "926305" "926513" "926583" "927197" "927436" "927893" "928194" "929066" "929759" "930620" "933452"

Don't overREACT by Civil_Disobedient · 2007-03-14 02:48 · Score: 1

Well, ReactOS just released version 0.3.1. At this rate, you'll have your SP5 sometime around 2009. The good news: after that, you'll get regular updates again for (potentially) ever.

yeah, auto updates installed it yesterday... by dmnic · 2007-03-14 02:57 · Score: 1

and now I can't install software or run a executable from a network drive because of it.
2003 Server SP2 is not just a rollup of previous patches and hotfixes, it contains something extra...

--
the history of the world

XP SP3 When? by Anonymous Coward · 2007-03-14 03:28 · Score: 0

Early 08 RTM

Re:How funny. by Misterfred22 · 2007-03-14 03:36 · Score: 1

I submitted this yesterday afternoon (3:30 PM EST)and it was posted a few hours later. It does note that several readers sent in the news, and the first sentence or two is from my post, the rest was added by someone else. Eh, still feels good to be included.

Hooray! by Sparr0 · 2007-03-14 05:10 · Score: 1

[Un]Fortunately, when I was hit with this by surprise at work yesterday, it failed to install. Hooray Microsoft!

Different from Windows Server 2003 R2 ? by Anonymous Coward · 2007-03-14 05:15 · Score: 0

Does this make Windows Server 2003 SP1 the same as Windows Server 2003 R2 ?

Re:Different from Windows Server 2003 R2 ? by Anonymous Coward · 2007-03-14 05:34 · Score: 0

No. This service pack can be installed on Server 2003 and Server 2003 R2.

R2 is not a service pack. As per Wikipedia:

An update of Windows Server 2003, officially called R2, was released to manufacturing on December 6, 2005. It is distributed as a second CD, with the first CD being Windows Server 2003 SP1. This release adds many optionally installable features for Windows Server 2003 including SP1.

This problem is not unique to any platform by raddan · 2007-03-14 06:11 · Score: 1

Apparently you've never experienced a glibc update. That, my friend, is a world of hurt akin to needing to reinstall your copy of Windows. The fact is kernel updates, compiler updates that break binary compatibility, and updates to widely-used dynamic libraries are found on all modern platforms, and they all suck equally. Try following -current on OpenBSD or emerging world on Gentoo for your production machines someday and see if you'd rather just wait for stable releases on your critical machines. I'm personally happy that Microsoft hasn't forgotten that we do actually need maintenance for existing software.

SBS 2003 by Devistater · 2007-03-14 08:49 · Score: 1

Hopefully this will be easier than installing SP1 to SBS (small Business) 2003. When I did SP1 on SBS 2003, MS's auto update killed the system to where it couldn't accept new users, etc. I had to manually install about 3 patches and 2 more versions of SP1 to get it working right. And that was all listed as what to do in a MS knowledge base article. Totally insane way for MS to have it update.

Slashdot Mirror

Microsoft Quietly Releases Windows 2003 SP2

175 comments