[unisog] Re: unisog Digest, Vol 5, Issue 2
derek.ethier at humber.ca
Sat Aug 7 13:43:15 GMT 2004
They normally do that with all patches. If you check the release date for a
lot of MS updates, you will notice that they are (on average, this does not
happen all the time) release about 2 weeks prior to showing-up on Windows
Update. As for service packs, they've had the betas and the RC's out for
months now (they've recently yanked them) and a lot of people have tested it.
The beta/RC stragedy is sound. Server 2003 went through the same process and
it is, by a wide margin, the best product MS has ever released. I expect
pretty much the same results with SP2 (despite the rumours to the contrary).
As for approving updates as soon as they hit SUS, don't do it. Always manually
approve updates after they have been tested. We run the St. Bernard Update
Expert software for our servers, and once they approve an update (they test
them internally) we then approve the update for desktops, if they're applicable
(that's the key). Only approve what is neccessary (security updates etc.) and
you should be fine.
>From: PaulFM <paulfm at me.umn.edu>
>Subject: Re: [unisog] RE: XP SP2 Compatible with SUS?
>I think Microsoft would Make life easier for everyone if they released it
>first on their Service Pack download page, and didn't put it on Windows
>Update for at least a week (so that people who elect to use it could complain
>about problems before it breaks everyone else's machines). Or at least make
>it an optional update and move it to critical after a week or two.
>The fear of what the update might do is causing many to turn off automatic
>updates. If lots of people could get hold of it before it is automatically
>pushed to machines - that fear might be reduced.
More information about the unisog