MS Patches Go For Quality Over Quantity? 225
greengrass writes "eWeek.com is running a story about another Microsoft 'study'. This one discusses how good Microsoft is at providing patches for their OS. This is Part 2 of 3 in a series of articles, the first of which compared Linux and Windows on legacy systems." From the article: "Bill Hilf, who is director of Platform Technology Strategy at Microsoft and heads its Linux and open-source lab, told eWEEK in a recent interview that 'the differentiator for customers is not the number comparison, but which vendor makes the patching and updating experience the least complex, most efficient and easiest to manage.'"
Focus Magazine Interview Haunts Gates (Score:5, Interesting)
I've read other interviews with Gates in which he went further to explain himself by saying that the feedback they received from users was rarely requesting a bug fix. He listed a percentage in the high nineties that was feedback suggesting new features. And so, with each upgrade and patch, the aim wasn't for security or bug fixes but instead for new features which a lot of people asked for. The engineers will blame him for taking that approach but I'm sure the businessmen will laugh and follow Gates all the way to the bank.
Now, to be fair, it seems he has changed his stance [go.com] (which--calm down--I believe people are allowed to do). And I applaud them if they really are trying to rectify what they made mistakes on in the past with their new patching strategy. There is (obviously) much debate about if they actually are trying to fix it and if these are actually quality patches. I'm sure the flamewar that ensues on this article will demonstrate that adequately.
I will make a speculation though. IN MY OPINION, the largest thing Microsoft has to fear is a perfectly secure operation system they have created and distributed throughout the world. This is because they will no longer have "upgrades" or new versions of Windows to offer costumers. Yes, some customers are looking for new features, but oftentimes I find myself on my Windows machine just begging it to behave properly as a cut and dry OS. If the rumors of Vista are true and it is an efficient and secure operating system that can function in plain jane deterministic manners, then I want it dual booting with Linux and nothing more
Re:Focus Magazine Interview Haunts Gates (Score:3, Interesting)
IF Linux is as stable as you make out, and you want "nothing more...ever", then why not make it - or Windows for that matter - available as a chipset, like the good ol' BBC Microcompuetr of yesteryear...? Whatever the OS, why should I waste my time waiting for the system to boot up or shut down, when so many other devices have their OS's on EPROM....I just want to switch on and go.
anyone else think it's odd (Score:5, Interesting)
efficient? (Score:5, Interesting)
My office recently donated some P3 machines to a homeless shelter. The process of wiping the drive and installing Win 2000(SP4) and updating it to be current took nearly 4 hours for one machine. This was a machine that had just the OS. I had to run Windows Update and reboot at least a dozen times. Each time, I'd select and install all patches available. Due to prerequisite patch dependencies, however, each update/reboot cycle would make another 10-15 patches available. Hardly efficient. You'd think they could roll it all up into one huge patch and make it available. (And yes, I can understand the need for some places to avoid certain patches - make that the option, not the norm!)
Re:More M$ Hooey (Score:3, Interesting)
The whole Linux versus Microsoft thing is like arguing politics. You've got a few zealots on the fringes and a vast number of people who are perfectly happy with what they've got. The zealots are loud and shrill but, in the the end, they represent a tiny minority.
Want a bad analogy? It's like Ford saying that you should buy a Mustang because a Camaro sucks (yes, I know that Chevy doesn't make Camaros anymore - work with me here).
-h-
Re:The patches just rarely add functionality (Score:3, Interesting)
In fact, I believe that MS's drivers, as simplistic as they are, are far and away better than Toshiba's BT stack (Try to set up BT HotSync with a Treo 650 over Toshiba BT drivers). Unfortunately, they don't hold a candle to the WIDCOMM drivers.
The real travesty in all this is the fact that there are 3 separate comm stacks for the exact same hardware. Even worse is that they are licensed in such a way that I cannot use the WIDCOMM drivers for a BT device that came with Toshiba drivers. However, I can use the MS drivers for anything.
Re:The patches just rarely add functionality (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:More M$ Hooey (Score:5, Interesting)
Nor have I had any issues with Windows Update on XP or Windows 2000/2003 Server or Professional. While patches may be a little lacking in expediency (sp?) it couldn't be easier to do. I love that I can have my office XP computer patch itself while my servers download but do not install patches without my explicit command. I can't imagine Windows Update - and especially automatic Windows Update being easier to use, even for non-power users.
Right now, I think that OSX and Windows XP/2000/2003 really have the best in patching, with certain Linux distros being up there as well. Easily getting updates to users is no longer an issue, it's the speed/efficiency with which said patches become available that is to be compared.
Advice for Bill (and you can pay me later...) (Score:3, Interesting)
I'll promptly install patches when doing so doesn't require unnecessary reboots. If the kernel isn't being patched, don't make me reboot!