Typical Windows User Patches Every 5 Days

CWmike writes "The typical home user running Windows faces the 'unreasonable' task of patching software an average of every five days, security research company Secunia said on Thursday. 'It's completely unreasonable to expect users to master so many different patch mechanisms and spend so much time patching,' said Thomas Kristensen, the company's CSO. The result: Few consumers devote the time and attention necessary to stay atop the patching job, which leaves them open to attack. Secunia says that of the users who ran the company's Personal Software Inspector in the last week of January, half had 66 or more programs from 22 or more different vendors on their machines. ... Secunia has published a white paper (PDF) that details its findings."

Comments

Seems about right

[Stooshie]

There seem to have been loads of updates recently

Re:Seems about right

[ottothecow]

I feel like my ubuntu system has been pestering me with updates far more frequently lately as well...

Re:Seems about right

[fredjh]

Lately? I was just about to say it's been nearly every day for years.

Of course, that includes non-security updates, too, but it checks every damn time you log in. The option is to turn it off completely? That's no good, either.

Re:Seems about right

[bunratty]

My Fedora 11 system has patches to install nearly every day. At least all the updates come through one mechanism, and usually I don't need to reboot to apply the patches.

Re:Seems about right

[sjames]

How many different mechanisms is that? TFA indicated it's 22 different ones for Windows users. Let's see, there's apt, and then Firefox, so there's 20 to go...

Re:Seems about right

[Compaqt]

Is Windoze any different in this respect than most Linux distributions?

Ubuntu wants you to update with a trivial security fix, it seems, every day or so. And that's hundreds of megabytes of changes.

Re:Seems about right

[Tubal-Cain]

You can set it to check weekly or monthly, instead.

Re:Seems about right

[poetmatt]

yeah, it is different. You only run the updater for one product.

You run one for every single thing on your pc unless you use one a software manager and you still have to run downloads/etc when that comes around.

An ubuntu trivial fix will be trivial in space. Meanwhile a non-trivial fix will still only take you 1 update process.

Re:Seems about right

[ottothecow]

Yeah, using apt or urpmi or some other package management system really helps with that aspect. The packages update about as frequently but instead of having to figure out the proper way to update acrobat one day and winamp the next, it does it all from the same interface.

Is there a big downside risk to letting apt update by itself? It requires superuser access and given how frequently I am inclined to run it, I can see situations where a user without su priveledges might still want updates flowing.

Re:Seems about right

[edmicman]

I changed mine in the prefs to just check weekly....it was getting annoying having it pop up something at me every day with new updates.

Re:Seems about right

[Korin43]

On a system like Ubuntu, running updates automatically in the background wouldn't be particularly dangerous. That way you only need to pay attention to the updater once every 6 months. After using Linux I don't understand how Windows users put up with the Microsoft updates that frequently fail to install, sometimes require multiple reboots and then still needing to update everything else manually.

Re:Seems about right

[mR.bRiGhTsId3]

It depends heavily one what you are doing with your computer at the time of writing. Windows does not allow you to write executable files that are currently running and I believe there is a similar restriction for .dlls that are loaded into memory. At least you are notified of the need to reboot. I may be incorrect but I believe the only thing that triggers a reboot on ubuntu are changes to a specific set of packages. As such, its always possible to install updates and still have vulnerable code loaded into memory.
I'm not sure about the failing to install. The only time I've ever seen an update fail to install is when I'm doing a re-install and do something like install a cumulative service pack for a program like Visual Studio that is getting brought down the windows update pipeline as well. I would be interested in knowing what types of updates usually fail.

Re:Seems about right

[sjames]

Patches breaking things is a big deal. Nothing will convince users to never allow updates faster than having one break their system when they desperately need it to be working.

A close second is having MS sneak in user hostile changes under the guise of a critical security update. That makes it impossible to even convince users to "risk it" even for the really important updates.

Though even in the case of Debian, I'm a bit too paranoid to do updates by cron job, it's good enough that if I don't see any rending of garments on debian-security, I presume it's safe enough to try on one system. If nothing bad happens, the rest get updated right away.

Re:Seems about right

[Nadaka]

What? Every major release of software is going to be less stable than a mature and well maintained previous release due to new features and the scale of changes being made. It is unavoidable. Over time the bugs will be less frequently encountered and found and it too will become stable.

Re:Seems about right

[drsmithy]

After using Linux I don't understand how Windows users put up with the Microsoft updates that frequently fail to install, sometimes require multiple reboots and then still needing to update everything else manually.

Because none of those things are particularly accurate ?

Re:Seems about right

[hairyfeet]

Or you could just use Filehippo to take care of it on windows and be done with it. You can check daily, weekly, whatever, and it'll pop up a nice page in whatever browser you are using with 1 click links to any software that needs updates. pretty simple really.

Re:Seems about right

[Korin43]

1. updates that frequently fail to install: My friend's laptop constantly complains about needing ~44 critical updates, but any attempt to install them results in an instant "44 updates failed to install". On my laptop, luckily, most updates installed, but I always had 2 or 3 that wouldn't.

2. Multiple reboots: Install Windows XP (without any service packs) and try updating. Count the number of reboots. Try a similar test on any Linux distro (pick a CD as old as you want), notice how you only need to reboot once to have all of the updates apply.

3. Still needing to update anything else manually: Turn on a computer with Windows that hasn't been used in a year. Install all updates. Now go here: http://www.filehippo.com/updatechecker/. Notice how many installers you need to download and run manually. Start up any arbitrarily old Linux distro and run an update. Notice how everything is up to date (note: By default, most distros don't give you the newest version of most software, but this is intentional and can be worked around by using a distro that doesn't suck).

Re:Seems about right

[RMS Eats Toejam]

Install Windows XP (without any service packs) and try updating.

Stop right there. First try installing an operating system released after 2001. That will take care of 1 and 2 together.

Re:Seems about right

[aztracker1]

Well, installing an OS version first released 7-8 years ago may not be the best solution all around. Also, you can simply download the latest service pack, and start with that install first. Not being a troll here, simply that if I were to install Fedora Core 1, and update from there, I might experience a couple of pain points along the way. The real issue with windows, is most software isn't distributed by Microsoft, with Linux it's mostly from your distro. If you start installing software from outside what your distro's repositories come with, you will see similar issues. ex: updating VMWare Server after every single kernel update in the OS updates...

Re:Seems about right

[Kugrian]

On a friend Vista system I've had to deal with updates that twice prevented Windows from loading even in safe mode. The best one though was the update required to Windows update which it couldn't install because it wasn't updated. Luckily updating to service pack 2 messed up the system enough for a reinstall to be required.

Re:Seems about right

[jhol13]

What?

Ubuntu (9.10 or 8.04) has constant updates and approximately once a month a kernel fix, which require a reboot. Some other patches has gotten my system into a state which require[1] reboot. You really need to pay attention much more often than "once every 6 months".

[1] The easiest and fastest option.

Re:Seems about right

[TangoMargarine]

1. "I heard an anecdote once and it was really lousy." I had Vista on my machine, then installed Windows 7. In those 3 years, I have only ever had one update fail to install, and it took about 10 minutes to fix because I didn't have the SP.
2. That's why you don't install Windows XP with any frequency. Oh my god, I have to reboot four times, once every six months...soooo much work...

And yes, before you ask, I have installed XP before. SP2 + updates = 4 reboots I seem to recall.

Re:Seems about right

[TangoMargarine]

Okay sorry, I missed the part about "without service packs." But why would you ever do that, these days?

Re:Seems about right

[Anonymous Coward]

After using Linux I don't understand how Windows users put up with the Microsoft updates that frequently fail to install, sometimes require multiple reboots and then still needing to update everything else manually.

Because none of those things are particularly accurate ?

Right.. A. Microsoft doesn't publish security updates every 5 days and B. MS updates can be done automatically with minimal impact on the user. Bashing MS just for fun only makes you look childish and unprofessional.

There are enough unique requirements out there fitting each desktop OS. Some are better suited than others for a particular requirement.

Most MS bashing is based on experiences with Windows NT era software.

Re:Seems about right

[ffreeloader]

Just think how often you would be updating Windows if MS released a new OS every 6 months.

Re:Seems about right

[drsmithy]

1. updates that frequently fail to install: My friend's laptop constantly complains about needing ~44 critical updates, but any attempt to install them results in an instant "44 updates failed to install". On my laptop, luckily, most updates installed, but I always had 2 or 3 that wouldn't.

And neither I nor anyone I know has ever had it happen.

2. Multiple reboots: Install Windows XP (without any service packs) and try updating. Count the number of reboots. Try a similar test on any Linux distro (pick a CD as old as you want), notice how you only need to reboot once to have all of the updates apply.

Having a ca. 2001 distro update itself automatically to a current distro and actually work, would be an amazing feat on its own.

Still needing to update anything else manually:

Pretty much any application I can think of that I use automatically checks for its own updates.

Start up any arbitrarily old Linux distro and run an update. Notice how everything is up to date (note: By default, most distros don't give you the newest version of most software, but this is intentional and can be worked around by using a distro that doesn't suck).

I would be jaw-droppingly astounded if I could update, say, Red Hat 7.0 or RHEL2.1, or even Ubuntu 4.10 to the latest release of each in a single step and have it work - and that's starting from a clean install. For a machine that had actually been used a bit beforehand with some custom-compiled or out of repo packages, and it would be quite a ride.

Re:Seems about right

[nabsltd]

1. updates that frequently fail to install: My friend's laptop constantly complains about needing ~44 critical updates, but any attempt to install them results in an instant "44 updates failed to install". On my laptop, luckily, most updates installed, but I always had 2 or 3 that wouldn't.

And neither I nor anyone I know has ever had it happen.

Then, you don't work with enough Windows computers.

Generally, this issue is caused by lack of disk space, although a corrupt updater database could also result in the same thing.

To solve it, you stop the "Automatic Updates" service, then delete all the files and subdirectories of "C:\WINDOWS\SoftwareDistribution\Download" and start the update service again. If the problem persists, stop the service and delete all the file and subdirectories in "C:\WINDOWS\SoftwareDistribution".

The last resort is to stop the update service, configure it to "Notify but not download", then manually apply updates one at a time from the Microsoft Update website. This way, if one of the updates is causing the whole update procedure to die, you can figure that out and at least get everything else installed.

Re:Seems about right

[Anpheus]

1. What OS? It's impossible to diagnose the reason for your anecdote without more specifics. Frankly, it sounds like his laptop is infected and yours had updates that were old enough to be superceded (XP I believe would sometimes fail an update that wasn't needed because of another update.)

2. Installing Windows XP without any service packs is as silly as installing Ubuntu 4.10 (notice that this is four years after Windows XP came out).. Actually, try installing Ubuntu 4.10 and see how many reboots it takes. You're in for a treat. For bonus points, install a bunch of user applications, send some emails, write some documents, and then see what happens to these applications as you upgrade to Ubuntu 9.10.

3. I fail to see how this is Microsoft's fault. If they had an officially sanctioned app store they'd be crucified for pushing it with Windows. Such an app store would invariably be useful. Anyhow, in a business setting you can deploy non-Windows, non-Microsoft updates through the Windows Update utility, so I can force Adobe Flash to update on clients, for example.

Re:Seems about right

[drsmithy]

Then, you don't work with enough Windows computers.

"Frequently" suggests to me that I should have seen it happen to at least one of the ~20 computers I have personally owned over the last 15 years.

If it doesn't happen to even 5% of machines, it's not "frequent".

Re:Seems about right

[Anonymous Coward]

1. your friends laptop is infected with something that is preventing the updates from installing, or it has corrupted or invalid drivers ... i have a laptop and haven't had a single update fail, ever ... and i have a lot of applications installed, all for programming (3 different versions of visual studio, 2 different versions of SQL server, 2 different versions of Oracle) ... so i guess you just got unlucky hey?

2. you're crying about having to reboot? man, who the hell cares? it takes what, 1-5 minutes to reboot? why would you install windows XP without the service packs exactly? just to be an idiot?

3. it is not windows's responsibilty to update installed applications, it should only update the OS. so you have to run 10+ different installers for the 10+ appliations you have installed ... and? what?

None of those 'problems' you listed are really problems at all, and sound more like you being difficult for the sake of it.

Re:Seems about right

[Korin43]

1. Her laptop has Windows XP, mine had Vista (the problem went away with Windows 7 finally).

2. Windows doesn't just do this with service packs. Sometimes normal updates require you to reboot before continuing. And it couldn't be done in one step, but I bet you could run apt-get 10 times (changing the target distro each time) and go from Ubuntu 4.10 to 9.10. Also, even if you couldn't do that on Ubuntu, it's less of a problem because you'd have to be insane to use an old CD when you can download a new one in a couple minutes. Microsoft doesn't exactly distribute new CDs, so if you want to install or reinstall Windows, you use the CD you have, no matter how old it is.

3. If Microsoft tried to set up a software repository, they'd want to charge people a bunch of money to host stuff there and it would be useless.

Re:Seems about right

[Korin43]

Or you could be an outlier. Also, if you consider working 95% of the time to good, I hope you never write an OS.

Re:Seems about right

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never had a patch for Vista that required a reboot. I've been running it for almost a year now. The last time I had a patch screw up my computer was back in '99 or so when I was running Windows 98.

What's really impressive to me about it is that I built an entirely new computer around the HDD and it detected all the new hardware, installed drivers for it, and I was back up and running without changing a single application. I just had to uninstall some ATI drivers for nVidia drivers to replace the reference drivers that shipped with Vista SP1.

Re:Seems about right

[Anpheus]

I'll give you the second point, they don't make it particularly easy to get new CDs. I wish they did a better job of this, but I understand their rationale. With their IT personnel license, I have access to every version of Windows back to 3.0, and every version of XP ever made (every home and pro, N and Media Center and every service pack and language release.) But that's not going to help the average person either.

On the second point, even if they didn't charge anyone, they'd have to filter it heavily and that'd lead to antitrust issues I'm sure. They couldn't just let anyone put stuff on it, and it might even be a liability if they take an extra 24 hours to release Adobe Flash Hotfix #9451. I doubt they want to deal with it.

Re:Seems about right

[Anpheus]

Because I don't proofread and Slashdot doesn't support editing, my second paragraph refers to your third point if that wasn't made clear.

Re:Seems about right

[Culture20]

After using Linux I don't understand how Windows users put up with the Microsoft updates that frequently fail to install, sometimes require multiple reboots and then still needing to update everything else manually.

Because none of those things are particularly accurate ?

http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en/sqlexpress/thread/c7d0a234-763b-4f9c-b7ec-3a40df6340a8
Here's the fix, the only way I've gotten this to work. And we've got a lot of machines with Visual Studio where "Everything" was selected (and is actually used), so updating SQL Express is a good idea:
reg add "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL.1\Setup" /value Resume /type dword /data 0
reg add "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL.2\Setup" /value Resume /type dword /data 0

Oh, and also shut down the SQL Express Service. Why couldn't these things be built into the patch? Why isn't there a new patch that supersedes the old one that does these things since Microsoft knows about them?

"still needing to update everything else manually." Acrobat Reader and Java updates fail a lot. To update GIMP on Windows, I have to manually download the program again. To update Sysinternals Suite when there's a significant security update, I have to download the zipfile manually from Microsoft. In XP for several years, Microsoft required manual patching of the "disable autorun group policy option that doesn't really disable autorun" bug until major security firms called them on it. Eventually it found its way into Optional Updates (not automatic, because MS decided it wasn't critical).

Re:Seems about right

[Korin43]

2. Because I can update my computer all at once, and if I install my preferred OS on a new computer, I can update it in one step. This was a minor point, but I still think it's stupid that Microsoft can't manage this.

3. I don't care whose problem it is. When I tell my computer to update, it updates everything from the kernel to Firefox. You make it sound like there shouldn't be a way to do this. Why not? Compare the process.

Windows:

1. Realize that a piece of software has been updated
2. Find its website
3. Download the installer
4. Run the installer (making sure to uncheck all of the "Install FREE spyware?" boxes)
5. Open start menu and delete new icons because Windows programs never sort themselves into simple categories like "Internet", "Office", etc.
6. Repeat for every newly updated piece of software

Arch:

1. Run "yaourt -Syu" or "pacman -Syu"
2. Hit enter

Ubuntu (since some people prefer the GUI way):

1. Wait for the system tray notifier to say that you need to update
2. Click ok

Re:Seems about right

[Korin43]

Oh and for the record, software repositories on Linux aren't just for open source software (although Ubuntu and Debian would prefer that this be the case). On Arch, pacman will update proprietary software too, like Skype and VMware (obviously they can only do this with free software).

Re:Seems about right

[JustNilt]

I'll grant #3 but there's no reason not to slipstream SP3 into WinXP if you simply must install it.

Re:Seems about right

[Compaqt]

It's true that the all-in-one updater is a big advantage for Ubuntu vs. Windows.

As for trivial fixes being trivial-sized, that's not my experience. Often you'll see minor security updates in a huge multi-megabyte update for OpenOffice apps.

I wonder if a binary patch updater might be a good idea. Then again, it might be unwieldy to manage deltas (people might be starting from various different versions updating to the latest).

Re:Seems about right

[Z00L00K]

I would say that there is a continuous stream of updates and patches all the time. Mostly anti-virus, but then we have Adobe reader/flash, Windows (and other M$ items) and whatever other software that you have installed. Many softwares have their own method of updates and patches, and it's seldom compatible with the other software update packages in the system.

So every time you boot/login there are a lot of processes started that are competing for resources trying to make an upgrade and whatever which makes the startup time horrible.

Re:Seems about right

[Pecisk]

Sight. System => Administration => Software Sources => "Updates" tab => install security updates without warning => done

No security update will make to reboot system (even Linux kernel update won't). Maximum it could force to restart Firefox, which nicely informs user about this stuff and saves all info about abs anyway.

Re:Seems about right

[Lord Bitman]

apt, CPAN, Gems, Firefox, Eclipse, Thunderbird, and various things which need to be hand-compiled...
Everyone with a plug-in / library / module system wants to own it, and there's no standard of hooks which they can all use to report to each-other.
A handful of systems which are not only independent and incompatible, but also overlapping, seems worse to me than twenty-two different systems which do not overlap.

Re:Seems about right

[Lord Bitman]

"No, this is true! Really, I'll prove it: Install this thing from ten years ago and upgrade it to its most current version!"

Last time I tried installing a two-year-old Linux (debian, I think. And this was possibly a decade ago) and then upgrading it to its most current version, it couldn't even do it.

So here goes: I challenge you to find a continuously-maintained linux distribution from October 25, 2001 (debian seems like a good candidate, network install is cheating, no harm in using virtualbox, if you can) and upgrade it to the point where it is identical in features and functionality to a fresh install of a debian release from March 5, 2010.

I'll be watching this thread, and I really don't know what the results will be. I expect utter failure, but I would be pleasantly surprised to be proven wrong.

Re:Seems about right

[TheLink]

But that doesn't really sound like a Windows-specific problem to me.

That problem could happen with Linux too.

There's also lots of half-baked advice out there that tell users to delete certain stuff in windows\... while that frees up space, things like "windows update" can stop working.

And as we have seen, many users get infested with malware, and so updates cause problems (like BSODs).

Re:Seems about right

[TheLink]

If you aren't rebooting after a linux kernel update, you are likely to be still running the old kernel with bugs.

Yes there are ways to update a kernel "in-place"[1] but I doubt your distro does that yet by _default_.

Lots of things require a restart when they are updated for the updates to take effect.

If you update apache or your GUI, you need to restart them.

Yes you can choose to not restart the stuff, but you are then NOT running the updated stuff.

Windows XP/7 doesn't force you to restart either. A restart is a simple way to ensure you are not running the out of date stuff.

[1] http://www.linux-mag.com/cache/7403/1.html

I'm not sure if that tech works with stuff like vmware. I always seem to need to do some stuff after kernel updates for vmware to work again (google for details)...

Re:Seems about right

[Korin43]

Ok seriously, why is everyone focusing on #1? It's a real problem. How big of a deal it is or if it happens on another OS doesn't really interest me. Also, it's hardly the biggest problem. #3 dwarfs the other two issues by far. Like other people said, most people don't install Windows very often, but updates happen all the time. So really, all the stuff about #1, I don't care.

Re:Seems about right

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows does not allow you to write executable files that are currently running and I believe there is a similar restriction for .dlls that are loaded into memory.

But Ubuntu (and any other Linux) does.

Re:Seems about right

[DiLLeMaN]

2. Multiple reboots: [...] Try a similar test on any Linux distro (pick a CD as old as you want), notice how you only need to reboot once to have all of the updates apply.

I did. Ubuntu required me to upgrade in steps, at least when going from 6.04 PPC to ... can't remember exactly which version, but I think it was three dist-upgrades, the last of which broke video.

Re:Seems about right

[Korin43]

Do you need to reboot? I thought you could change the target distro, update, repeat (without reboots in between).

Re:Seems about right

[pugugly]

Actually, I've seen all three of those things. Pretty much consistently.

So since I could personally testify to all three under oath, I'd have to say all three are in fact 'particularly accurate'.

Indeed, there is at least one standard XP update that just broke my sisters PC when I tried to reload Windows (And believe me, it took awhile eliminating other things before I came to the final realization that it wasn't hardware but Windows itself, and I had to either try and keep it secure while updating from Windows XP Base, find out *exactly* which update was killing it, or say the heck with it - I bought her an inexpensive (albeit actually pretty nifty) Windows 7 machine and this machine will go into honorable retirement as a network server.)

So I really see see your post as an argument for a "-1, verifiably counter-factual" tag.

Pug

Re:Seems about right

[bingoUV]

6 months ago I had installed WindowsXP(which had SP2 within it) in a VM. Update needed 3 reboots over next 24 hours, and I am not sure it was finished. I just gave up at that point and deleted the VM.

Re:Seems about right

[DiLLeMaN]

Some of them, yes, but IIRC I had to reboot at least once for some newer type of kernel module thingy.

It's not that I really *mind* a reboot every now and then, as long as it can be somewhat scheduled. I was just correcting the GP who stated that you could go from Old to Current in one go. That's simply not always true.

Re:Seems about right

[bingoUV]

I challenge you to find a continuously-maintained linux distribution from October 25, 2001 ... from March 5, 2010.

Why would you want to do this for Linux distributions, when there are better solutions to get an updated OS? For debian, I could simply download the latest CD and be done with it. Many distributions support downloading latest updated version of the latest release.

Where do I legally download XP SP3 with all the updates, if my laptop came with XP SP1, or if I bought XP SP1 around 8 years ago?

Re:Seems about right

[Korin43]

Hm. I assumed that the updaters didn't rely on any particular kernel version. My mistake :(

Re:Seems about right

[drsmithy]

Where do I legally download XP SP3 with all the updates, if my laptop came with XP SP1, or if I bought XP SP1 around 8 years ago?

You download SP3 from Microsoft, then either apply it straight after installing (1 reboot), or slipstream it before installing (no reboots).

This constant harping on about reboots as if they're the end of the world just highlights how out of touch the group of people here is. Most people *shut down* their computer at least a few times a week, if not daily.

Re:Seems about right

[Lord Bitman]

Okay, I was focusing on #2. I suppose #1 is covered by this too, though.

See here for a brief note about #3. In even-shorter: Five incompatible package managers + the non-sanely-supported-by-package-managers need to install things manually is equivalent to "still needing to install everything else manually" in any non-trivial setup.

As a thought experiment: how would you implement file-checker on Linux?

for reasons of simplicity I'll ignore that "just get everything from the package manager!" is about as sane as saying "Just get everything from Microsoft, then you can run Microsoft-Update for everything!"

Re:Seems about right

[Korin43]

Incompatible file managers cause less of a problem than you might think. Most Linux software is released as a .deb and .rpm, and anyone new to Linux is likely to be using a distro that supports those. The real problem with package managers is that Debian style packages are an incredible amount of work (I have no experience with rpm files). In my prefered distro (Arch), a package is one file that lists the name, version number, dependancies and how to build the file (generally something like "./configure --prefix=/usr; make; make INSTALLDIR=$pkgdir install"). Because of this, installing packages manually means spending the 30 seconds to create a package and then using the package manager (and if you're nice, you'll put it on the Arch User Repository and everyone else can just the source to your package).

What's so insane about having Microsoft distribute updates to all installed software? Maybe the crazy part is that people run an operating system from people they wouldn't trust to distribute software.

Re:Seems about right

[bingoUV]

Where do I legally download XP SP3 with all the updates, if my laptop came with XP SP1, or if I bought XP SP1 around 8 years ago?

You download SP3 from Microsoft, then either apply it straight after installing (1 reboot), or slipstream it before installing (no reboots).

1. Doesn't answer the question.
2. Both options have one more step than the Linux alternative popularly available.

This constant harping on about reboots as if they're the end of the world just highlights how out of touch the group of people here is. Most people *shut down* their computer at least a few times a week, if not daily.

Why is this relevant?
1. Who is "harping on about reboots"? I just stated what is true.
2. Who said they're "the end of the world"?
3. Who said most people don't "*shut down* their computer"?

Re:Seems about right

[drsmithy]

1. Doesn't answer the question.

It does answer the question. The question is "how do I get an up to date Windows system".

2. Both options have one more step than the Linux alternative popularly available.

Actually they're the same as the Linux alternatives - Linux still needs to be updated after install.

However, the point is that the "extra step" is utterly irrelevant to anyone except a pedantic Slashdot nerd.

Why is this relevant?

Because "oh noes, lookit all those reboots ! Windoze sux LOL !" is basically the whole line of argument being put forth.

Re:Seems about right

[bingoUV]

I had quoted the question right above the statement that the question is not being answered. Quoting it again, hope you can at least read bold.

Where do I legally download XP SP3 with all the updates, if my laptop came with XP SP1, or if I bought XP SP1 around 8 years ago?

2. Both options have one more step than the Linux alternative popularly available.

Actually they're the same as the Linux alternatives - Linux still needs to be updated after install.

Come on. Do I have to teach you counting now? In case you are under 5 years of age, it might make sense, so here you go:

Linux:
Step 1: Install fully updated distribution / latest distribution release
Step 2: update and reboot once.

Windows:
Step 1: (Re)Install the version you have, XP SP1 in this case
Step 2: Download & Install XP SP3
Step 3: update and reboot once (could be more than once too, at least for XP SP2 it was multiple reboots a few months before release of SP3)

However, the point is that the "extra step" is utterly irrelevant to anyone except a pedantic Slashdot nerd.

Arguably, at least 2 pedantic Slashdot nerds: you and me. If it is irrelevant to you, why are you counting (that too wrong) the steps?

To me, it doesn't matter much. But the fact remains that one takes 3 steps and the other takes 2.

Why is this relevant?

Because "oh noes, lookit all those reboots ! Windoze sux LOL !" is basically the whole line of argument being put forth.

By whom (other than your strawman, of course)?

Re:Seems about right

[IWannaBeAnAC]

So here goes: I challenge you to find a continuously-maintained linux distribution from October 25, 2001 (debian seems like a good candidate, network install is cheating, no harm in using virtualbox, if you can) and upgrade it to the point where it is identical in features and functionality to a fresh install of a debian release from March 5, 2010.

My desktop machine has been a continually updating gentoo box since at least 2003. I think I have the original install disc somewhere, I think there is a good chance you could install it, do 'emerge sync' (sync the package repository to the current version), 'emerge portage' (update to the latest version of the package management tools), 'emerge -uD world' (update the installed packages). and be good to go. On the other hand, I wouldn't be too surprised if such an ancient version of portage can't handle the current repository and ebuild structure.

Oh, another thought: most likely, virtually all of the packages from the old install wouldn't exist in the current portage tree. I'm not sure if that would cause a problem - possibly not, if it just updates to the current version of the named packages.

sucks to be support

[yagu]

I'm the guy in our household responsible for applying our patches, being an IT professional and all.

Since we have a "few" computers all around the house, it's pretty much every time I sit down to one I have to apply patches, and usually a reboot to boot. Sometimes, it's a rarely used computer that I grab (laptop) just to get a few quick things done, and it requires multiple iterations of patches and reboots. Sigh.

I find it exasperating that my experience is almost always, "apply these patches", and then you can do some work with Windows. The good news (for me), I'm finally migrating EVERYTHING (as in replacing with) Macs and Linux. Time and money, that's all it takes.

Interestingly the other day... I got in and was productive immediately on a Windows laptop. Wow! C'est vrai? And when I went to shut it down? "Please do not power down your computer. Windows is installing (3 of 10...) updates..." WTH?

Re:sucks to be support

[Drethon]

For me that's kind of a so what... I patch as much as windows will let me without a restart and go about my business. Once I'm done I shut down and walk away weather its a desktop or laptop ( the laptop I just drop somewhere appropriate and plugged in). Most of the time those patches don't mean a whole lot to me because the only time they cause me much of a problem is with viruses but my web computer I use often and my non-web computer couldn't care less (not that I go to most of the sites that are virus hazards).

Re:sucks to be support

[Sowelu]

Just want to make sure I get what you're saying... So you're complaining that if you don't use a computer for a month, then suddenly you have to catch up on a month's worth of updates? Sure, it would be nice if they were cumulative--but these patches are designed for a daily user, and putting out multiple versions of updates just means there's more ways that something could go wrong.

And if you have to patch BEFORE you start working, then that's bad, but if you have to patch when you shut down instead, that's bad too. When should these updates happen, ideally?

Re:sucks to be support

[Anonymous Coward]

My experience with Windows patches is that they download and install in the background after i log on, and then 5 min or so into my session i get a balloon saying either "Updates Completed!" or "Updates Completed, please restart." If it's the latter, I can decide whether I want to restart right away or when I'm done with the computer.

I've never been prevented from working while patches download.

Re:sucks to be support

[ekgringo]

It really aggravates me the way that Vista and now Windows 7 force patch installation at shutdown. Usually when I shut down, I'm taking my laptop somewhere else and often running late. When the patching happens I have no recourse but to let the damn thing finish running in my backpack, with my fingers crossed hoping the battery doesn't die and the laptop doesn't overheat while running full-tilt in a small enclosed space.

Re:sucks to be support

[mjschultz]

I'm not often a Windows user, but I had just the opposite experience recently and it *really* pissed me off. Windows was doing its auto-updates in the background and I had already gone through a patch-reboot cycle, then it pops up a message saying that it will automatically restart in 10 minutes.

The first time I saw the message, I clicked remind me again in 10 minutes (the other options were 30 minutes, 1 hour, or 2 hours). 20 minutes later all my programs close and I'm looking at an "Installing Updates" screen. I didn't even get a chance to save my work. The "restarting in 10 minutes" window popped up behind the active window, so I didn't see it.

This was Windows 7 and there was no "I'll restart the computer myself" option on the interface. I did a bit of searching and the fix involved going through a *.msi file and toggling some setting.

I assume I must have done something wrong somewhere, because if that is the way Microsoft designed this functionality by default I am glad I don't have to deal with that.

Re:sucks to be support

[dave562]

I find it exasperating that my experience is almost always, "apply these patches", and then you can do some work with Windows. The good news (for me), I'm finally migrating EVERYTHING (as in replacing with) Macs and Linux. Time and money, that's all it takes.

Enjoy the brief respite while it lasts. My OSX box seems to want patches to be installed at least every couple of weeks. Even the Ubuntu server that I have in production seems to want an occasional reboot due to patch related processes.

Re:sucks to be support

[mcgrew]

And if you have to patch BEFORE you start working, then that's bad, but if you have to patch when you shut down instead, that's bad too. When should these updates happen, ideally?

I'd say a hell of a lot less frequently than once a week! Ideally, you should be able to tell the PC "download and install updates on shutdown" and when you shut it down, the computer downloads and installs the patches you select, then shuts down.

Better yet, it should be like Linux -- you only have to reboot if there's there's an update to the kernel.

Re:sucks to be support

[Totenglocke]

I've been using Windows 7 since the beta and I've yet to see it do this. Yes, it'll nag at you to restart, but just hit 4 hours every time until you have time to restart - on a typical work day (if it's a work machine) you'll see it no more than two times, which is hardly a big deal. So yes, I'd have to go with the "you did something wrong somewhere" view as well since I've never seen this happen in my year of using Windows 7 on a daily basis.

Re:sucks to be support

[jtownatpunk.net]

Yeah, good plan there. 'cause other operating systems NEVER get patches. Nor does any of the software installed on it. Oh, hang on. Something just popped up. Microsoft AutoUpdate says there's a patch for Office. BRB. Dangit. Now there's like 3 more for various parts of CS4. And now 5 updates for OSX. CyberDuck says there's a new version. Firefox is installing updates.

Um...You might want to come back later. This is going to take a while.

Re:sucks to be support

[Totenglocke]

Usually when I shut down, I'm taking my laptop somewhere else and often running late.

........why wouldn't you just put it to sleep or hibernate it? I only ever do a shut down / reboot on my Windows 7 systems when it's absolutely necessary, which is maybe once a month.

Re:sucks to be support

[NatasRevol]

Like I always say, Windows is cheap if your time is worth nothing.

Re:sucks to be support

[Jarjarthejedi]

"Ideally, you should be able to tell the PC "download and install updates on shutdown" and when you shut it down, the computer downloads and installs the patches you select, then shuts down."

Start->Control Panel->Security Center->Automatic updates->Download updates for me, but let me choose when to install them.

Everytime you're shutting down use start->turn off computer (it'll have a little security center icon if there's updates). It'll install the updates then shut down.

Windows XP Service Pack 3.

Re:sucks to be support

[poetmatt]

there are reasons not to do that on windows. It's not like linux, where that's expected and/or you won't have your filetable crash.

Windows you have a known memory leaks in parts of svchost, so if you keep that thing up for a week you'll see it taking up anywhere from 250mb to more than a gig. This occurs in all versions of windows from XP to 7, 64 bit and 32 all the same

Reboots to your PC on windows don't affect the lifetime of your hardware, although if your MFT was corrupt prior to reboot you're just as screwed after.

Ergo, shutdown/hibernate/basically ensure your computer/laptop is not being powered when you're not going to use it.

Re:sucks to be support

[camperdave]

What is this "shut down" of which you speak?

Re:sucks to be support

[Quantumstate]

In Ubuntu they happen in the background while I'm working. I think this is the ideal situation for me. I have never noticed any significant slowdown.

Re:sucks to be support

[gparent]

I'd say a hell of a lot less frequently than once a week! Ideally, you should be able to tell the PC "download and install updates on shutdown" and when you shut it down, the computer downloads and installs the patches you select, then shuts down.

So exactly like it is then? Ok.

Re:sucks to be support

[gparent]

there are reasons not to do that on windows. It's not like linux, where that's expected and/or you won't have your filetable crash.

No, it's pretty much exactly like that on Windows too. There is no secret "your MFT will randomly get corrupted because you pressed Hibernate instead of shut down" bug. More FUD.

Re:sucks to be support

[Spad]

Sorry, that's bollocks. You have one "reference" from 2003 that refers to minimum RAM required for XP as 250Mb and one that's just some guy posting a Hijackthis log and saying svchost is "making his PC run slow".

I've got a Win 7 x64 Desktop and a Win 7 x86 Laptop; the laptop hibernates at least twice daily and I never have any problems with it waking at all, nor with file system corruption, the desktop currently has 12 days of uptime (new hardware install a couple of weeks ago, it usually runs for a month or two between critical updates) and my svchost currently stands at 350Mb across 11 processes, most of which is the Desktop Window Manager.

Some shitty hardware (a lot of 3G cards for some reason) won't work after hibernating, but I've had that happen under both Windows & Linux, Oh, and Fedora refused to reconnect any of my mounted network shares after hibernating, so I guess Linux has its problems too.

Re:sucks to be support

[AnotherUsername]

Like I always say, Windows is cheap if your time is worth nothing.

That, to me, is more of a Linux quote than a Windows quote. I used to only use Linux. However, when I needed to install something, it wasn't just a pop in a CD, push Next a couple of times, and forget it. No, I had to search online for packages and files and go through message boards and discussion groups trying to find a hint as to why such and such a program is not working. So, a 10 minute install in Windows would equal out to about a 5 hour install in Linux. Linux is cheap if your time is worth nothing. That's why I pay for Windows. (It is also why I no longer use Linux. Everything I was using in Linux has a Windows alternative. Many times, that Windows alternative either came with Windows, or could be found for free/cheap online.)

Re:sucks to be support

[mirix]

Better yet, it should be like Linux -- you only have to reboot if there's there's an update to the kernel.

Amen. Windows' incessant rebooting over nothing drives me nuts.

Re:sucks to be support

[Totenglocke]

I've left my system running 24/7 for months and never seen a memory leak outside of Firefox and amusingly, where you say it's "expected" for people to use sleep / hibernate in Linux, I've yet to run a Linux distro where a system would resume from sleep / hibernate. That was actually why I stopped running linux on my laptop and switched to the Windows 7 beta, because I was so sick and tired of sleep / hibernate never working.

Re:sucks to be support

[Anonymous Coward]

That, to me, is more of a Linux quote than a Windows quote. I used to only use Linux. However, when I needed to install something, it wasn't just a pop in a CD, push Next a couple of times, and forget it. No, I had to search online for packages and files and go through message boards and discussion groups trying to find a hint as to why such and such a program is not working. So, a 10 minute install in Windows would equal out to about a 5 hour install in Linux.

Astroturfers! Astroturfers! Astroturfers! Astroturfers! Astroturfers! Astroturfers! Astroturfers! Astroturfers! Astroturfers! Astroturfers! Astroturfers! Astroturfers!

--
HINT: Only a windos user with zero linux experience would believe the parent post.

Re:sucks to be support

[Anonymous Coward]

Being a devil's advocate on an issue != being a troll on an issue

And yet here you are, trolling again.

Re:sucks to be support

[Tibor the Hun]

That is crazy...
I restart my MacBook Pro, maybe once every 3 months.
To take it somewhere, I just unplug power, video, and USB and take it.

wow...

Re:sucks to be support

[Tromad]

I've been using sleep mode on my windows laptops through three iterations of windows (XP, vista, 7) over 10 years and only once did I have a noticeable problem, due to shitty drivers keeping the laptop awake (solved by replacing the drivers). If you have a laptop there is no reason to not use sleep or hibernate unless you don't plan on using it for a week; anything else is FUD.

Re:sucks to be support

[poetmatt]

I guess you didn't read what I said. I take it reading comprehension for you runs a little weak?

I never said it was corrupted by hibernate. I'm saying it gets corrupted while your OS is still running. Thus, by the time you eventually reboot (as people do reboot their pc's, even windows updates require it, it's already corrupt and won't start back up.

Re:sucks to be support

[poetmatt]

hey, let's try that again.

re: 250MB Svchost:

Spad:that's bollocks

and then we have

Spad: my svchost currently stands at 350Mb across 11 processes

desktop window manager is DWM.exe, you goof. It has nothing to do with the calls svchost makes in any form. 0 of it is the desktop window manager.

Re:sucks to be support

[yukk]

So what you're saying is you were too stupid to use the distro's package system. Oh, I shouldn't say that. Windows has no such beast so you can hardly be blamed for not knowing there was an easier way. So you were too uninformed to do that.

Re:sucks to be support

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows... you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. If you don't reboot stability and performance leaks away. If you do reboot you end up waiting 10 mins for your computer to "warm up." Often you wait for it to shut down too because it's got to do updates at that specific.

I don't worry about any of that crap on Linux. It boots fast and doesn't need a warm up period. When I tell it to shutdown it does it in a timely matter (updates are done at my discretion). It's fast enough that I don't bother with suspend or hibernate unless I'm in the middle of something that I want to come back to (several documents open, browser tabs, etc).

I don't shut down on Linux because I need to... I shut down because it's fast enough to bring it back. The difference between hibernate and a full boot is much smaller on Linux than it is on Windows.

What does Windows do that Linux doesn't? Play games. What? Is it DirectX slowing the boot times down?

Re:sucks to be support

[Anonymous Coward]

svchost is not necessarily running Microsoft code. Seeing as all you could produce was some random dude complaining about svchost eating his memory, i'd bet it wasn't actually windows' fault, just something else that's installed.

Re:sucks to be support

[dissy]

Even the Ubuntu server that I have in production seems to want an occasional reboot due to patch related processes.

apt-get install ksplice

or http://www.ksplice.org/

Can fix having to reboot the Linux kernel and patch both on disk (for if/when you do choose to reboot) as well as the running kernel in memory.

Ksplice currently works easiest with Ubuntu and Debian (Integrates with apt) but can be used more manually on other systems without package managers too apparently.

Re:sucks to be support

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd take Linux hibernate problems over Windows hibernate problems any day. If Linux can't hibernate you can just shut it down and boot it up and not spend all day doing it. Linux boots much faster than Windows and doesn't require a warm up period (You know that period of time after you boot that Windows grinds away at your harddisk and system performance is awful for a good 5 to 10 minutes?)

Re:sucks to be support

[drsmithy]

What is this "shut down" of which you speak?

That's what normal people do with their computers every night.

Re:sucks to be support

[VocationalZero]

Windows you have a known memory leaks in parts of svchost, so if you keep that thing up for a week you'll see it taking up anywhere from 250mb [windowsbbs.com] to more than a gig. [techguy.org] This occurs in all versions of windows from XP to 7, 64 bit and 32 all the same

Bullshit. If you actually believe that all Windows machines leak that bad only after a week you have been absolutely mislead.

Re:sucks to be support

[jim_v2000]

"desktop window manager is DWM.exe, you goof. It has nothing to do with the calls svchost makes in any form. 0 of it is the desktop window manager."

Wrong. In Windows 7 (and probably Vista too) there is a service called Desktop Window Manager Session Manager that sucks up around 100mb of RAM. You can right-click on svchost.exe in the Task Manager and click Go To Services to see which services are running under that particular instance of svchost.

Re:sucks to be support

[Tubal-Cain]

........why wouldn't you just put it to sleep

Cleaner. I don't always get the wifi back.

or hibernate it?

Faster. 4 gigs of RAM ain't trivial to hibernate.

Re:sucks to be support

[gparent]

No, my reading comprehension is just fine, but since you like bringing up shit that is totally unrelated to the discussion, I'll admit I was a bit confused. Either way, this hasn't happened to me since Windows 95's days. You seem to be suggesting that people "Shutdown/Reboot Windows only when necessary" because (according to the witch doctor), your filetable might crash. Got your dealer's number?

Re:sucks to be support

[mdwh2]

On Windows XP at least, you can choose to set it to only notify you, and then it only installs when you tell it. (Control Panel / Automatic Updates.)

(I'm not sure what this article is about, seems to be just spreading FUD. I don't have to patch anything myself, as that's what the automatic updates are for. And other platforms have automatic updates too, anyway.)

Re:sucks to be support

[Totenglocke]

Then you have a problem with your system, not Windows. My Windows 7 laptop with 3 gigs of RAM resumes from hibernate in about half the time it takes it to boot and I've yet to see wireless or anything else break.

Re:sucks to be support

[Blkdeath]

I'm not often a Windows user, but I had just the opposite experience recently and it *really* pissed me off. Windows was doing its auto-updates in the background and I had already gone through a patch-reboot cycle, then it pops up a message saying that it will automatically restart in 10 minutes.

Hah! My personal favourite is the Windows XP method whereby it pops up a dialog box saying "Windows has sucessfully installed updates. Your computer needs to be restarted for these updates to take effect. Reboot Now, Reboot Later" with "Reboot Now" as the default option. If you're in the middle of, say, typing something when that nuisance of a dialog pops up and you hit space or enter you'll suddenly find yourself in the middle of a reboot cycle when it's least opportune; like in the middle of a sentence.

Re:sucks to be support

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm running XP SP3, and I always hibernate. The only times I actually reboot is when Windows asks me to for updates, which happens at most once a month, contrary to what the article says. (Updates to other applications are even less frequent and generally don't require a reboot.) I have noticed no performance problems at all, and my computer is ten years old. I would notice a memory leak like that. Quickly.

Re:sucks to be support

[Blkdeath]

That, to me, is more of a Linux quote than a Windows quote. I used to only use Linux. However, when I needed to install something, it wasn't just a pop in a CD, push Next a couple of times, and forget it. No, I had to search online for packages and files and go through message boards and discussion groups trying to find a hint as to why such and such a program is not working. So, a 10 minute install in Windows would equal out to about a 5 hour install in Linux. Linux is cheap if your time is worth nothing. That's why I pay for Windows. (It is also why I no longer use Linux. Everything I was using in Linux has a Windows alternative. Many times, that Windows alternative either came with Windows, or could be found for free/cheap online.)

I know you're going to catch even more flak for that comment than you already have, but I'll throw my $0.02CDN into the hat.

I've been a Linux user for well over a decade. I used to run/administer it on more machines than I could likely count today. My personal laptop, desktop(s) both at home and at work all ran Linux. I still have a server at home hosting my personal vanity domain that runs a Linux installation.

That being said, I'm no simpleton when it comes to Linux. I've rolled my own distro from the kernel, glibc and gcc on up, I've used half a dozen distributions, various package management systems including pre-compiled and those that require me to compile my individual apps and everything in between. I've gotten away from Linux on the desktop over the last few years (my new job is a Windows only environment and uses computers merely as tools) so I decided to try to awaken the Linux installation on my desktop at home.

Would you believe I spent hours getting it all up to date only to discover that my keyboard would not work under X Windows! I tried a PS/2 keyboard, a USB keyboard, a wireless USB keyboard; nothing. Best I ever got was to get the number pad at the right working, but that does not a usable environment make.

So I gave up. I banged my head against a wall long enough before I decided that if they can screw up a simple human interface, it's no longer fun.

BTW, even with a package management system I still had to fight dependancies and their collisions along the way. So you're 100% correct; Linux is only free if your time is worth nothing.

Re:sucks to be support

[aztracker1]

Except when you want feature X of package Y that doesn't come *with* the distro, or the distro updates dependancy Z that X depends on, but didn't bother to update X to go along with it. I've had this issue many times over the years. But I guess you don't use anything beyond Firefox and OpenOffice.org, so it never happens to you.

Re:sucks to be support

[TangoMargarine]

OMG MUST LEAVE COMPUTAR ON ALL NIGHT AND WASTE EKELTRICITY, hey look at my uptime!

Hmm. The caps filter is yelling at me. So...yeah...

Re:sucks to be support

[TangoMargarine]

It's a good thing you said it twelve times: If it had been eleven, nobody would have gotten it.

Re:sucks to be support

[cffrost]

[...] usually a reboot to boot.

Durr... I think we all know what the purpose of a reboot is.

Re:sucks to be support

[yukk]

As a Sysadmin I do occasionally use other software and I freely admit that any pain I cause myself by compiling from source when the package is available is my own fault but that's how I often prefer to do it and I enjoy the challenge so there are two reasons why I don't complain. With Windows on the other hand either the option is in the black box or ... well, the option doesn't exist so don't even ask.

Re:sucks to be support

[Anonymous Coward]

Now most Linux distros worth bothering with have good package managers and a lot of that problem is gone. Not completely, but it's a lot better. The biggest problem now seems to be getting anything involving 3d working. Wireless can be a pain too sometimes.

Re:sucks to be support

[Anonymous Coward]

its a completely borked model if you can't let the update go on autopilot. linux and mac users have had this working for DECADES. really Microsoft, lets get software patching and installation at least to the state of the art circa 2000

Re:sucks to be support

[ffreeloader]

So, you don't bother to install packages from outside the distro repositories that include their own dependencies, and then complain when the system updates it's own dependencies. Yeah, that's a real "system" problem/failure.....

Re:sucks to be support

[ffreeloader]

Sorry, but I don't believe it, or at least not that this happened any time in the last 5 years.

You, an experienced Linux system admin, couldn't find a compatible keyboard? That just stretches my credulity beyond the breaking point. My experience has been just the opposite. Any keyboard I've ever plugged in has "just worked". Some keys that required Windows software to function might not work, or have a different function under Linux, but entire keyboards failing to work multiple times in a row under any modern kernel? Nope. I don't believe it.

Your claims of dependency hell also leave me doubting. What distro were you running, and how long ago did this supposedly happen?

Re:sucks to be support

[camperdave]

How are your torrents ever going to complete if you shut the machine down at night?

Re:sucks to be support

[aztracker1]

I've actually had software installed from the repository in Ubuntu break after some parts update, but the portions using said parts weren't. ex: mono gets updated, but mod_mono doesn't.. then mod_mono breaks. I've had similar issues a number of times. All of the software in question installed from the repository.

VMWare breaking a lot is simply a software install issue that is just the biggest annoyance to me, and the one I see happen the most. Linux doesn't do backwards/forwards compatible well. That doesn't mean I refuse to use it, just pointing out it isn't some magical panacea.

Re:sucks to be support

[aztracker1]

Well, to be honest, most of the software I use on Windows is open-source, so less of a black box for me.

Re:sucks to be support

[daveime]

I just love these responses ...

You, an experienced Linux system admin, couldn't find a compatible keyboard?

So Linux, the system that has "more drivers than windows", actually doesn't. You have to find a keyboard that is "compatible" with Linux ???

Last time I looked, keyboards come with either PS2 or USB connectors, and so does every motherboard. What is so difficult that Linux cannot even poll a simple device like a keyboard ? Yet the underlying BIOS seems to have no problem ?

THIS is why it will never be the Year of the Linux Desktop. Apologists who come away with BS excuses like this.

Re:sucks to be support

[TheLink]

But I don't want it to install updates just because I shutdown...

I want it to install updates when I choose to install them.

Anyway I don't see a big difference between Windows and say Ubuntu with this patching stuff.

1) Both require regular updates
2) In most normal cases both require restarting of software that's updated whether it's the O/S or apps or services. Believe me if you update Open Office you need to restart it for the update to take effect.

The Linux users who are smugly not restarting stuff are just running the out of date versions.

A restart is a simple way to be certain that the "Aunt May" and "Joe Sixpack" bunch are no longer running the unpatched stuff.

It seems some ignorant Linux fans (especially those not using ksplice) should be rebooting their systems more often than they are doing...

Re:sucks to be support

[Anonymous Coward]

i don't think you got it

Re:sucks to be support

[hicksw]

Everytime you're shutting down use start->turn off computer (it'll have a little security center icon if there's updates). It'll install the updates then shut down.

Desktop: OK[ish]

Laptop: sucks.
--
ACTA delenda est.

Re:sucks to be support

[pugugly]

Umm - Sure you have to restart the app under linux to take advantage of the update. But the point is - you have your own option of when to do so - it does the update, you finish what your doing, and if you save in five minutes or five hours when you restart it will be updated

Windows updates something - well, first of all if you're trying to get work done, forget about it because you can't run the program while it or any dependency is getting updated. It will harass you if you're trying to do something, it's just an all around pain in the ass. I was playing Baldur's Gate II on my XP box last night, and Windows kindly mentioned I needed to reboot - I clicked restart later. And then again in five minutes, and five minutes after that.

That's a problem that just . . . does not exist . . . on my Ubuntu box.

Pug

Re:sucks to be support

[pugugly]

Actually, no I would not believe that.

Pug

Re:sucks to be support

[TheLink]

> And then again in five minutes, and five minutes after that

Doesn't seem to do that on my Windows boxes though and I run XP and Windows 7. The only annoyance I have is with Windows 7 which still installs the updates when I shutdown, even though they are supposed to only install when I say so.

Despite that annoyance you're talking about seems lots of Windows users still don't update their machines often enough :).

Re:sucks to be support

[Blkdeath]

Sorry, but I don't believe it, or at least not that this happened any time in the last 5 years.

Ok, I suppose you're free to have your beliefs but it happened about 2 months ago.

You, an experienced Linux system admin, couldn't find a compatible keyboard? That just stretches my credulity beyond the breaking point. My experience has been just the opposite. Any keyboard I've ever plugged in has "just worked". Some keys that required Windows software to function might not work, or have a different function under Linux, but entire keyboards failing to work multiple times in a row under any modern kernel? Nope. I don't believe it.

See, the keyboard isn't the problem, the configuration architecture and modular nature of the new X Windows System is the problem. Apparently you have to take steps(!!!) to ensure you have the proper support for basic input devices compiled into the system and configured in the config section in order to make it work.

My mouse worked, my keyboard and mouse both work at the console, however my keyboard does not work under X Windows.

Your claims of dependency hell also leave me doubting. What distro were you running, and how long ago did this supposedly happen?

{sigh} Denial of a long standing problem does not make the problem go away.

I used to scoff at people who would make these claims myself. Then I started working full time in a non-IT environment where suddenly the computer was a means to and end rather than the end itself. I no longer have the time to tinker, re-configure, re-compile, re-install or scour forums, FAQs, info pages and IRC channels to find the solutions to problems I encounter. In my day to day life I need my computers to Just Work and Linux does not accomplish this goal. The development is too scattered, dependencies change and it still happens far too often that a system will depend on multiple versions of a given dependency.

I'm sorry to say it but Linux will never grow or develop to take over in the corporate world. It's just spinning its wheels towards niche status.

Re:sucks to be support

[poetmatt]

Are you fucking retarded? Let me try this again.

Filetables can get corrupted while the computer is running. People do have to reboot on windows constantly due to security updates and other things. When you reboot if the file table gets corrupted you'll find out when it doesn't boot to windows.

Meanwhile, not rebooting on windows will get svchost leaks over time. you can't shut down svchost either, not unless you want a forced system reboot or other instabilities.

What does it take to get a filetable corrupted? Hell if I know. Note: that is not filetable crashing.

Re:sucks to be support

[poetmatt]

Actually computers usually have some kind of leak, but 250MB isn't really that bad all by itself. It depends on the machine. Firefox if left open notably leaks way more than svchost, actually.

What's a gig when I have 12gigs of ram? Hell, I don't even care. What's a gig when I have 2 gigs of ram? Different story.

Re:sucks to be support

[gparent]

I don't know why you're calling me retarded when you're the one who is assuming that the file table getting corrupted is relevant - It's not. First off, it doesn't really happen to people with working hardware, and second off, people usually reboot their computers regularly regardless of OS. So the same would happen on Linux with that broken hard drive.

why is it so unreasonable?

[tjstork]

patching for Windows is largely automated...

Heck, my Linux has patches every day and I kinda see that as a good thing.

Re:why is it so unreasonable?

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux has to be patched? Mod parent down!

Re:why is it so unreasonable?

[fyrie]

Agreed. Ubuntu prompts me to update every week or so it seems.

Re:why is it so unreasonable?

[SectoidRandom]

If you use the computer every day it is not, however if you only turn it on every week or two (like my mother) then expect 30minutes of prompts for different updates!

Re:why is it so unreasonable?

[natehoy]

By and large, patches are a good thing, unless and until they prevent you from getting work done on the machine. Then they become a pain.

I was constantly frustrated and annoyed by the simple fact that Windows lacks a centralized update system that is open for everyone to use. It's got automated updating, sure, but it's a series of individual solutions per vendor and everyone solves the problem in different ways. And either there's an always-running app in the background (of which I had 15-20 at any given time, which gobbles up memory and occasionally CPU), or the software checks for updates when I start it up (the very least convenient time I want to update a bit of software is WHEN I'M STARTING IT - I opened Acroreader because I wanted to read a file, and now is not a good time to ask me if I want to wait ten minutes while my hard drive whirs getting the new shiny version installed. PS: As soon as I'm done reading the document, I'm going to shut down Acroread and not think about the update any more until you ask me at the least convenient time again, and I'll ignore it. Again).

Then, of course, there's Patch Tuesday. You never quite know what fresh hell awaits on Patch Tuesday, but it almost always includes a reboot.

Re:why is it so unreasonable?

[ircmaxell]

What have you been using? Even windows is smart enough to batch the updates through. And in the rare case that an update depends on another that requires a restart, it'll apply the new update after the restart. So just hit "update" and either walk away or continue working until it prompts for a restart. The only time I've run into an issue is the RARE update that requires a license agreement. Same goes for linux (minus the license part). If you're that concerned about it, install WSUS and let that manage your updates for you (and then you can set an update schedule, predownload the updates, etc)...

Re:why is it so unreasonable?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would assume it's talking about individual apps. Many do not automatically update and must be manually patched if you want to be up to date, but most users shouldn't care about those since they won't be nagged...

Re:why is it so unreasonable?

[GIL_Dude]

I'm pretty sure he means that Flash will want to update, Adobe Reader will complain, Windows will want to patch itself, etc. For folks using iTunes - it will want to throw down the latest iTunes and Quicktime. Firefox will want to update, etc., etc. ad nauseum.

The real issue is that Windows doesn't have a centralized update mechanism. Quite frankly the ISV's resisted the idea as they didn't want to have anything seem like Microsoft controlled it. More and more I am leaning towards the belief that Microsoft needs to build a centralized update service and allow ISV's to opt in to it. After they realize they can post their updates without being metered or anything by Microsoft they will find that they don't have to build custom updaters, write services to do it so that they don't have UAC prompts for patches, etc.

Re:why is it so unreasonable?

[mjschultz]

I think the major complaint here is that there are so many updating systems for a Windows machine. On Linux, yeah I update every day, but it is all done through the same interface. I'm not saying this is perfect. But, it beats running the Windows Update, then the Office Update, then the Adobe Update, then the Apple Update, then the * Update, ad nauseum.

Re:why is it so unreasonable?

[dave562]

In my experience the issue isn't with the Windows OS, but all of the applications. On my boxes I have Java wanting an update and Adobe products wanting updates. Firefox seems to want an update pretty frequently. The anti-virus starts to cry if it hasn't been updated lately. I think the point the report is making is that just about every application these days has its own update frequency. You can't manage non-Microsoft patches with WSUS. Even a product like SMS (or whatever they are calling it these days) requires someone to stay on top of all the recent releases, and create packages to push out to the workstations. The last time I tried to update Adobe Shockwave (and Flash) because of an update, the .msi installer version that Adobe puts out wasn't even up to date and didn't address the security issue. Adobe makes you jump through hoops to even get the .msi installer files in the first place.

Re:why is it so unreasonable?

[ircmaxell]

So basically duplicate the functionality of APT (at least for updates), and let the ISV's run their own repo? So then when you install their product (irregardless of distribution method) it would add their update repo to the list of sources. Then updating windows and all its packages would be as simple as iterating through the repos looking for packages...

Re:why is it so unreasonable?

[mcgrew]

patching for Windows is largely automated...

When I first installed XP, I set it to "automatic update" and the next day I couldn't get on the internet. Microsoft had replaced my perfectly good network driver with one that didn't work at all. So much for automation; from then on I had it download automatically but installed myself.

And as a Linux user, you're fortunate (OK, smart) to not have to reboot the damned computer five times for every update. You only have to reboot when the kernel gets patched, so patches don't get in your way very often.

Re:why is it so unreasonable?

[poetmatt]

you make it sound like vendors don't want to be supported by MS. In reality have you looked at how long it takes MS to approve patches? Can you imagine how long it would take them to approve 50 times the amount of software patches?

Yes, it could clean up their code, find errors, etc. But really MS takes a long time to update things. I'm not going to bother throwing the 17 year patch fixes, but in reality things don't get fixed in 3-6mos.

Re:why is it so unreasonable?

[Miseph]

YES. This is exactly what MS needs to do. OSX and Linux have been doing this for years, and it's obviously the most sane and user-friendly way of doing something that nobody likes but everybody needs.

I know for a fact that I have software installed that needs to be updated, and I also know that updating it is a pain in my ass, because I can't just go to one place and hit 'check for updates"... I need to run each individual updater, often requiring that I run the actual application, just to find out if an update is necessary in the first place. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Supposedly they were planning to do something similar with drivers for 7, but dropped the feature before public beta. That would have been a terrific start. I just don't get what's taking them so long to build this basic functionality, when clearly they have the talent and resources to continually find new and pointless ways to change their UIs around so that the current user base gets annoyed.

Re:why is it so unreasonable?

[cgenman]

Apps that everyone has which seem to update every frick'in day on Windows:

1. Java (really? It changes that much?)
2. Adobe Reader (It's an ISO file format! This should patch once a year!)
3. iTunes / quicktime (and all of those patches don't seem to do it any good.)

Further things that not everybody has but always seems to update.

4. FileZilla (Glad to see that FTP standard advancing so quickly. One day it will probably catch on.)
5. KeePass (Hooray for security, but can we updated once a week rather than every day?).
6. Anything HP related (Mysterious, since they never stop being broken. What do they do, update every time you're supposed to replace the ink?)
7. uTorrent (It can't just update itself?)
8. Steam

Re:why is it so unreasonable?

[cgenman]

The sheer volume of individual update patches and required user intervention just makes everyone numb to the questions. Either people click "yes" and just install absolutely everything onto their system, or they impulsively click "no" and leave themselves open. I had a client who was of the incessant "yes" clicking type, and didn't realize that she had a dialog pop up saying "Your computer appears to be under attack from a virus. Would you like to shut off the network connection?" One hour over the phone, a 20 minute drive, and 1 minute in person later, what she had clicked on became apparent.

I'd love a centralized pathway repository for patches, especially with the options of "patch automatically all signed packages from this company" and "always say 'no' and don't bother me.' Really, there is no reason why the end user should be prompted for backwards-compatible patches for most mainstream helper apps.

Re:why is it so unreasonable?

[AK Marc]

you make it sound like vendors don't want to be supported by MS. In reality have you looked at how long it takes MS to approve patches? Can you imagine how long it would take them to approve 50 times the amount of software patches?

Make them opt-in optional software patches with disclaimers. There, fixed.

Re:why is it so unreasonable?

[Anonymous Coward]

With KSplice, you don't even have to reboot when the kernel gets patched.

Re:why is it so unreasonable?

[straponego]

I've thought of this before, too. It applies to OSX as well (iTunes, Quicktime, MS Office, etc. etc). But you'd want to be able to define classes of updates which would be automatic, and classes which wouldn't (for example, many Windows updates still require reboots). And MS has is consistently dishonest when it comes to defining what is a "critical" update and what is a DRM/screw-the-customer update.

The biggest problem here is that the Windows paradigm is that "Nothing the user is doing could possibly be important; my default behaviour is to interrupt, grab focus, maybe give them a chance to bail-- but if nobody answers in 60 seconds, take charge and reboot the machine." I'm sure that there are ways to disable this behaviour, but until they change this philosophy they won't have a usable or trustworthy unified update service.

Re:why is it so unreasonable?

[shutdown -p now]

That applications have their own update schedules is not a problem. The problem is that there's no single, centralized way to manage those updates. In Ubuntu, you just get a single list daily - you look through it (or don't even bother), click "Install", and it updates all software that you have.

I really wish Windows could do the same. It seems that Windows Update can update installed software, in fact, rather than just OS - Office gets updated that way, and also malware definitions for Security Essentials. But there are no public hooks for it. I hope that will change in the future.

Re:why is it so unreasonable?

[dave562]

But there are no public hooks for it. I hope that will change in the future.

I agree. I hope it will change too. Drive updates were available through Windows Update for years before I actually trusted them. I preferred to go straight to the source. I wasn't going to trust Microsoft to update a third-party program on a production system.

It would be great if Microsoft published an API. On the client, apps could register themselves with Windows Update. Microsoft could provide an API to app developers and allow them to publish signed updates. A system like that really is the only logical way forward. Microsoft should do it simply to generate good will for the platform, both among users and among developers.

Re:why is it so unreasonable?

[AnonChef]

Make them opt-in optional software patches with disclaimers. There, fixed.

Nobody reads on the web* (especially disclaimers), MS would still be blamed.

* http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9710a.html

Re:why is it so unreasonable?

[NotBorg]

Why does Microsoft need to control it? A third party software vendor would simply add an update source to the package management system. The package management would simply iterate through all the update sources and grab updates.

You can, for example, add a third party update source to Ubuntu and have it completely out of Canonical's control despite using the same package management system.

Re:why is it so unreasonable?

[natehoy]

Unfortunately, what that means is that someone will have to develop a centralized update system, maintain it, and all of the software development houses that currently roll their own are going to have to learn how to do updates in a common, standardized format and protocol.

In the Linux world, apt and rpm do a bang-up job of this, but that's because it's part and parcel of the operating system, so you either have stuff installed manually by geeks only, or you put up a repository and call it a day.

In the Windows world, Microsoft is the only one who could feasibly accomplish such a task, and I don't see them interested in updating anything but their own software through Microsoft Update anytime soon.

Re:why is it so unreasonable?

[jhol13]

I don't. I'd rather have a system which works than one which needs constant patching.

Linux has the dis-advantage of breaking binary kernel drivers on every kernel update. It is PITA to recompile them (yes, they are FOSS).

Re:why is it so unreasonable?

[aztracker1]

Microsoft could allow for vendors with signed software releases to publish their update availability, while still having it download and run the updater/installer from the vendor site... it would just be a single "update check" that would then download all the available updates, and step through them running updaters/installers in headless mode. Doesn't need to come via MS directly.

Re:why is it so unreasonable?

[Bigjeff5]

Sounds like you should set it to "Automatic".

Welcome to year 2000 technology man, you're at least a decade behind the curve!

Re:why is it so unreasonable?

[Idiomatick]

Agreed, this article is FUD/trolling. We chew windows out for patch tueday AND that they patch alot? That's pretty stupid. And like you said, linux updates plenty. No problem with this at all.

Re:why is it so unreasonable?

[Idiomatick]

Flash updates silently and very infrequently. Uninstall adobe. Uninstall ituns, which will also allow you to get rid of quicktime. Firefox updates twice a year.

There is a good reason to not use windows updates. Because you would be ignoring all your customers that are on a pirated version of windows. Tons of users are on pirated versions of windows with auto-update left off. WGA is system crippling so it is better to leave it off. And there are tons of people with it turned off. Better to roll your own and get patches out there rather than abandon those users.

If windows had an auto update system that was highly configurable then it could be of value. A set of radio buttons for each ap that updates. Never, ask, security only, always. Or something along those lines. Otherwise it would be worthless.

Re:why is it so unreasonable?

[Anonymous Coward]

Its really just the design of the thing. Windows insists that whats running must also be on the disk. Linux allows updates on the fly. Unless they are kernel related, system software (and with most distributions, nearly everything installed) can have updates on the fly. You never need shut down, and can stay current without ever shutting anything down.

Re:why is it so unreasonable?

[jcupitt65]

You'd do it the way Debian does, allow multiple independent repositories.

When you install Flash (for example), the installer adds adobe.com/repos to the list of package repositories that Windows Update checks. Now when your machine checks for updates at 2am it'll patch not just MS packages, but all installed packages too.

You could get fancy and allow packages to depend on each other as well. So Adobe (for example) could make a package called "tiff" which other suppliers depend on. Now when libtiff is patched for yet another security vulnerability and updated, all apps which use it automatically get the fix too. Imagine that, shared libraries which are shared, heh.

I think MS will do this fairly soon and called it "Windows Application Store" or something like that. It'll be a giant leap forward, I hope. It would certainly fix a large problem with the platform.

Re:why is it so unreasonable?

[pugugly]

Honestly, I'm not sure that's feasible with the Windows culture.

For it to work, you kinda need a cultural tendency to write code that handles things like dependency versioning, programs *not* requiring admin rights, plus all the other things that created dependency hell in Linux for such a long time - and these problems only got solved on Linux (it seems to me) because people weren't willing to sacrifice a lot of long terms pains in the arse in favor of short term convenience.

And Windows *is* short term convenient - the registry, the deeply bound IE, the every user an admin mentality, a lot of other 'features' of windows are designed with that short term mindset in mind.

But the thought of something like Apt-Get in *that* environment makes me want to curl up in a little ball and cry like a little girl, because it's only adds so much value in Linux because it can depend on all *other* long term decisions that have made Linux secure and stable relative to Windows. In the Windows Environment it would end up being a horrid evil thing that violated security and destroyed privacy.

I just don't see it happening. Or at least, not in a way that *doesn't* involve me, a fetal position, copious amounts of alcohol and a single bullet.

Pug

Seems to be automatic

[Sowelu]

Funny--my Firefox updates when I start it up, my Flash and Java and Adobe Reader update essentially on their own, and Windows updates when I shut it down...Steam updates on its own...Trillian and uTorrent give me a button to push to update them...I'm pretty much a power user, but I've never been prompted to update something that was remotely confusing. As long as things that need updating have an easy button to push to do it for you, I'm happy--extra bonus points if there's a checkbox in the installer to choose between "update automatically" and "prompt annoyingly when an update is available"

Re:Seems to be automatic

[Dice]

The real problem in Windows is that all of these software packages have their own independent (and potentially broken) update mechanisms. One thing that modern Linux distros get right is centralized software updates. My Ubuntu laptop has a dialog box waiting for me most mornings that details any software updates it would like to install, and whether or not they are security related. I could tell it to do it all automatically but I like reviewing the changes before I install them.

Re:Seems to be automatic

[BikeHelmet]

Most programs do have such update features. The question is more how well they work.

When people bring me computers needing a tuneup, usually they have Adobe Reader 8.1.0, Java 1.6.5 to 15 (not 18, the newest), and Flash 10.x (Congrats, Flash. Now if only you had less vulnerabilities)

This is despite them having auto-updaters. Multiple reboots leads to no prompts. Why aren't the updaters working? No idea - at first.

At that point I'll check winver and note it's an XP SP2 machine. After updating to XP SP3, suddenly they all work.

If anyone is having issues managing updates, you might be interested in something like this: http://www.filehippo.com/updatechecker/

Re:Seems to be automatic

[Facegarden]

Funny--my Firefox updates when I start it up, my Flash and Java and Adobe Reader update essentially on their own, and Windows updates when I shut it down...Steam updates on its own...Trillian and uTorrent give me a button to push to update them...I'm pretty much a power user, but I've never been prompted to update something that was remotely confusing. As long as things that need updating have an easy button to push to do it for you, I'm happy--extra bonus points if there's a checkbox in the installer to choose between "update automatically" and "prompt annoyingly when an update is available"

Yeah, i really don't see the issue here. The article makes it seem like the act of "patching" involves *any* work at all, but I generally just need to click "ok" unless its set to automatic. I never really have to do anything. I don't see it as "the user has to patch the machine", I see it as "the machine patches itself" every few days, which doesn't sound nearly as bad.

Seems like the article is just FUD.
-Taylor

Re:Seems to be automatic

[pushing-robot]

Yeah, "frequency of patches" is a useless metric. "How much time the user loses to software patching" would have made far more sense.

Developer PROTIP: Unless you've fixed a huge, critical issue, just silently update your program the next time it's shut down. Don't notify me about regular updates, and don't make me manually check for them - I'll forget. And whatever you do, don't make your updater load every time I start my computer.

Re:Seems to be automatic

[HockeyPuck]

my Firefox updates when I start it up, my Flash and Java and Adobe Reader update essentially on their own, and Windows updates when I shut it down...Steam updates on its own...Trillian and uTorrent give me a button to push to update them

So that's 8 'auto-updaters' on your machine. How many resident update/callhome processes would you want to have your average user running? 10? 12? 20? Atleast you use Trillian, some people use both AOL/yahoo/skype IM clients...

Re:Seems to be automatic

[Anonymous Coward]

But, if everyone used Windows Updates (they can), how could they flog their extra crap? Apple's updater plugs Safari 4 every bloody time. Adobe wants me to install mcafee and other shit. Google has 2 seperate updaters for Talk and the toolbar....

Of all the updating shit, Windows seems to do it the best. If you leave your PC on all the time, it'll do its update some sunday night at 3am. Otherwise, every week or so the shutdown procedure takes an extra minute. BFD.

Re:Seems to be automatic

[Sandbags]

Confusing isn't the issue, knowing when it's important and not important to actually install the patch, and knowing when the patches requires/doesn't require a reboot is a problem. In many cases it may also be confusing to know if a patch notification is legitimate or a scam as well.

I leave a LOT of stuff mid-process. It REALLY pisses me off when I find Windows has automatically rebooted my machine, and I've gone to great pains to choose browsers and applications that can auto-resume or auto-save when this happens. It's also annoying when you get prompted trying to open an app, it needs a patch that's non descriptive, and then it insists on rebooting the machine before you can proceed, in many cases causing you to loose the link you clicked on in the first place that launched said app.

If all of this was centralized, provided as a service, schedulable, and clearly defined both priority and impact of the patch, it would be better. More so if multiple patches from multiple vendors could be concurrently installed.

microsoft already extends the Microsoft Update system to their own apps, as well as 3rd party drivers, why can't they further extend it to 3rd party APPS!

It's not confusing, it's infuriating...

Apple Update, Microsoft Update, Java, Adobe, browsers, Steam, games, apps, antivirus, anti-spyware, VM engine, and then all the patching inside the VMs... This is the reason I want an iPad so bad: one less fucking system to patch.....

Re:Seems to be automatic

[Sandbags]

crap, forgot the printers, iPhone, camera firmware, god it just keeps going!

Re:Seems to be automatic

[cynyr]

granted i'm not out of the loop, but the last time i really used windows machine, the boot time was close to 1-2 minutes to the login screen and 2+ to be able to start working. The shutdown times depending on how much i had open at the time. but even from nothing but the desktop with no patches, it was around 2 minutes. IME thats more like 6 minutes for a full reboot cycle.

You could have even longer times, gentoo anyone? but there the only time i have to reboot is because i rebuilt the kernel to get some sort of new feature. Can VLC really use windows updates to push updates if they wanted? is it free and easy to get in the updater thingy? firefox? pidgin? gimp? etc.

Re:Seems to be automatic

[dave562]

Developer PROTIP: Unless you've fixed a huge, critical issue, just silently update your program the next time it's shut down. Don't notify me about regular updates, and don't make me manually check for them

Unless you're Microsoft... or Apple... If you're a major software vendor, don't even think about silently modifying your programs without letting the users know. Doing so would otherwise invoke the scorn and wrath of the /. community and other like minded, control freak zealots who see conspiracies behind every action.

Re:Seems to be automatic

[dave562]

microsoft already extends the Microsoft Update system to their own apps, as well as 3rd party drivers, why can't they further extend it to 3rd party APPS!

It's not confusing, it's infuriating...

I would suppose that it comes down to time. Microsoft already has a terrible reputation for responding to security issues 'in a timely manner'. Can you imagine the can of worms they'd be opening if they offered a centralized mechanism to patch non-MS applications? Beyond the time required to receive the patch from the vendor and package it up and distribute it, can you imagine the legal liability if they didn't QA the patch first? Do you remember the uproar when their patch caused malware infected XP boxes to blue screen because they changed a core system DLL?

This is the reason I want an iPad so bad: one less fucking system to patch.....

I see you've bought into the hype. Last I checked, OSX and iPhones still require "software updates". I can bet that whatever app you download from the app store will eventually have a "newer, shinier" version available and you'll have to decide whether or not you want to download it.

Re:Seems to be automatic

[Beelzebud]

I think you need to think about this for more than two seconds. You're basically asking MS to review, and approve of, any 3rd party application update. That's the only way they could implement a system like that, and no one in their right mind should want that...

Re:Seems to be automatic

[Tubal-Cain]

But, if everyone used Windows Updates (they can), how could they flog their extra crap? Apple's updater plugs Safari 4 every bloody time. Adobe wants me to install mcafee and other shit. Google has 2 seperate updaters for Talk and the toolbar....

.deb packages have Suggested and Recommended dependencies. Why couldn't a similar mechanism be used to suggest Safari when updating iTunes?

Re:Seems to be automatic

[Anonymous Coward]

i can't imagine microsoft allowing closed source software to be updated through official channels (and thereby blessed by MS in the eyes of the users). open source would work because then they could verify the absence of malware, but i doubt MS wants to get into the business of making open source software more convenient to run that proprietary software.

Re:Seems to be automatic

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they are full of crap?

It's not like these companies couldn't possibly get patching right without the help of Microsoft. They want to force their crap down your throat. It's not the lack of some feature in Windows that forces companies to install search tool bars along their software.

Re:Seems to be automatic

[Anonymous Coward]

Alternatively, somebody could make an updater library that's so good, everybody just uses it. See: Sparkle on OS X. If they're not using a repository, this is the least developers could do for their users.

Re:Seems to be automatic

[Anonymous Coward]

When people bring me computers needing a tuneup, usually they have Adobe Reader 8.1.0, Java 1.6.5 to 15 (not 18, the newest), and Flash 10.x (Congrats, Flash. Now if only you had less vulnerabilities)

Unfortunately, there are a lot of java apps that require a specific java version to run.

Cisco was one of the worst for some of their GUI management tools. I suspect it was all a plot to force new users to learn the command line...

Re:Seems to be automatic

[xactuary]

That trojan you don't know you're running also has an automatic update feature.

Re:Seems to be automatic

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I agree. Some app update checkers don't even offer a way to self-update, they open the web page for me to manually download and update the app.

Re:Seems to be automatic

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry for anonymity. New here and I'm off to sleep soon.

Anyway, I hate it when Firefox updates the add-ons. Just giving the screen and asking you to press "continue" or "cancel" and throwing in a flurry of errors if some are unreachable. (rikai-chan translator for example some while ago). I'd love to see a "remember this selection" button in it.

Re:Seems to be automatic

[mirix]

Because the suggested / recommended stuff are things that are related to what you are installing... documentation for the app, related tools that are often used in conjunction with it, etc.

Re:Seems to be automatic

[straponego]

Deciding whether to click Okay, clicking it, waiting for it to load and restart-- that takes time. And some of the updates require reboots. It makes sense to aggregate the "Always click okay" stuff and make it happen in the background so it doesn't delay you when you are trying to get something done.

Re:Seems to be automatic

[eulernet]

you might be interested in something like this: http://www.filehippo.com/updatechecker/

Here are 2 better ones:

http://www.kcsoftwares.com/index.php?sumo
http://cleansofts.org/view/update-notifier.html

They are free too.

Re:Seems to be automatic

[shutdown -p now]

But, if everyone used Windows Updates (they can)

Are you sure they can? Can you provide a reference for that?

Re:Seems to be automatic

[shutdown -p now]

... can you imagine the legal liability if they didn't QA the patch first?

Behold, the magical EULA of Dispel Liability!

Re:Seems to be automatic

[Tubal-Cain]

i can't imagine microsoft allowing closed source software to be updated through official channels...

Don't need to. Just give us a package manager. Third parties can provide their own repos to update through.

Re:Seems to be automatic

[Anonymous Coward]

Secunia is PARTIALLY right.
On the problem software like these, it should be all ONE update at adobe

Ahh, but what about that C:\WINDOWS\system32\Macromed\Flash\Flash10c.ocx that won't delete?

This is utter Adobe nonsense. It updates, but on some adobe updates not all instances of the file are updated, and in other circumstances files which are dangerous are not DELETED! THIS IS ADOBE'S FAULT. ADOBE'S

So yes you have to FIND that file in the first place and then delete it and make sure only Flash10e.ocx is in that same directory.
Oh I'm sorry if you have folders with file extensions turned off, on your win 7/vista eye candy box, you did have dos knowledge right? It don't have
+R+A+S+H attributes I hope... blagh..

secunia are WRONG when it comes to some software, for example ztree it don't need to be automatically updated. It comes in a ZIP for the betas. But.... While we're here, we'll use the ztree to delete the above file. Done, Reboot, PSI scan | good. Press the EASY BUTTON

Secunia is right some of the software is a pain in the ass, and wastes productivity time, which wastes money. Basically your security has to be as much knowledge, time and MONEY as you can AFFORD... That's the message here. And Adobe, christ stop building your aircraft out of bricks!

Re:Seems to be automatic

[Idiomatick]

Set it to auto-update on standard and have an option to shut it off. /.ers would agree that having the vast majority of people unpatched would be bad so auto-updates have to be on normally. Power users can pick and choose. The main reason /.ers dislike windows auto-update is probably still windows xp with WGA when it first came out.

Re:Seems to be automatic

[Anonymous Coward]

my Firefox updates when I start it up, my Flash and Java and Adobe Reader update essentially on their own, and Windows updates when I shut it down

Firefox on XP would not update for me without switching to an account with admin rights. So are you using an admin account for your normal login or is there a way to get firefox to update automatically from a user account?

Re:Seems to be automatic

[Anonymous Coward]

...Windows updates when I shut it down...

You shut Windows down frequently? I almost always have at least one thing that I want to leave open, so I hardly ever reboot or shutdown. This is why Windows updates that require reboots are a problem; it's a pain to close everything you're working on and then reopen them later (plus the time wasted during the shutdown/startup process). And it's really bad when Windows automatically reboots after 45 seconds or whatever without input from the user, causing work to be lost. I at least found a registry setting or something to disable that.

Re:Seems to be automatic

[Sandbags]

Microsoft need not QA the patches, simply provide a vendor interface for distributing them to detected installed software. The Vendor needs to QA their own patches before pushing them through. This could easily be distinguished in the update GUI as "patches from 3rd parties" clearly disassociating responsibility. The idea is simply a unified solution, which can be centrally controlled, scheduled, and which users would know that patches are coming from legitimate sources (not a mailware pretending to be a patch).

As for the iPhone/iPad, itunes itself, and the other supporting apple products should be patched (on windows) through Microsoft update like any other. On OS X it's patched through Apple's central resource. Further, it's patched when you dock it, not when it fells like notifying you of a patch, as an action of syncing and backing up, and all updated apps are patched at once, through a central resource.

Yes, you also get notifications on the iPhone of app updates and can patch directly, but it is still a central system, and still an all-at-once operation. Also, the iPhone has no known vulnerabilities to exploit outside of the OS itself (apps can't access OS and other resources, and background operation of viruses and bots is not possible). Even the "theorized" exploits require the hacker to know your phone number, and for you to have an SSH server running on the device, and still all they might be able to do is access your calendar and contact files. It's a simple solution and has little or no security risk. If PCs updated like the iPad I'd be happy.

Its not about deciding whether or not to update, it's about how and when I'm notified, understanding the nature of the patch, and the various systems that all abuse my network pinging against 50 different resources (and all consuming CPU cycles to do it) which can all be centralized and made much more secure.

yes, there may be some issues with posting delays due to patches. However, if a back end system were properly designed, top vendors with worldwide distribution should be able to easily interface, and post their own patches and control the severity level, so same day patching should be viable. The mechanism is there, it just needs to be USED!

Re:Seems to be automatic

[Sandbags]

No, not review and approve, just provide the conduit. A cloud centralized patching service for registered providers. It would offer smaller vendors a way of keeping patch servers online at lower expense, and gives mass vendors a single conduit. It would also reduce the number of ports I need to open in my corporate firewalls, (and hopefully also work in System Center and WSUS enabling me to centrally control patch distribution instead of 15,000 users hitting the web for updates), and it would ensure users knew where the patch was coming from (no more sys tray pop-ups that could be viruses).

Microsoft would certainly limit this system to premium and gold level registered partners who meet certain requirements, and I'm sure some nominal fee for getting an account set up would keep most of the riff-raff out of the system, but no, just like 3rd party drivers already sent through this system, it's not on Microsoft to QA this stuff, just offer a way to get it. A cloud service offered to registered corporation developer/partners.

These guys already release their own patches. We hear about QA issues all the time. All we're doing is centralizing and simplifying the distribution...

Stopped reading at 'unreasonable'

[Anonymous Coward]

There nothing unreasonable about it. Especially if you have automatic updates. My fedora box updates just about every day so, does that make fedora more 'unreasonable'?

I guess in from the perspective of the authors, Windows is better than Linux.

Ignorant Haters

[Chicken04GTO]

Yeah its real hard. You do....nothing. (Automatic settings). If you want more control, you can change the settings. More windows-hate circle jerking.

Re:Ignorant Haters

[yoghurt]

You have misunderstood. It's not the Microsoft window update doing its job as it is keeping ALL your software up to date. Windows update does not update all those other piece of software you have, e,g., java, flash, firefox, adobe pdf reader, virus scanner &c. Instead, each piece of software some unique mechanism (or none at all) to keep itself updated.

There is no common infrastructure to do this automatically. I don't expect MS to update my flashplayer, but I would enjoy some kind of help like a master list of update-sites and repositories to check the software against. Unfortunately, it would open up some kind of security can of worms too. But then again, vulnerable software is also a security can of worms.

I particularly loathe those crapplets which load up automatically and exist only to look for updates. They don't just check and go away, no they stay loaded all the time. Can't they make some sort of cron task?

Re:Ignorant Haters

[interkin3tic]

And if your workstation updates daily you're not part of the IT department and have no real reason to be an admin other than the updates? What if you come into work, turn on your machine which takes far longer than it should anyway, you logon and immediately get a message telling you the computer is going to restart in 4 mins, no delay feature available because other users were abusing it and not updating ever?

What if you are running an expensive qPCR experiment, and the laptop capturing the data undergoes an automatic restart midway through when you've stepped out, ruining the entire experiment?

I ask because all those things have happened to people I know (not me). Sure, there are workarounds for those, but when you're running an automated experiment, "make sure the IT guys remembered to set the automatic update correctly" is somewhere around #300 on the list of things to do, and is easily forgotten. If you don't have control over every computer you need to use, it can vary from really annoying to a real problem. A real taxpayer-supported-grant-wasting problem.

Re:Ignorant Haters

[macaulay805]

While in the home world, it may be acceptable to just allow automatic updates. However, in the mission critical business world, allowing automatic updates without testing the patches increases the risk of something to go wrong.

It has happened plenty of times in the past, that some vendor pushes out an automatic update, and boom! BSOD. I also remembering a couple of times, a bad virus def. being pushed out automatically and flaging normal system DLL files as a trojan.

Why just Windows?

[east coast]

I've owned a Droid phone for 5 days now. I've already had to "patch" two of the apps for it out of about 10 apps that I have on the phone.

By those standards I'd say MS is doing one hell of a fine job.

Re:Why just Windows?

[ashridah]

Just wait till you install Twidroid! You'll be updating multiple times a day then :)

Re:Why just Windows?

[malakai]

Pandora's jar was opened as soon as always-online systems became the norm. Software producers can ship code that has been less throughly tested, knowing they can patch or send out an update if they find something. Even console games, the once most ironclad software 4th only to military, medical, and flight software, now ships expecting patches to be available by the time the user gets it installed.

The good news is we get software more quickly. The bad news is we get software more quickly.

Luckily, the auto-update software is becoming better at it's job. More and more systems are being designed to hot-update. This is normally a result of modular architecture inside the software, allowing plugins to be unloaded at runtime, and new version loaded. This is even creeping into the OS. If you have the right mix of OS and Hardware, you may already be doing live video driver updates. Some RAID controllers allow you to swap drivers at runtime if the OS isn't on that controller.

Re:Why just Windows?

[Anonymous Coward]

Patches are a good thing. Every programmer makes mistakes, thus a lack of patches generally indicates a lack of proper support. The main issue with Windows (As compared to Mac and Linux, which tend to have centralized patch deployment measures) is that you have to search for all the individual programs that need updating: Flash, Java, Acrobat, Windows, Firefox, iTunes, etc.

But if they just buy our software

[Sycraft-fu]

We can manage all those patches for them!

Seriously, that is what this looks like to me. It is a load of bullshit over all. Reason being that few things actually need patches for security reasons. The OS, virus scanner, browser, browser plugins and so on sure. However a videogame? No probably not. Well guess what? Turns out most of the stuff that needs patching, patches itself. Windows downloads patches and applies them in the middle of the night. Firefox grabs new versions when you surf, and installs next time it starts up. Virus scanners update silently in the background all the time.

If people actually had to spend time managing patches on all their apps, sure ti might be a problem. However for the most part that isn't the case. In the default config most important apps update themselves.

Re:But if they just buy our software

[rHBa]

Windows downloads patches and applies them in the middle of the night

That's assuming you leave your computer switched on over night, most 'average users' I deal with switch their PC off when they're not using it so they have to deal with patching during the day when they're trying to work.

Re:But if they just buy our software

[userw014]

This sure seems like Secunia trying to create a market and drum up business to me too.

On the other hand, the Mac world isn't innocent of this - if youve got a Mac loaded with a bunch of applications (mostly games), there's likely the same kind of mishmash of updaters too - and the HP Printer updater is the worst since it fails silently (but still nags you to do the update.)

Frankly, if you've got a bunch of independent applications and no standard way to update an application (or even if you do), then you're going to have update chaos.

Ubuntu gets around this by insisting you get all your applications through Ubuntu, rather like apps for the iPhone.

Re:But if they just buy our software

[westlake]

We can manage all those patches for them!

Secunia PSI is free and has about 2.3 million users.

But by Secunia's own estimates, most users would score a respectable 85% or so without their update scanner.

Re:But if they just buy our software

[Bigjeff5]

Mod this man up.

Updates were annoying 10 years ago. Now any company that expects to make any money at all in the market has a decent update and patching system built in. Hell Microsoft gives one to you for free if you choose to use it (it's part of the MSI toolkit). If the user hasn't approved auto-updates, well they've asked for the harassment, now haven't they? Those probably aren't the users who will be going out and buying a mass auto-update software (that probably needs its own regular updates, to boot!).

The only exception I could see is where the misguided anti-Microsoft geek has helpfully chosen "Ask me before installing" for updates on his mom's Windows box "because, you know, like, Micro$haft updates break more than they fix, 'n stuff. M$ suuuuucks!!".

Then the machines are turned into zombies within six months, because vulnerabilities never get patched.

So...

[Xipe66]

My Ubuntu installation updates and patches way more often than my Windows installs do. Newsworthy? Didn't think so /.

Re:So...

[nomadic]

Yes, was about to say on the patch front Windows is exponentially less annoying than Ubuntu.

Re:So...

[Threni]

It's not more annoying on ubuntu - just more frequent.

Re:So...

[AdamWill]

the point is that Ubuntu uses one mechanism to provide updates for *all* the software you have installed, as long as you stick to the Ubuntu repos, as is heavily advised and encouraged on all Linux distributions. Windows Update gets you updates to Windows itself, and a few Microsoft applications. For all other applications, you have to use a different mechanism in each individual app, or else you're vulnerable.

(This is an excellent answer to the typical 'why can't I just double-click on an .exe file?!' whine about Linux software installation, BTW.)

Re:So...

[copponex]

This is an excellent answer to the typical 'why can't I just double-click on an .exe file?!' whine about Linux software installation, BTW.

Yes. OS X and Windows desktop market share illustrate why binary installers that work across years of operating system releases are dumb.

Until the Linux community can get together and hash the installer problem out, you're not only locking out larger developers, but smaller ones as well. Pretending that this isn't a problem is not a solution.

Re:So...

[gringer]

as long as you stick to the Ubuntu repos, as is heavily advised and encouraged on all Linux distributions.

I think using Ubuntu repositories on a Gentoo box would be discouraged.

But I guess your post can also be parsed in a different way (if you ignore the bits between the commas):

one mechanism to provide updates for *all* the software you have installed... as is heavily advised and encouraged on all Linux distributions.

Re:So...

[MichaelSmith]

Sylpheed tried to update itself and I said no. The I went to synaptic and looked for the version sylpheed was going to update too and it wasn't there. I suppose some users would accept the update from the application to get a version not available in the repositories.

Re:So...

[The MAZZTer]

apt-get update

apt-get upgrade

Done!

With Windows I have to keep feeds in Google Reader for apps that don't automatically update so I can go to their individual sites, download the newest installers, run them, change the install paths since they were poorly coded and forgot it, do the same with the start menu shortcuts path, uncheck the options to install spyware, toolbars, and change my search page, and finally I can let it do its thing, but I have to go back to close it later. Then for installers that don't let me change the start menu path I have to go in and clean up after them.

Thankfully more apps have automatic update now, so the process is automated, but even some of those leave messes in my start menu. Bad!

Re:So...

[h4rr4r]

It is not a problem. Provide source and do not worry about it, or deal with the costs of closed source software.

Re:So...

[Xipe66]

Yes, but the point given was "It's completely unreasonable to expect users to master so many different patch mechanisms and spend so much time patching". With the same logic applied users of Linux-distributions that automate Aptitude updates are even more likely to miss important security updates? Windows Update is fine (and so is Ubuntu, despite it actually being a little bit more annoying).

Re:So...

[cynyr]

the way to make an installer for linux is to make sure that you have a correctly working ./configure, makefile with install target. Let each disto package your software for that distro for you then. ohh wait? you don't want to give out your source? too bad for you then. Also bundling libraries seems to be becoming something of a no no these days(see the recent security issues with expat). So yes, the installer problem has been fixed already. If you are trying to distribute binary software for linux, you are going to need to do something like make it staticly linked and install it into /opt/foo/. even there you can still have a ./configure and make && make install work just fine. :P

Re:So...

[Totenglocke]

Actually, companies CAN run their updates through Windows Update - they just usually refuse to because they want to plug other things (as another poster mentioned). That's not an issue with MS or Windows, that's an issue with the companies who write the programs. MS has done plenty of things worth bashing them for (Games for Windows Live, for example), but don't bash MS for something that another company does.

This is an excellent answer to the typical 'why can't I just double-click on an .exe file?!' whine about Linux software installation, BTW.

Well first, you didn't provide a reason for why you can't, and second, you CAN just double-click on a .deb file in Debian based distros and install programs.

Re:So...

[dave562]

the point is that Ubuntu uses one mechanism to provide updates for *all* the software you have installed, as long as you stick to the Ubuntu repos, as is heavily advised and encouraged on all Linux distributions.

I like the idea. My brief experience with Ubuntu so far has been a different reality. I wanted to run Samba. The Ubuntu approved version of Samba in the rep was OLD and STALE. I couldn't use apt to update to the recent version. I had to figure it out myself. The good thing was that I learned first hand how much work goes into getting any particular app to work with any particular distro. I developed an appreciation for package maintainers who handle all of that nonsense.

So although, "Just use the repo" seems like a good idea, and it might work some of the time, it isn't by any means the be all and end all of application management.

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's another excellent answer.

"It's like an iPhone App Store for your computer."

You can alternatively say it's like Steam.

Re:So...

[Dice]

I am writing an installer for an enterprise telco carrier application today. It's actually very simple. The installer logic is as follows:

1. Verify that the OS we're running on is a supported one (RHEL or CentOS)
2. Verify that some required hardware is present and configured correctly
3. Configure a yum repository (5 line text file listing where to find RPMs) for our application RPMs present on the CD
4. yum --enablerepo=companyname install productname
5. From this point on yum and RPM work out all of the dependencies and our application gets installed. We can even pull updates from our repositories connected to the Internet (access restricted based on known client source IPs). This is all done using the default distro package management routines.

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

Until the Linux community can get together and hash the installer problem out, you're not only locking out larger developers, but smaller ones as well. Pretending that this isn't a problem is not a solution.

Uninformed much? Binary installers that work across distro's have been with us for a while - and are frequently used. They are still vastly inferior to using your distro's package manager because they suffer the exact same problems as OS X and Windows binary installers.

Re:So...

[copponex]

Provide source and do not worry about it, or deal with the costs of closed source software.

Are you trying to prove a point by reinforcing mine?

Pretending that ./configure && make && make install works across distros, much less across window managers, is stupendously laughable. Do you really think trying to force the world to open up their source code before they have any sort of Linux userbase is the way to go? I'm really not trying to be snarky for once. How is shutting out all major software vendors from your platform going to get them to your platform?

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

True. But I also have yet to encounter a *.deb file that automatically prompts me whether I want it to add an update repository for it.
Seems like it would make it easier for developers since they'd only have to set up a Launchpad profile and from then on it's the user's responsibility to have their Desktop stay up to date.

Re:So...

[copponex]

Verify that the OS we're running on is a supported one (RHEL or CentOS)

This is what I'm talking about. You're just fragmenting "Linux" into a few hundred operating systems.

Customer: Do you support Linux?
Dice: Yep!
Customer: Excellent! Where's the apt-get repository?
Dice: Oh, I mean we support RHEL and CentOS.
Customer: *dialtone*

Re:So...

[fluffy99]

Actually, companies CAN run their updates through Windows Update - they just usually refuse

Really? Not through the normal Windows Update. Name one company that has done so. You can however you a WSUS server to handle third-party updates, but it's not a trivial process and you have to set this up yourself. It would be nice if Adobe created a streamlined method of adding their updates to a corp wsus server.

Re:So...

[BradleyUffner]

Name one company that has done so.

I'll name 3 that currently have updates pending in Windows Update on a new laptop I'm setting up right now.
Nvidia, Dell, and Brother.

Re:So...

[Dice]

In this particular market, RHEL and CentOS are all we need. Our customers are already using them. Adding support for additional distros is possible, of course, and fairly trivial to do. I have worked on other products which supported RHEL, CentOS, Fedora, Debian, Ubuntu, Slackware, and Solaris simultaneously.

Re:So...

[copponex]

Come on, admit it... you couldn't support that many distros in 5 steps. Or come anywhere close to supporting 80% of the linux user base without a doubling or tripling of development time for the installer.

This is my main point: until "runs on Linux" covers a vast majority of users, without having huge development times just for the installer, without having to open up your source code, Linux adoption will continue to suffer.

Though I suppose if all development goes to HTML5 delivery, the point is moot.

Re:So...

[Dice]

Supporting distros is easy. Most package management boils down to "./configure ; make ; make install" then you create a glorified tarball of the results. For a complex application you may break it into multiple glorified tarballs then stick them into a repository (yum, apt, whatever) and generate some metadata on the packages using a simple command (it's literally "createrepo ./" for RPM distros). This is all basic stuff and can be done in an afternoon.

It's also important to know your market. You say "supporting 80% of the linux user base", but for most apps that is not the goal. If you're writing a game, for instance, you're only interested in desktop users. You can hit 80% coverage by targeting Fedora and Ubuntu alone. If you're writing server side software to be used in datacenters then you can hit 80% by supporting RHEL, CentOS, and Debian/Ubuntu.

Re:So...

[Totenglocke]

Actually there is a utility (no idea what it's called, I didn't work with it) that acts like WSUS only it pushes updates for other software as well. I'm sure you could've googled that and found out, just like you could've found out that there are companies that actually do use Windows Update to push updates (Linksys and Nvidia being ones I can name off the top of my head). As I said before, companies CAN do it, they just normally won't because they want to try to push their ad-bar and other spyware on you when you update.

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

...they suffer the exact same problems as OS X and Windows binary installers.

Care to elaborate? I'm genuinely curious.

- T

Re:So...

[Mad Merlin]

Until the Linux community can get together and hash the installer problem out, you're not only locking out larger developers, but smaller ones as well. Pretending that this isn't a problem is not a solution.

We did, well over a decade ago. Package managers have been ubiquitous ever since.

Pretending that the utterly braindead methods used for installing and updating software on Windows approaches anything close to a good solution is laughable. Asking that Linux emulate Windows' deficiencies here is even more comical.

Trotting out the fact that Windows is the most common desktop OS out there says nothing about its quality. AOL is (or was) the largest ISP in North America, does that mean every other ISP should emulate AOL?

Re:So...

[Bigjeff5]

In the modern world, software doesn't need to rely on someone else maintaining a repository to get the latest updates. It doesn't take a whole lot of code to check for an updated version and install it if there is one.

Furthermore, I don't mind not having an executable, but a halfway decent install package would be nice. Not everything worth having is in the repo's, and it really sucks debugging someone else's make/compile scripts, which I'm sure work great on his machine, but not on mine because he left out a dependency, or points to an outdated library or whatever. Package it all up in a scripted container the way MSI's are in windows - it's a little more work for the developer but it ensures it will work on everything. If you made such containers ubiquitous, and then each of the repositories used them, you could get rid of a lot of extra work people have to do to get all of their stuff in the different repositories.

The fact that Linux is so flexible is awesome, but at the same time it is so disjointed and mish-mashed that it can be a real pain in the ass.

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

these binary installers usually use statically linked libraries to do this. In linux land that is considered a faux pas, as it is a waste of processor, memory, and disk space. with open source stuff in the repositories, binaries are usually auto compiled. An old application should continue to work fine if it is written to be future proof.

maybe we should ask why $proprietary_software_vendor insists on trying to push software that they have not had a programmer touch in ten years?

stupid long ass backwards compatibilty bullshit (why I dislike x86 so much)

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

Youre telling me that you cant just download a .deb file and doubleclick it, and have it install? With no EULAs or prompts?

Re:So...

[fluffy99]

I am indeed aware of a few other utilities that can handle 3rd party updates. I've even seen a few utilities that allow manually adding custom packages to a WSUS server. A recent one at www.w3sus.com sounds like it might be easier than my current method of using GPOs or scripts to keep my environment up to date on java, adobe, firefox, etc.

Referring to Nvidia and Linksys, I presume you're talking about drivers. Yes Windows Updates and WSUS have drivers, but Microsoft only provides the WHQL testing drivers which are usually very out of date. I deliberately don't approve those in WSUS as they sometimes end up replacing or screwing up newer drivers already on the machine. Are you aware of any 3rd party software updates, either routine or security related, that Microsoft provides via WU/WSUS?

Re:So...

[Idiomatick]

This has to do with a lack of standards and poor linux compartmentalization. Linux needs to be willing to lose in speed and ram usage to windows and have every single bit of the OS be swappable with no issues. It would make coding simpler and faster for any given function. Which would make linux a nicer place. Generally because it would kill the incredibly fragmented set up there is currently.

Disclaimer: This will never happen. Even if Ubuntu, RedHat and SUSE all get together to try and set standards. People won't like it and will fork. (Many coders fork oss far far FAR more than is needed). It won't change until indiviual coders are willing to make comprimises and realize the importance of working together over having something individually tailored. As well, big groups should carefully consider reincorporating forks as they appear. While it might not be exactly what you envisioned perhaps there could be amiddle ground.

Re:So...

[Pecisk]

This post demonstrates huge problem of Slashdot these days - it's full of clueless posters and clueless moderators when talking is done about how Linux is lacking features to be useful desktop. Sorry for flame-bat, but I think it's deserved (yes, you can mod me down and don't feel bad if you disagree).

Well, I have been sysadmin for last 10 years for every desktop OS I can imagine and I have to say that binary installers are least of the reasons for both OS marketshare. For some time Linux was "compile yourself" project, but for last 4 years it has been complete reverse. With nice guis to install individual deb and rpm packages, or software for repos, or with newest Ubuntu software center with PPA support, it is practically easier to add software to Ubuntu than to Windows. And commercial vendors still can provide manual installers, which usually have no problems to install app in user home directory and run it.

I think, Linux desktop community did it with excellency - it didn't compromised their core principle of updating your computers software trough single mechanism (there are two package formats, but gui are standartised, and repository and depency stuff are practially the same), and provided nice tools for users to install individual apps.

Re:So...

[uberushaximus]

This is a trivial problem when the company can just use something like http://packages.debian.org/lenny/alien to convert their RPMs to DEBs, and then release it as a "BETA" or they can go the extra mile and hire another QA guy.

Unreasonable?

[COMON$]

Ya it is completely unreasonable for a home user to check the "Automatic update button" Wait...that is the default option. Even in my Enterprise organization it isnt exactly a pain to setup a WSUS server...

This just sounds like someone trying to stir up trouble to get attention. Patching is part of life. It is not a pain, it is about as easy of a task as you can have, most home users don't even know they do it.

Re:Unreasonable?

[zippthorne]

The unreasonable bit is that the "automatic update button" only affects windows updates. Other software handles the update process on its own, imo improperly, because application updates (except for MS applicatiosn) are not integrated into the auto updates.

Linux is the only one that gets this right, and even there only partially: many proprietary third-party applications simply aren't in the repositories. There really doesn't seem to be a "updates only" repo for any OS, as buy-in would still be difficult to get.

Still, if you stick with what's in the repositories, and there is a lot there, you can get away with a unified update process. You can actually be certain that everything on your machine is as up-to-date as the maintainers can be.

Re:Unreasonable?

[COMON$]

a unified update process would be a nightmare though. When it comes to applications I often have to review the update, some "updates" are rushed. With the exception of security updates, most of the time you don't have to worry about an update. Patch whores are just asking for trouble.

Re:Unreasonable?

[Beelzebud]

So you actually think MS should be responsible for pushing out 3rd party application updates? Unreasonable indeed...

On the up side it would give the haters something else to bitch and moan about. Then we could read articles about MS's "gestapo patch review process", or something similar. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Re:Unreasonable?

[Volante3192]

I didn't know you could add Adobe and Blackberry updates to WSUS, incredible!

Re:Unreasonable?

[Tordre]

yeah it is unreasonable to expect Microsoft to patch other people's software.

On the other hand I don't think it is too unreasonable to have api's so other software can add their software to Windows Update and point the update servers to their personal servers for updates on the said software. It will cut down the number of background applications that only exists to update Adobe, Apple, and Google programs (to name a few big ones).

Re:Unreasonable?

[zonky]

The problem is not API, or a lack of one, but about trust.

Repos in Linux are not just collections of software- they're a store of trust.

You can (should?) trust that they won't break other programs, they won't install malware.

That is impossible in the Closed source model, really.

(unless you have differnet users for each app, and lock down each install directory?)

Re:Unreasonable?

[Beelzebud]

Well as I suggested, the only way a system like that could work at all, is if MS actually had an approval process for patches submitted to them.

...And I think it's clear what the reaction to that would be. I don't want my PC turning into the iPhone app store, where the huge corporation keeps the keys to the kingdom. I don't think other developers would want that either.

Re:Unreasonable?

[dave562]

See my previous post. Not only are many third-party applications not in the repositories, some applications that are in the repositories are out of date. In my case I was installing Samba on Ubuntu 8.04 LTS. The version in the repository was 3.0x (about). I wanted to install a newer version of 3.x Samba. It was a completely manual process on my part. Now that I have it installed, apt won't maintain it from the Ubuntu repositories (or from any other repository that I've been able to find).

Out of curiosity I just did a quick Google search on the subject to make sure that things haven't changed. It doesn't look like they have. Here is another poster who had pretty much the exact same issue I did. He made his post within the last week.

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1416233

Re:Unreasonable?

[jimicus]

So you actually think MS should be responsible for pushing out 3rd party application updates? Unreasonable indeed...

They don't need to be. It would be enough to provide an API which lets applications register for updates, complete with public-key support to check signatures.

Re:Unreasonable?

[COMON$]

who uses those products? I got rid of them on my LAN a long time ago....

Re:Unreasonable?

[pclminion]

The unreasonable bit is that the "automatic update button" only affects windows updates. Other software handles the update process on its own, imo improperly, because application updates (except for MS applicatiosn) are not integrated into the auto updates.

Unless the automatic updates are fully integrated into the Windows Update process, vetted as being authentic, and cryptographically signed, then NO THANKS. Just say NO to software automatically downloading and installing god-knows-what kind of shit. Don't you realize that what you're describing is essentially a botnet?

Re:Unreasonable?

[Bigjeff5]

I don't know if you know this, but parsing a file on a remote server and comparing a version number isn't exactly hard to code.

All software that is expected to update regularly does this, and at worst it says "Hey, there's a new version, would you like to install it?" "Why gosh golly yes, I'd love to install it!" Click. Done.

Not exactly a painful process. It happens to be a lot more granular, instead of relying on what someone else thinks your computer needs, you get to choose.

What can really suck is coming back to a Linux box after a week or two of major updates and having to wait for 45 minutes while a pile of updates you probably don't really care about are loaded up on your machine. Has Ubuntu figured out how to do that in the background yet? Last I used it they hadn't (even though Windows has been doing it for almost a decade now), but to be fair it has been almost a year since I switched from Ubuntu to Vista.

Re:Unreasonable?

[2short]

"That is impossible in the Closed source model, really."

How is it different in the closed source model? I trust some sources to give me closed source software that won't install malware or break other stuff. These range from companies to indie game developers recommended by particular blogs. Heck, I've got to install closed source based on trust, it's the only option. Of course, when I install open source, I could inspect the source to make sure it was OK, but I never have and never expect to. I trust software based on the track record of the place I'm getting it from, regardless.

Re:Unreasonable?

[zippthorne]

Yes, the upstream sources are always going to be more up-to-date than the repositories and if you go off repository, you can't expect apt to handle that situation any better than just staying out of the way.

The thing is, the maintainers adapt the packages for their distribution, and that takes time, so they're always going to be slightly behind. But they're usually not too far behind, and Ubuntu will try to go to the latest major release with very six-month distribution upgrade.

But you don't have as much to fear as you might think. The decimal upgrades might just be feature upgrades; bug and security patches may (and are fairly likely to have been) be applicable/adaptable to the earlier revision, and that's one of the jobs of the package maintainers to handle.

You're not just high and dry with the repositories, and while it could be even better, it's still a fair sight superior to not having a centralized patch distribution method at all.

Re:Unreasonable?

[zippthorne]

WIth Linux, when updates come in, I can enter my admin password once and apply all or a selection of the patches at once. No waiting until I run each piece of software, which is the moment when I'm least likely to have the time and inclination to apply patches and restart the program or possibly the OS: If I'm running the application, that means I need it to get something done now.

I'm amazed that it's only every 5 days

[supremebob]

Honestly, I would be happy if I could use my Windows system for five days without getting a notice to update something. Between Flash, Firefox, Windows Update, and my AntiVirus software, I must see an update notification every 2 days or so!

Not that Linux or Mac users should be gloating... The software update systems in Fedora and Mac OS X are almost as obnoxious.

Fedora is Worse

[ElusiveMind]

I run a Fedora Core 12 server as a personal development server. There are package updates for it almost daily. I would say that in the 30 days that I've had it running, I've patched it at least 10 times. I try not to check it every day because I really shouldn't have to. It just seems there are a lot of patches and package updates for this.

Has anyone else had a similar experience with Fedora or any other flavor of Linux?

Re:Fedora is Worse

[Anonymous Coward]

Try Slackware. No automatic updates, and only a few security updates a month usually. Patching everything all day long is plain paranoia, especially if you're not directly exposed to the net.

Re:Fedora is Worse

[Volante3192]

I usually get weekly batches of stuff for my ubuntu box, BUT the converse is most of it is for stuff from the default installation that I haven't bothered removing (or shouldn't have installed in the first place).

For example, today I saw CUPS had about 3-4 various package updates, but I don't have a printer attached to my laptop at all in any way.

Re:Fedora is Worse

[hierofalcon]

Fedora is a bleeding edge Linux distribution and has more updates than most. I've got a test F12 box at work that I turn on periodically and it patched around 800M of updates today.

If you want fewer updates, go with RHEL or CentOS. Both have few updates since the only changes that are made are security patches or serious bug fixes.

Bleeding edge with lots of updates or safe and secure with stale apps (a year or two after the initial release anyway) is the Fedora to RHEL spectrum. Most other distros fall somewhere in between.

If you don't want to be bothered with updates but really want to live on the ragged dangerous edge, just add a cron program to run "yum -y update" in the middle of the night. You won't have to worry about doing updates, but you also might have an unstable system when you come in. The cron script will e-mail the root user (or some other specified user) of what was updated overnight. I do this on my main system at work, but it runs an n-1 version of Fedora. I also watch what is out in updates from their package announce page, and if I see something that I suspect might cause issues (new kernel, new desktop environment, et cetera) I go ahead and do those package updates early so I can be around if there is any fallout.

If you have enough servers/desktops, run your own repository mirror. That way all your systems can update or install against it and only pay the bandwidth once (although there is a cross over point for a full mirror vs. multiple updates - use excludes to carefully trim the total number of packages you mirror to stuff you're likely to use.) You could also set up /var/cache/yum as a NFS mount for everyone and tell all your Fedora boxes to retain packages. If you have mixed architectures, be creative on your naming of directories. That way each could benefit from the other boxes downloads.

Re:Fedora is Worse

[yuhong]

How many of these are security updates?

I just patched. 5...4...3...2...1...

[davidwr]

days to pwnage

Linux (Fedora 12) has patches, too.

[Rick Richardson]

Linux (Fedora 12) has patches, too. I patch my systems probably twice weekly.

Get a slide rule

[davidwr]

I haven't had to patch it in ages!

Couldn't be more correct!

[SectoidRandom]

Last year I bought for my mother a new computer, she is quite computer literate but I was shocked to find 3 months after purchasing that she has gotten into the habit of turning it on once a week just to give it an hour to "update itself". That was to allow her to spend 30mins every other week doing her online stuff..

I literally couldn't or didn't believe it, but then I actually was there one day and watched as all the mostly default installed apps when through their motions of requesting updates. It literally took about half an hour before to computer was usable without something prompting "Do you want to install this update..."!

In the end I removed some of the crap like Java and the HP printer updater, and told her to turn it on only ever other week for the updates!

Definitely there is some need to consolidate updates into one program..

Re:Couldn't be more correct!

[Sowelu]

Or maybe she needs to connect on something faster than dial-up.

Re:Couldn't be more correct!

[Anonymous Coward]

I literally couldn't or didn't believe it, but then I actually was there one day and watched as all the mostly default installed apps when through their motions of requesting updates. It literally took about half an hour before to computer was usable without something prompting "Do you want to install this update..."!

>

I can't believe it either because it's fucking bullshit. Get rid of her PII, sign her up for high speed internet, and remove the 100 spywares on her computer.

Re:Couldn't be more correct!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, getting Broadband purely in order to update her apps properly. That sure sounds reasonable...

Re:Couldn't be more correct!

[Beelzebud]

Then don't complain about how slow things download. You can get reasonably fast internet for 15.00 a month in a lot of areas these days.

Re:Couldn't be more correct!

[SectoidRandom]

Or maybe she needs to connect on something faster than dial-up.

Err, just so you know it is a 10mbit broadband.

In other words it's not the downloading of the patches that is the slow part it's the 15 different apps attempting to update when they are first used or actually a program that depends on a program that depends on a program that depends on them is used.

Re:Couldn't be more correct!

[The MAZZTer]

Or just disable the UPDATERS. No reason why that stuff needs to slow down startup, the app vendors should just do it like Firefox and check when you run it and download silently in the background for you.

Re:Couldn't be more correct!

[redmid17]

Or maybe she could just leave the god damn thing on. It's not like they suck up power when they're asleep or in standby mode.

Re:Couldn't be more correct!

[mcgrew]

That's ludicrous. My mom is on dialup, and she's paying twelve bucks a month. If all you do is email and the occasional google search, there's no need to pay four times as much for service you have no use for.

Re:Couldn't be more correct!

[langelgjm]

And then there are the places you can't. For my parents, their options are 9.95 a month dialup, or long-range wireless which starts at about $70 a month, not including specialized hardware costs and required professional installation. There's probably also satellite internet service available, but I'm guessing that runs a bit more than $15 a month.

Re:Couldn't be more correct!

[Rick17JJ]

I pay $39.99 per month for a DSL connection from the phone company here in Arizona. Cable is not available where I live, so I do not know how much that would cost. If a retired person were living mostly off of Social Security, $39.99 would probably be too expensive.

But, at least for the last several years, I have no longer had to complain about high speed Internet not being available where I live.

I have two computers at home, one runs Kubuntu Linux and one runs Windows XP. The Linux computer is my main computer, so I keep the Windows XP computer turned off most of the time to save electricity. About once a month I turn it on and spend a little while making sure that both the Microsoft and the non-Microsoft programs get updated. My knowledge about Windows is somewhat limited, but I usually just go ahead and manually start the update process for Windows. At the end Windows nearly always asks me to reboot, which is something that is not necessary after an update on the Linux computer.

Next, I usually have Secunia check to see what else needs to be updated on the Windows XP computer and start updating each of those programs, one at a time. Sometimes at least one of those programs also demands a reboot, killing a little more time. Lately, for several programs, the upgrading process would fail to start or run properly for programs such as Flash or SandboxIE. A few months earlier, it was the Adobe Acrobat reader which was refusing to update itself to the latest version. In each case, I ended up having to spend time figuring out how to reinstall both of those just to get them upgraded properly. This is quite a bit of work for a computer which only gets used once a month.

By comparison, the upgrading process under Kubuntu Linux is much faster and easier and less intrusive. Nearly all the important software on the computer comes from the official Ubuntu repositories and can be upgraded by apt or some fronted program that uses apt.

On my task bar there is an icon with the letter "i." When I clicked the icon a few minutes ago it said that I have some bug fix updates waiting to be installed. I could either do that now or later, but I went ahead and clicked "Review and Update." I then saw that there was an upgrade for the Linux kernel and also some printing related stuff. Sometimes there are updates for various individual software programs which I use. I am not an expert, so I can not tell if those are security updates or just updates, so I always just accept the suggested updates. I then went ahead and clicked "select all updates" and then clicked "apply." A couple of minutes later, it estimated that I still had about 8 minutes to go on the download. When it was done, as I expected, it did not ask me to reboot the computer, so I did not have any interruptions in typing this post.

Re:Get a Mac!

[Beelzebud]

If only we had automatic updates on Windows.

Patching holes in the Titanic

[ka9dgx]

Let's face it, doing patches this often is like putting mattresses in the hole on the side of the Titanic. It merely delays the inevitable, slightly. We need to rip out the ineffective system we're gotten used to, and to move on.

I'm a typical home user

[mschuyler]

and I surely do not experience that amount of 'patching.' I also think updating virus signatures shouldn't be considered a 'patch' per se. Those are essentially database records, not bug fixes. Windows gives me updates about once per month. Once in awhile I get an Adobe or a Java update, but the total is nowhere near what these guys are saying.

Re:I'm a typical home user

[twidarkling]

and I surely do not experience that amount of 'patching.' I also think updating virus signatures shouldn't be considered a 'patch' per se.

I'm with you. I don't know if I'm a "typical" home user, but close enough. If I don't include Windows Defender updates, or anti-virus definitions updates, I get maybe a half-dozen patches a month, with most of those delivered automatically through windows update. Flash isn't updated often, my browser isn't updated often, my games aren't updated often... pretty much *nothing* on my computer is updated as often as the OS.

Re:I'm a typical home user

[ekgringo]

And why do antivirus updates require a 60mb download? Can't they just push out the changes and not the entire damn definitions database?

Re:I'm a typical home user

[NatasRevol]

Ummm, 30days /6 patches = 5 days per patch.

Congratulations, you validated the article!

Re:I'm a typical home user

[twidarkling]

60mb? What the hell are you USING?! Anything I've used, it's 60KB, 120KB max. Avast, AVG (granted, two years ago), MSE, Spy-Bot. Even the Windows Defender ones.

Re:I'm a typical home user

[twidarkling]

Uh, no. Because those patches all come *on the same day.* (Windows Update ones all come on the same day, and I said most of them come through there). Smooth. Your fanboi is showing.

Re:I'm a typical home user

[Inda]

Stop the thread, we have a winner!

Those 'patches' are Windows Defender updates. They are 100-200kb each. They don't interupt anything.

Nothing to see here, move along.

The problem is...

[QRDeNameland]

The problem, in my opinion, is the fact that patches, particularly Windows Updates, have a track record of breaking things. This leads to a conundrum...automatically update and risk mysterious breakage, or manually update and risk falling behind and being insecure. If you want to make patching less onerous, the first step is to make it as reliable as possible, and then a larger percentage of users will trust automatic updates.

Re:The problem is...

[Beelzebud]

Have any examples of a Windows Update "breaking things"?

Re:The problem is...

[The End Of Days]

Well there was that update last month that broke that rootkit...

Re:The problem is...

[Anonymous Coward]

It broke that rootkit last month...

Re:The problem is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow... point out a problem with a technology, and get flagged troll.... typical.

The ONLY security updates should be the ones in the microkernel or device drivers. Oh... wait, nobody uses a microkernel.

Re:The problem is...

[QRDeNameland]

Have any examples of a Windows Update "breaking things"?

Sure...have at it.

Re:The problem is...

[Beelzebud]

Oh, so you can't give me an example of Windows Update breaking something on your machine? A google search is useless, because out of millions of machines with Windows installed there are bound to be people having issues. I'm talking about you personally. I only ask because I've been using Windows for a long time, and I've never had WinUpdate break something on my machine.

Re:The problem is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows burned me a couple of weeks ago by turning the windows firewall back on without asking. I lost two hours of work because of this, because another piece of junk app connecting to that machine from another machine suddenly just stopped working (it is bad about swallowing errors instead of reporting them). I was unable to use my source control (SVN) remotely during this period, because I was out of town when the patch applied itself and locked me out. I could potentially have lost a lot of work. I had things set up to automatically download updates, but not to install them, but windows ignored my wishes. On the other hand, it's probably somewhat my fault for running XP as a "server".

Fortunately, I'm learning python and in the process of switching to Linux, so this just motivated me to get it done more quickly. Other than hosing my graphics configuration a few times, I've had very few problems with Ubuntu. I'm like $200 away from having the money to replace the crap hardware in that machine that doesn't play nice with Linux.

When that happens, I'll read slashdot discussions such as this one with a smirk of amusement on my face.

Re:The problem is...

[QRDeNameland]

No, I *didn't* give you an example of any of the hundreds of machines I've worked with since Windows 2000 introduced Windows Update, because generally, if I give a personal example, I'll get the "anecdote != data" response. At least you acknowledge that it happens, where your initial response implied otherwise.

But if you're just willing to take my word for it, spare me having to recall and type out various scenarios and let me say that I've seen Windows Update break things on dozens of occasions, from relatively minor annoying stuff like turning on the built-in firewall when it was *fully disabled* prior, to IE-only web apps breaking, to inexplicable lock-ups and BSODs after the update. It *does* happen.

And it's not just to slag MS...I've had other software bungle patches, including Linux distros.

Re:The problem is...

[Bigjeff5]

That's bullshit.

What there is a track record of is vendors building an entire software suite based on a bug in an API, and when Microsoft fixes the bugged API the software breaks. Except for the lead up to Vista, Microsoft has always been very good about working with software developers to put workaround code in the API so their incorrect usage would still work. Before you drone on about how many bugs there are, Linux has just as many, if not more. The bugs just affect fewer people, so you don't get the level of bitching as when it happens in Windows. Bugs are a fact of life, how you deal with them is what matters.

That is where any update breakage comes from, and the following patch usually has the workarounds for the software that broke (because it should never have worked in the first place).

You don't get that level of service with Linux. When similar cases come up it's "Sorry, you did it wrong, you fix it." That's why Repository based updates are so critical for a halfway usable desktop Linux distro.

Re:The problem is...

[QRDeNameland]

What's bullshit is assuming that I blame Microsoft or that I would "drone on" slagging Windows or boosting Linux. Actually, I mostly agree with you, although I will also say that, in my experience, one of the worst software vendors for having things break from doing weird stuff in APIs is Microsoft themselves.

However, it matters not one whit who's to blame. My point is that, all too often, updates can cause malfunction, and as long as that is true, automatic update means the risk of automatic failure. Whether or not the statistical risk of failure from updates is greater than the statistical risks from *not* updating, I don't know, but as was stated more eloquently upthread:

Patches breaking things is a big deal. Nothing will convince users to never allow updates faster than having one break their system when they desperately need it to be working.

Re:The problem is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Google it. There have been more windows updates that cause blue screens than I can count on both hands.

How about Linux users?

[Ponga]

Running Ubuntu at home, seems like once a week there an update for something or other... Thank God Linux is *FAR* more graceful applying patches - I can update anything on the system and so long as the kernel is not touched, no reboot is required. Windoze just kills me... yo have to reboot for every damn thing! Glad I don't have to deal with that...

Re:How about Linux users?

[Anonymous Coward]

I just switched to Windows 7 a few months ago to mess with UDK as I am a hobbie game programmer. Windows 7, and im guessing Vista, seems to be much more logical with updates. While some still require a full reboot most can be updated without the need. I am guessing that the updates that still require a reboot are very sensitive windows files as I've even be able to install drivers and have them work without a reboot in 7.

Re:Get a Mac!

[nomadic]

Not sure if paying at least twice as much for the same hardware makes up for having to patch less...

so what?

[gandhi_2]

not a 7-day span goes by without ubuntu patches it seems.

it would be better if everything would be more like apple? just ignore problems for months at a time then release large patch sets?

what the world needs now is another "security expert" interpreting useless data.

Re:so what?

[Volante3192]

But those are package patches most of the time. Are you actually using those packages?

In my case, my most recent batch had a few CUPS updates. If I was retentive about it I'd have removed that whole package from my laptop a while ago since it does not now, nor will in the forseeable future, have a printer attached to it.

Difference in update methods not number of updates

[fwittekind]

I think the difference is that with Windows, you have to install updates from Microsoft via one method, updates to Adobe software via another method, updates to Firefox by another method. Lots of things for the user to learn, there isn't just a click one thing and it updates everything.

My Linux box on the other hand, does have quite a few updates, and requires updating often, but, it's just one interface to update everything, including from third party vendors (i.e. Adobe)

I go months before patching

[mandark1967]

All but 2 of my home computers are configured as Media Center PCs, I do not patch them.

They connect to the internet only to update the program guide. Since that's the extent of their interraction with the rest of the world, I do not see the need to patch them. I do, however, regularly patch my gaming machine and my Netbook since I use them almost daily.

I think September 2009 was the last time I updated Windows Vista Home Premium on my Dell E510 doing HTPC duties.

That number includes all application patches...

[kgo]

I don't think I've ever needed to install windows updates twice in a week. Maybe twice in a month if there's a major issue. But that report is counting Adobe Reader updates. Java updates. Firefox updates. That annoying update that tells me I need to ugrade TortoiseSVN from version 1.6.4.12.a to 1.6.4.12.b. Etc.

Re:Get a Mac!

[twidarkling]

Yes, because it's completely reasonable that the *monthly* patches my Mac at work gets 95% of the time require a restart. Why do iTunes or Safari need the system to be restarted? I'm only forced to reboot my Win7 machine due to patches... Hmm, I think once in the time I've had it.

And OS X requires me to put in my password in order to install patches, so it can't patch unattended, or in the background. It's a choice between delaying my work or delaying the patch. Most people are going to pick "delaying the patch," especially if they've got anything open. And that's how security starts to fall apart.

Re:Difference in update methods not number of upda

[Cro Magnon]

What's REALLY annoying is when Adobe is in the middle of updating and Windows reboots to do ITS update, messing up Adobe's.

Reboot Patches

[Khomar]

I don't really mind patches. They are usually quiet and seamless, working in the background and not interfering with my work.

The real killers are the updates that require a reboot, and these seem to be on the rise of late. Even worse, these are typically for software that I do not use (IE, Windows Media Player, etc.), but I am required to interrupt my work to reboot my machine so that I can be "secure".

Level of Expectation

[gpronger]

For those involved in technology, one of our flaws is the level of expectation we have for the average citizen to be able to cope with. I recall a security expert stating that the average person should be able to memorize a ridiculously large number of random passwords. I developed a strong understanding of controlling memory allocation (back in the early '90's) on PC's, not for some esoteric application, but to get the games my preschoolers were playing to work.

It led me to the perspective, that all things being equal, it is fairly easy to argue, that for the home computer market, the "good-guy" lost (as in Apple vs DOS and Windows PCs) simply because Apple did not expect the level of user expertize and intervention to get the things to work.

So, with this situation, though the /. crowd will not be having issues with this aspect of maintaining your PC, it's a lot to ask someone with less expertise. If you consider this perspective, it may be more understandable how and why there are so many PC's doing double-duty as part of "Bot-Nets".

But most are WoW Addon patches!

[jayveekay]

World of Warcraft Addons get updated at an insane rate, almost as insane as the rate at which a new WoW update patch breaks many of them.

Re:Difference in update methods not number of upda

[fwittekind]

Exactly my point. . . If Windows had a unified update system, you wouldn't have that problem.

But, every app that needs an update system installs it's own.

running windows "commando"

[edxwelch]

A friend of mine, runs his PC "commando": no virus software, no firewall, no patches, nothing. He's non-technical and assumes he is going to get a virus no matter what he does and it's just a waste of time pricking around with all that stuff, so he just reinstalls Windows about once every two months when it starts running slow from the viruses. Well, it's a daring tactic, but it seems to work for him.

Re:running windows "commando"

[Rockoon]

I nuke my drives and re-install ALL operating systems (only Windows and Ubuntu at the moment) approximately once per year, but I also try to keep up to date on most patches.

I do this not because of virus concerns, but because I am a sloppy computer user that leaves both important and unimportant files all over the fucking place. For my windows nuking, I always zip up the entire system drive, date it, and throw it on a second drive.

I suspect that your "commando" friend is similar at least in sloppyness. When you are a sloppy computer user, nuking regularly is the end result.

Re:running windows "commando"

[macaulay805]

Not to say it'll happen, but it'll be interesting if his user credentials or other sensitive information gets compromised.
Most of the time, taking 5 minutes out of your day to proactivley take care of something is worth the 5 days of follow-up fixing.

Switching is easy

[Anonymous Coward]

I am with Linus on this one
Linus is right
The man makes sense
He is absolutely correct on this one

that's it?

[Ephemeriis]

The typical home user running Windows faces the 'unreasonable' task of patching software an average of every five days

Only once every five days? That seems rather mild to me...

Between Windows, Firefox, Office, Java, Adobe Reader, my antivirus, VLC, Pidgin, VirtualBox, EVE, Songbird, and Steam it seems like I'm patching something on a daily basis. And that's just my home machine.

Throw in the fileserver at home... My workstation at the office... My work netbook... And the assortment of servers I'm responsible for... And I'm definitely patching something on a daily basis.

Computers exist to serve people! Not the reverse.

[gestalt_n_pepper]

Windows can patch itself to hell. Firefox and Adobe too, for all I care -

AS LONG AS THEY DON'T INTERRUPT, STEAL MY FOCUS, PUT UP CRAP ERROR MESSAGES OR REBOOT WITHOUT ASKING!

There's a portable at home I open only on weekends. Want to guess what happens for the first 30 minutes after I turn it on? Yup. An unusable computer that's *updating* itself. Java. Adobe. Firefox. Firefox *add-ins", Windows, and possibly, the current timeline in which I exist.

Needless to say, ALL of these want me to agree/disagree, actually *view* their updates, click a modal dialog, or reboot - repeatedly. I really don't care if updates have to happen, BUT KEEP THEM OUT OF MY FACE.

And don't slow the computer to a crawl. If the update takes all day, do I care? Not if it doesn't interfere with me.

Computers exist to serve ME. Make the computer wait, NOT ME!

it aint just windows...

[Rexel99]

and yes this may be 'automated' but I don't leave my pc's on all hours so they dont all automate the patches that are released, and if I do leave it on it's for a reason so I get really upset finding my PC is running blank when I return the next day with a note saying your PC rebooted because of updates and my downloads/rendering/processing apps were all terminated Doh. It all the extra stuff though, Adobe, Firefox (and add-ins), Java, Virus, Logitech (kb's and webcams), Apps like torrent/tweet/scanner/etc/etc all look at the web and offer updates over and over again. It's a constant task to do this, and the 'regular' user like me is probably doing it on 2 or 3 machines at home and on behalf of their parents/family/friends pc's also. Not to mention this impacts on my downloads/net. Perhaps nice way to do all of this automatically and run a proxy so it only downloads once would be nice, but can I see these companies getting together to make it a nice quality service for the user, unlikely.

not true

[Anonymous Coward]

No, actually many things that *really* need to be patched, don't patch themselves. And, sometimes they require a little more effort on behalf of the user.

Example, Adobe Flash Plugin

* Never updates itself
* User sometimes has to do a full uninstall of the plugin (by finding the hidden uninstaller software on adobe's website) before they can run the patch installer to make sure it installs properly.
* This and PDFs have been established as one of the biggest holes in your system's security.

Another example is GDI, many software packages that do image display or manipulation (namely everything) that you have installed on your computer use GDI. Most software companies ship the GDI and GDI+ dlls with their software, installed to their program files directory for their software product instead of relying on the one in the Windows system directory. When these particular software packages are updated, they only update their main exe, not the GDI dll. These GDI dlls are almost all out of date and have numerous security holes in them that are easily exploited by simply viewing a tampered image with the software. It becomes impossible for the end-user to figure out where the holes are in their system, so they don't bother.

These are just some examples, it gets worse.

FUDSTER

[frist]

Maybe if the OP would run windows update, and set it to autoupdate, he'd never have to patch. I know I don't ever patch explicitly, and my OS and windows apps are always up to date...

QQ

[negRo_slim]

I'm the guy in our household responsible for applying our patches, being an IT professional and all.
Since we have a "few" computers all around the house, it's pretty much every time I sit down to one I have to apply patches, and usually a reboot to boot. Sometimes, it's a rarely used computer that I grab (laptop) just to get a few quick things done, and it requires multiple iterations of patches and reboots. Sigh.

I'm the guy in our household responsible for applying our patches, being an part time Web Developer and all.
Since we have a "few" computers all around the house, I just set Windows Update to download and notify me when updates are available. Providing me convienence and still retaining the ability to opt to not to install a patch.

Since Win7 got installed on my desktop I rarely have to restart for 99.9% of all day to day tasks, but when something out of left field like patch time comes it's increased speed to the login screen makes it much seem less of a chore having to wait 5 minutes while my PC is being updated.

And on my gf's laptop with Vista the reboots are slightly more often and and take a little longer.

But then again I'm on the computer 12 hours out of the day, so 5-10 mins once a week for maintenance really seems to be a non issue.

Re:Did you see the latest hole in windows?

[Anonymous Coward]

opera handled this one quite well. just sayin

Ho Hum

[thethibs]

half had 66 or more programs from 22 or more different vendors on their machines.

Is that all? Sounds like a pretty routine state of affairs. My wife, who is seriously non-technical has 134 apps on her machine, not counting the stuff in the Windows directory. We patch no more than once a month, just before running the trial versions of a few AVs, if I remember to do it. In more years than I care to count, the AVs have only found suspicious cookies and emails. We get more false positives than anything else.

This may be a black swan, but my use of PCs goes back to DOS 1 (I was an OEM). For a while I ran a 40-user BBS and I've never had fewer than 3 PC's hooked up to whatever the current network technology allowed (can you say PCboard? Fido? uucp?) In all that time and with all those machines, I've only had one infection--an isolated laptop that I mistakenly hooked to the internet via dialup with the firewall disabled. It took Blaster about 5 seconds to hit and it took about an hour to clean up the mess. Not bad for 25 years of exposure.

Risk management has two sides: cost and benefit. The rational thing is to keep the cost lower than the benefit. That's why the people who live by ITSec only do qualitative risk analysis; they don't want their clients to know that they are spending more than the protection is worth.

Of course all the patches are beneficial

[Anonymous Coward]

One thing that seems to get washed away with this ongoing flood of patches is any meaningful testing of the patch in the users technical environment and the assurance that the patch does not break some application coding specific to work around the flaw being corrected. It is nice that Microsoft patching usually triggers a system restore snapshot -- but not every application does this. Most of the time this dreamland assumption is valid and our systems continue to work although maybe a bit slower than before. But if they don't, I wonder how many end users (not the typical slashdotters...) would be able to back out one patch at a time, doing restores as need be, untill the patch-engendered problem was resolved? I would suggest that this cascade of changes was inherently dangerous and is a topic we all might want to worry about, just a bit.

Do what you want, just spare my context switching.

[nozendo]

Context theft is the one thing that annoys me the most about all of this business. I don't care if my machine has thirty different update mechanisms churning away in the background on startup, just leave me out of it unless the box is about to catch fire, explode and maim me.

I've configure my machine as far as practical to have nothing that suddenly demands attention (it's used for graphics and illustration work, context theft can completely screw your flow, as per programming and etc), anything that insists on having popups or info balloons has its updates disabled or is replaced.

I'm hoping Windows 7's driver update approach indicates Microsoft is moving towards allowing vendors to use the windows update mechanisms for their applications - I seem to remember for major hardware vendors they contact their site directly and install drivers and utilities, I'd love to see this approach spread to the application space, providing they can manage the liabilities.

Re:Difference in update methods not number of upda

[Anonymous Coward]

What's really annoying is Adobe.

Fixed that for ya'.

Re:Get a Mac!

[s4ltyd0g]

and we could trust Microsoft to not install their crap in the guise of security updates.

Re:Get a Mac!

[Anonymous Coward]

Safari needs to reboot because it's probably updating WebKit and the system needs to HUP so that everything that relies on it knows about it.
No real reason for iTunes. That's BS from Apple.

OSX requires you to put your admin password in. It's called security. Win7 does too, but they learned from the Vista fiasco just to turn off the UAC for things like this. Win7 just goes and looks it up without asking you...

Headline Should Read...

[Anonymous Coward]

Typical user running Secunia patches every five days.

Actual typical Windows users probably update automatically every day but don't get patches nearly that often. Applications should update themselves and vendors should sign their code.

Re:Computers exist to serve people! Not the revers

[ka9dgx]

It doesn't have to be this way. Security patches should be a rare event... and they would be if we had a proper security model underlying things. I can't believe how much acceptance there is of this bizarre state of affairs.

Re:Get a Mac!

[dave562]

I'm only forced to reboot my Win7 machine due to patches... Hmm, I think once in the time I've had it.

To be fair, other than during the initial install when you are pulling patches from Windows Update, Win7 patches on shutdown. It doesn't have the annoying XP-esque system tray icon that annoys you every fifteen minutes.

It does seem like the large majority of OSX patches do require a reboot. They should just adopt the Microsoft strategy and roll it into the shutdown process. I have found myself skipping OSX updates simply because they are intrusive. They pop up and want a reboot. I want to use the computer. When it comes time to shutdown, I do the Ctrl+Eject and hit Enter. There isn't an equivalent of the windows "Install updates AND Shutdown".

Eh, bit confused are we?

[SmallFurryCreature]

Windows and Linux are not the same. Windows only patches once per month. Linux patches almost never. Because we are not comparing an OS with a distro are we?

Ubuntu patches fairly regular, but that is a LOT more then just the OS/Desktop AND it includes upgrades. IE only has major releases and patches but firefox alone is regularly updated and expanded. So how you do you compare the two.

The problem for windows users is that they have got all these seperate programs to take care off. All with their own methods for keeping up-to-date. For linux it is just a single command to update everything, but a windows user got to have a dozen "check latest version" proggies running.

That is what the story about.

Re:Get a Mac!

[twidarkling]

OSX requires you to put your admin password in. It's called security.

I know *why* it does that, thanks. My point was that it's not an unattended process. You can't set your machine to update overnight, because it needs your password before it'll install updates. You can't do it at the very end of the day, because it reboots, not "shutdown, and then finish on next start." So you'd have to wait around until it finishes, so you can properly shut down your system. That leaves the start of the day, or else you're interrupting your workflow. And the start of the day delays you getting down to work.

As for "needing to update webkit," just to really get in at the fanbois, MS got in major shit for entangling IE so deep in to Windows, why not Apple? If Safari is that entangled, they should have faced the same action as MS. If it's a browser update, I shouldn't have to do shit. If it's an OS update, it's disingenuous to mask it as a browser update, since it allows Apple to skew figures if they so choose.

erm

[Stumbles]

how can that be if Microsoft only releases patches once every thirty days?

They all do it!

[MaWeiTao]

Microsoft's system updates tend to be unobtrusive, at least until a restart is required. Even then, however, the entire update can be downloaded in the background and I can save the restart for later. Their updates for Office, however, are exceedingly obnoxious. I'll open an application, getting ready to do some work, and I'm greeted to an update prompt.

Updates in OSX are as frequent as those for Windows, expect that by default the system checks for them on a weekly basis. What's really annoying is how system updates seem to always require immediate restarts.

iWork and iLife seem to have far more frequent updates than Microsoft's apps. But the absolute worst are Quicktime and iTunes, there seem to be updates almost every time I open those apps.

Adobe is annoying with updates as well, especially considering they never address outstanding issues. Acrobat is the worst of all, particularly since the updates come frequently.

Firefox has gotten pretty bad over the past couple of years. Start it up and oops! I have to wait for an update.

So what's my point? They all do it. Hell, even games and consoles feature regular updates nowadays. The difference is they force you to do them. I guess this is simply the nature of computing today.

Patching Is Still A Problem?

[D Ninja]

I don't know. I haven't had a problem with patching in a looooong time. I just turn on automatic patches and I never see a thing. My virus scanner updates, Windows 7 updates, and a few of the applications that I use do autoupdates as well. I think Secunia is probably just trying to sell something. You know, like it's Personal Software Inspector...

The Linux Model

[EEPROMS]

I use Linux and Windows but one thing stands out for me and that is the Linux update/patch/bugfix model is far easier for the lay user. What Windows needs desperately is a repository system in the vein of Linux distro's Like Ubuntu, Red Hat etc that checks for updates at regular intervals. Yes some windows programs already do this but why have 20 different programs running an update manager in the background when one would do the job. Im not saying Microsoft should manage the repository, each software maker could have their own and just inform the repo manager were to get updates during the install process for that particular program.

Re:The Linux Model

[Anonymous Coward]

Because nobody wants to work together with others to do that, and Microsoft isn't able to impose it so...

See, Linux doesn't have a central repository. Each distro does, and guess what? Distros don't sync up. It's actually more of a mess than you realize.

somebody must be patching every 15 minutes

[lee n. field]

To make the average work outsomeone must be running updates every 15 minutes, because I see a lot of people grossly out of date. XP SP2 and IE6 are not uncommon.

Re:Difference in update methods not number of upda

[Rockoon]

This isnt unique to Windows. Its the same on OSX.

If Linux ever gets a strong software presence, it will have the same issues.

In Big-O notation, repositories scale linearly with the number of developers making demands of it. Double the number of developers and you've doubled the workload for the maintainers of the repository. The Linux ecosystem needs to double about 15 times (pulled that out of my ass, 32768x) to be comparable in scale with the Windows ecosystem.

Are the Linux repositories prepared for The Year of the Linux Desktop? I suggest that no, no they are not prepared at all. They wont know what hit them.

Ha-Ha

[Tibor the Hun]

But at least those users don't need to worry themselves about being called Mac fanboys, zealots, or snobs.
It's a small price to pay.

Re:Get a Mac!

[gordguide]

" ... Why do iTunes or Safari need the system to be restarted? I'm only forced to reboot my Win7 machine due to patches... Hmm, I think once in the time I've had it. ..."

I just click click on the Software Update window to bring it into focus when it gives me the reboot screen, and then click back on whatever I was working on and carry on for hours or sometimes, days. It will run fine until you shutdown normally ... like tonight, next week, whatever.

MS thought of that too

[Sycraft-fu]

In that case, it downloads them in the background, while you work, and then installs them when you shut down.

I dont patch every day.

[drolli]

Since i only use my windows virtual machine in average every few months, i can not patch it everyday. However, i dont use it for receiving e-mail or surfing the web, only for compiling.

I also do not patch the measurement devices in our lab (oscilloscopes etc, they are strictly isolated from the internet), since all my attempts to ask the IT Department for a policy on that failed.

I also do not reboot measurement computers during a long running measurement.

Re:Computers exist to serve people! Not the revers

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed, the number one thing I hate about windows is that it seems to think it knows better when to reboot than I do.

I also wish that FireFox would do its installations when I close it (in the background, at least on normal closes, obviously not on forced closes) instead of when I start it up. When I close it I typically don't care about it, thus if it is unusable for a while that is ok, when I start it up, I want it NOW, not after the installers get stuff figured out. Just run the installers with a low priority unless FireFox is restarted, then bump it up to normal priority.

Linux

[200_success]

Better yet, it should be like Linux -- you only have to reboot if there's there's an update to the kernel.

Nowadays, it's technically possible to update the Linux kernel while it runs using Ksplice. Actually, I find that the biggest update annoyance on Linux is Firefox. A new version of Firefox comes out about once a week, and upgrading requires Firefox to be restarted. Not only do I lose session state in my windows and tabs, the whole browser becomes unstable if Firefox is already running when the upgrade occurs.

The point?

[Anonymous Coward]

So the point of the article was to say the average uptime on a windows machine is 5 days?

Regular person here

[PattyMc]

I do not allow anything but AVG and Comodo to automatically download. I check the chatter on Windows patches before installing them because, as you know, they sometimes cause problems. I signed up for Secunia's reminder service which makes updating easy. However, it always indicates that java needs updating when it does not which I know because I check. I recommend this method to all my fellow female retiree friends. I think it is interesting and perhaps would surprise Slashdot that many of these retired females are in charge of the home pc.

Re:Regular person here

[westlake]

However, it always indicates that java needs updating when it does not which I know because I check.

Do you check for older JAVA installations that may still be resident on your system?

Re:Regular person here

[PattyMc]

Yes, I use that Old versions of java uninstaller thingee.

Main reason it isn't "unreasonable"...

[Anonymous Coward]

More secure software exists, with fewer patches, that get installed less frequently. Apparently it's "overpriced."

Happy patching!

Re:Get a Mac!

[shutdown -p now]

It does, actually. If you install updates that require a reboot, you'll see a tray balloon prompt telling you as much, and offering to either reboot immediately, or postpone notification by a certain amount of time (though unlike XP, you can postpone by up to 4 hours).

But, yes, if you postpone (or just ignore the notification by closing it without selecting anything), then installation will be finished when you next shut down.

It's So Awesome!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's so awesome that it is indeed automated! Isn't it? Pick any random system, pull up the task list and look what's actively running, consuming memory and cpu cycles.

Windows Update
Java Update
Quicktime update.
iTunes update.
Flash update.
Adobe Reader updater.
InstallShield updater.
Google updater for Toolbar, Earth, Widgets...
Antivirus updater.
Real updater?

Why on Earth can't these pieces of crap terminate upon completion? It's no wonder the systems take an age to boot and can't be used for anything useful for the first 30 minutes. They're too tied up updating. There are no resources left to run applications.

Not that I'm at all bitter about it.

The problem with automatic updates

[Clifton Beach]

Programs like Foxit Reader and Adobe try to install toolbars, put shortcuts where you don't want them and links to third party web sites on your desktop, etc. Each time you run the update you have to manually uncheck all those options which are checked by default. Another problem is that the programs that do update themselves do so by each running their check on Windows startup or own service ALL THE TIME. A far better solution would be for Windows update to allow other programs to register for update checks that can then be handled by a single service.

Solved: Appupdater

[Anonymous Coward]

Runs in the background, installs your updates for you, all without prompting you.

http://www.nabber.org/projects/appupdater/

Window managers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, what do window managers have to do with installation? I didn't think compiz was that bad.

WSUS/SCCM Anyone

[Anonymous Coward]

Set the patch schedules, type of updates you want and approval rules, set computers to wake on lan and enjoy automated patching goodness. As for third party crap, I won't blame MS that other products need to be patched. The only third party programs I have running are firefox java and flash, they dont seem to bother me too often.

Don't patch automatically

[syousef]

Automated patches have broken vital functionality for me once too often and I simply don't have time to patch every time I sit at a computer. One of the first things I do is turn off automated patching on any software I install. I apply the patches I choose when I choose. I'm sure some of you will be horrified but for me the computer is sometimes a tool and sometimes a plaything. When it's a tool I'm very pragmatic about how I do things. As for security vulnerabilities etc so many remain unpatched for so long that I find the idea of dropping everything I'm doing to get the latest patches idiotic.

Patches that show an improvement?

[esmrg]

181 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 6 not upgraded.
Need to get 275MB of archives.
After this operation, 8,425kB disk space will be freed.

Such a beautiful thing. Show me a Windows system that can do that.

We complain when they update...

[zullnero]

We complain when they don't update.

Personally, I have no problem with updates. I think any modern computer user should make themselves feel the same way. Let's face it, this stuff we use is complex. REALLY complex. Things need to be updated and improved, the lifecycle of software is moving in that direction. While the nuisance aspects of pop-up dialogs telling you you've updated could really be pared down to a minimum, this is just how it is.

What you SHOULD get furious about is if there's a security hole that puts your system at risk, but the vendor of the OS doesn't bother patching it OR even tries to talk their way out of fixing it. Yes, that includes Apple. That includes Linux, as well. The only difference between Linux and the rest is that there'll be a semi-public debate as to whether or not to fix it, and a corporate shill coming out and calling that flaw a feature or completely ignoring it until they can't hold out any longer. But it doesn't matter...whether it's Linux, Apple, or Microsoft, you got to get used to the notion that this stuff needs to be patched and you just have to cope with that. It'd be nice if the vendors didn't feel the need to pound their chests loudly with "new release" announcements, pop-up dialogs, and other nonsense when they fixed a bug in their own software, but developers are people too, and they like the feeling of accomplishment that goes into fixing something; they just want the users to know how proud they are of fixing that software.

Re:We complain when they update...

[zullnero]

Guh, I worded that poorly. I mean to say the difference between Linux and the proprietary OS's is in Linux, there'll be a semi-public debate about fixing something, everywhere else, you get the corporate shills. Don't want to put the wrong message out there to a community that skews heavily towards Linux. Just so you know, so do I, but you got to have the facts straight about it. Linux gets updated a lot, and personally, I think that's a good thing.

Re:Get a Mac!

[Anonymous Coward]

OSX requires you to put your admin password in. It's called security. Win7 does too, but they learned from the Vista fiasco just to turn off the UAC for things like this. Win7 just goes and looks it up without asking you...

So let me get this straight:
When OSX requires a password, it's called security.
When Windows requires a password, it's called a fiasco?

This is why whatever OS is the most popular will ALWAYS be insecure, regardless of its name or creator. The masses will always demand everything be automatic and password-less to reduce annoyance.

Re:Computers exist to serve people! Not the revers

[Twinbee]

I'd rather those programs you listed not bother to update at all, the risk of virii is minimal. Adobe is the worst offender - always bugging me, and the updates are probably because it wants to spam you more.

Re:Windows Vista Requires a reghack

[vertinox]

Just FYI. If you go with Windows Vista, it tends to not be as friendly when letting say when and where it applies the updates.

I had often found it would attempt to reboot the computer which when playing a full screen game, would not show the automatic warning where you could hit cancel.

But there is a way modify the registry so it would not reboot automatically without your intervention.

By any chance

[DrugCheese]

Secunia doesn't provide software for vulnerability management do they? Why look they do! How ironic!

White papers, are rarely white.

Really bad title.

[quadelirus]

This has a really misleading title. I think it should read, "Typical Windows User Needs to Patch Every Five Days." The article clearly states that people are NOT doing this. FTA: "Few consumers devote the time and attention necessary to stay atop the patching job." That means the typical user is not patching every five days.

Re:Get a Mac!

[Anonymous Coward]

OSX requires you to put your admin password in. It's called security.

Why can't I create a process, authorised with my admin password, that will do the updates automatically?

Re:Computers exist to serve people! Not the revers

[Anonymous Coward]

Yah. For me, it's that one little patch that sneaks in a 'security fix' - for someone else. That, just for example, bricks a previously broken iPhone. That turns back on the 'phone home for validation' routine. That disables the previously fine software because someone got an injunction against a software patent somewhere. It's the crap they sneak in under the guise of, or packaged with (take it all or leave it all) a "security update" that's really infuriating.

AC. S.

*This* makes a news "story"?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty new here, and the first thing I noticed about /. is that most commenters will take any and every opportunity they can to say something - anything - in criticism of Microsoft, even if it's the most nit-picky little thing, even if it's completely irrelevant, redundant, unjustified, exaggerated, or unnecessary, or even completely false, just because Microsoft is "uncool". Or maybe they just want to be seen by other /.ers, I don't know. Whatever the reason, people just love giving Microsoft shit over the tiniest things. It's stupid and lame, and this "story" is exactly that.

I know, I know. Welcome to Slashdot.

But just in case nobody noticed, Ubuntu asks to install updates far more often than Windows does. Its updates are also alot bigger. I have a Linux machine that I use almost every day, but I also I have an Ubuntu VM, and quite often if I don't use it for a week, it will pester me to download fricken like 70 updates totalling like 660MB. Hang on, what? That's almost as big as the entire distribution!

Obligatory Daily Dinosaur Comic

[The_mad_linguist]

http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=1579

MS new slogan

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you want to patch today?

Re:Get a Mac!

[Anonymous Coward]

whats annoying about updating on the mac 9i mainly use ubuntu an very occasionally windows) is the licence agreements and the fact tha everytime apple updates itunes slightly you have to download an 80+mb update! Same with java - huge download for a slight update!

How is this newsworthy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh noes! My computer takes a little while longer to shut down because it's applying updates! Oh no!

It seems that Slashdot really loves to lay it on Microsoft at every chance they get.

Oh who am I kidding, this is pretty much the norm.

OS/software patching not required weekly

[chentiangemalc]

What this report doesn't understand is good Anti-Virus products such as McAfee and Symantec are already covering known software/OS vunerabilities, before the vendors provide software/OS updates. So while there may be a lot of security updates out there, that does not mean the Windows user is vunerable just because the software is not patched.

Somebody tell these "typical users"...

[Anonymous Coward]

..that Microsoft only releases updates once a month!

Numerous updates posted for FreeBSD daily

[Pigskin-Referee]

I run a FreeBSD-7.2 server. with 862 ports installed. On any given day, I receive notice of at least one or more updates available. Personally, I am relieved to see that someone is actually actively working on improving the software that is available.

Please can we get a MOD TROLL or FUD for articles?

[kenp2002]

I run Gentoo, Ubuntu, and most MS products. I patch every fucking day with Linux. First they don't patch enough, then they patch too much, then the patches are too .... Jebus Trucking Rice -1 MOD TROLL and another -1 MOD FUD for this article. Too many fanboy editors with an agenda it seems...

Users can't have it both ways

[Skuld-Chan]

I've done tier 3 support at companies like Microsoft - people complain constantly that we never fixed anything quickly right, so management took that as meaning we needed to release more patches and speed up the quality assurance process by adding more people.

Then when started releasing patches every quarter we got nothing but complaints we were releasing too many fixes. Argh.

I'm okay with it on Ubuntu

[pugugly]

It's all one definitive interface under Synaptic/Apt Get. Sure there have been weeks when something was patched everyday, but it's all together, I can click it and go.

With Windows,
A) I'm far more likely to have to reboot.
B) if I do have to reboot it's like, to steal a phrase "a Jack Russel fucking Terrier".
          I will fucking shut down
          when I'm at a fucking spot
          to save my fucking game dammit Bill!
C) Outside of Windows itself, it's a dozen different interfaces, because adobe and ccleaner and java and pidgin have all had to fix this mess themselves.
          It's no wonder people click and suddenly realize they just screwed themselves - it's not like there's a unified interface where you can recognize if "X" looks right.

None of which is to say synaptic is perfect - I have my own concerns with it because frankly god help me if canonical ever gets something on it's servers, plus I think you should be able to download and install a program with your own, non-admin privileges (Is there *really* a reason I need to have sudo access to install nethack? Seriously - just make a programs area for user and group level access. If a program *requires* admin level access, either hide it from non admin users, or let the user see what is needed that the admin would have to approve.)

But, compared to windows? I won't go back, you can't make me.

Pug

Simple solution

[pubwvj]

Run a better OS.