Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > No easy way to centralize Dimdows updates?

Reply
Thread Tools

No easy way to centralize Dimdows updates?

 
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-26-2007
Came across this discussion <http://blogs.zdnet.com/Berlind/?p=908> about a
sysadmin trying to come up with a rational way to manage updates for 30
Dimdows XP boxes. Company policy requires updates to be tested before being
rolled out; that means he can't just rely on each machine updating itself
on demand via Dimdows Update, he wants to be able to bunch them up and
release them say, twice a year.

The only answer Microsoft can offer is to run Dimdows Server Update
Services. But that requires a machine running Dimdows 2003 Server, which he
doesn't have and can't afford to get.

I was thinking that, with most Linux distros, you could simply point all
your client machines at your own update repository (which can also reside
on a desktop machine), and set your own policy for syncing that from the
official ones. Problem solved, in about the time it takes to read this
paragraph out loud.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Fred Dagg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-26-2007
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 23:39:29 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> exclaimed:

>Came across this discussion <http://blogs.zdnet.com/Berlind/?p=908> about a
>sysadmin trying to come up with a rational way to manage updates for 30
>Dimdows XP boxes. Company policy requires updates to be tested before being
>rolled out; that means he can't just rely on each machine updating itself
>on demand via Dimdows Update, he wants to be able to bunch them up and
>release them say, twice a year.
>
>The only answer Microsoft can offer is to run Dimdows Server Update
>Services. But that requires a machine running Dimdows 2003 Server, which he
>doesn't have and can't afford to get.
>
>I was thinking that, with most Linux distros, you could simply point all
>your client machines at your own update repository (which can also reside
>on a desktop machine), and set your own policy for syncing that from the
>official ones. Problem solved, in about the time it takes to read this
>paragraph out loud.


Anyone running 30 boxes who thinks they can't afford a server is a
moron.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Jonathan Walker
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-26-2007
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 23:39:29 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> The only answer Microsoft can offer is to run Dimdows Server Update
> Services. But that requires a machine running Dimdows 2003 Server, which he
> doesn't have and can't afford to get.


In which case he probably should consider buying a version of Microsoft
Windows Server 2003 - if he cannot afford to buy a "Dimdows 2003 Server".

Alternatively, as he has only 30 machines, perhaps he could disable the
Windows Update service on those PCs, and set a firewall rule that blocks
all PCs from accessing any of the Microsoft websites except a UAT PC. And
then he could use one PC as a test machine that connects to Micro$oft's
website. And then if all is OK, they can temporarily lift that firewall.

I presume all PCs are identical and so you will only be needing to do the
one test per update.


--
Jonathan Walker

"The IT industry landscape is littered with the dead
dreams of people who once trusted Microsoft."
 
Reply With Quote
 
thingy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-26-2007
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

I cant believe you got so low as to troll with this....you really should
get out some.

> Came across this discussion <http://blogs.zdnet.com/Berlind/?p=908> about a
> sysadmin trying to come up with a rational way to manage updates for 30
> Dimdows XP boxes. Company policy requires updates to be tested before being
> rolled out; that means he can't just rely on each machine updating itself
> on demand via Dimdows Update, he wants to be able to bunch them up and
> release them say, twice a year.
>
> The only answer Microsoft can offer is to run Dimdows Server Update
> Services. But that requires a machine running Dimdows 2003 Server, which he
> doesn't have and can't afford to get.
>
> I was thinking that, with most Linux distros, you could simply point all
> your client machines at your own update repository (which can also reside
> on a desktop machine), and set your own policy for syncing that from the
> official ones. Problem solved, in about the time it takes to read this
> paragraph out loud.


Welcome to the world of enterprise computing, it costs money to run
IT....if the company chose to buy Windows desktops and chose to have a
policy around updating, they have to pay for a solution in some form or
other....

There is probably more then one way to do this....lets see,

1) He does it manually.
2 He gets win2k3 server and runs the MS solution.
3) He finds a 3rd party solution, probably running on win2k3 server anyway.
4) He builds images (slip streamed?) which he uses to rebuild the boxes
twice a year....
5) See 1) He decides this is too hard and is working for cheapskates and
goes to seek's website and gets a job for a company that understands IT
has a cost.

Now in the Linux world if he had say Redhat he could use satellite and
pay for the support....

No difference really...

regards

Thing

















 
Reply With Quote
 
thingy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-26-2007
Fred Dagg wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 23:39:29 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> exclaimed:
>
>> Came across this discussion <http://blogs.zdnet.com/Berlind/?p=908> about a
>> sysadmin trying to come up with a rational way to manage updates for 30
>> Dimdows XP boxes. Company policy requires updates to be tested before being
>> rolled out; that means he can't just rely on each machine updating itself
>> on demand via Dimdows Update, he wants to be able to bunch them up and
>> release them say, twice a year.
>>
>> The only answer Microsoft can offer is to run Dimdows Server Update
>> Services. But that requires a machine running Dimdows 2003 Server, which he
>> doesn't have and can't afford to get.
>>
>> I was thinking that, with most Linux distros, you could simply point all
>> your client machines at your own update repository (which can also reside
>> on a desktop machine), and set your own policy for syncing that from the
>> official ones. Problem solved, in about the time it takes to read this
>> paragraph out loud.

>
> Anyone running 30 boxes who thinks they can't afford a server is a
> moron.


Agree, at 8+ PCs I would think he needs a server if only for "simple"
storage.....at 30 it is becoming a managemnt headache...

regards

Thing






 
Reply With Quote
 
EMB
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-26-2007
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
> The only answer Microsoft can offer is to run Dimdows Server Update
> Services. But that requires a machine running Dimdows 2003 Server, which he
> doesn't have and can't afford to get.


It's not hard to write a login script to install Windows updates from a
local repository. I do it all the time for a client running Windows
2000 desktop machines.
 
Reply With Quote
 
peterwn
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-26-2007
On Nov 27, 7:25 am, thingy <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
> I cant believe you got so low as to troll with this....you really should
> get out some.
>


Come off it! There has not been an anti-M$ troll in this ng for quite
some time.

Coming to think of it, the pro-M$ trolls are keeping their heads down
as they
tend to expose their behinds as easy targets - almost like scoring own
goals.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Jonathan Walker
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-26-2007
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 11:39:56 -0800, peterwn wrote:

> Coming to think of it, the pro-M$ trolls are keeping their heads down
> as they tend to expose their behinds as easy targets - almost like
> scoring own goals.


LOL!

Nice! )


--
Jonathan Walker

"The IT industry landscape is littered with the dead
dreams of people who once trusted Microsoft."
 
Reply With Quote
 
Enkidu
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-26-2007
thingy wrote:
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
> I cant believe you got so low as to troll with this....you really should
> get out some.
>
>> Came across this discussion <http://blogs.zdnet.com/Berlind/?p=908>
>> about a
>> sysadmin trying to come up with a rational way to manage updates for 30
>> Dimdows XP boxes. Company policy requires updates to be tested before
>> being
>> rolled out; that means he can't just rely on each machine updating itself
>> on demand via Dimdows Update, he wants to be able to bunch them up and
>> release them say, twice a year.
>>
>> The only answer Microsoft can offer is to run Dimdows Server Update
>> Services. But that requires a machine running Dimdows 2003 Server,
>> which he
>> doesn't have and can't afford to get.
>>
>> I was thinking that, with most Linux distros, you could simply point all
>> your client machines at your own update repository (which can also reside
>> on a desktop machine), and set your own policy for syncing that from the
>> official ones. Problem solved, in about the time it takes to read this
>> paragraph out loud.

>
> Welcome to the world of enterprise computing, it costs money to run
> IT....if the company chose to buy Windows desktops and chose to have a
> policy around updating, they have to pay for a solution in some form or
> other....
>
> There is probably more then one way to do this....lets see,
>
> 1) He does it manually.
> 2 He gets win2k3 server and runs the MS solution.
> 3) He finds a 3rd party solution, probably running on win2k3 server anyway.
> 4) He builds images (slip streamed?) which he uses to rebuild the boxes
> twice a year....
> 5) See 1) He decides this is too hard and is working for cheapskates and
> goes to seek's website and gets a job for a company that understands IT
> has a cost.
>
> Now in the Linux world if he had say Redhat he could use satellite and
> pay for the support....
>

Satellite Server is a hugely expensive over complicated piece of
moronware, that downloads almost all of RHN and stores it locally. Proxy
Server is just that, a Squid proxy with tweaks to get around the login
problem. Proxy Server also costs, but only an arm, not an arm and a leg,
but demands its own server. Neither is really suitable for 30 workstations.

Cheers,

Cliff

--

Have you ever noticed that if something is advertised as 'amusing' or
'hilarious', it usually isn't?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bobs
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-26-2007
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> Came across this discussion <http://blogs.zdnet.com/Berlind/?p=908> about a
> sysadmin trying to come up with a rational way to manage updates for 30
> Dimdows XP boxes. Company policy requires updates to be tested before being
> rolled out; that means he can't just rely on each machine updating itself
> on demand via Dimdows Update, he wants to be able to bunch them up and
> release them say, twice a year.
>
> The only answer Microsoft can offer is to run Dimdows Server Update
> Services. But that requires a machine running Dimdows 2003 Server, which he
> doesn't have and can't afford to get.
>
> I was thinking that, with most Linux distros, you could simply point all
> your client machines at your own update repository (which can also reside
> on a desktop machine), and set your own policy for syncing that from the
> official ones. Problem solved, in about the time it takes to read this
> paragraph out loud.


With 30 boxes he should be running a server and SUS, and really, if his
company cannot afford to buy a copy of Server 2003 for him then remind
me to never do business with his cheap arse business
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Centralize SOAPHeader Processing? Spam Catcher ASP .Net 1 04-21-2008 06:47 PM
Centralize app_themes Chris Roden ASP .Net 0 04-16-2007 10:31 PM
How to centralize the page? Laura Computer Support 0 07-20-2006 08:24 PM
Centralize exception handling =?Utf-8?B?QXR1bCBCYWhs?= ASP .Net 4 07-19-2005 07:21 PM
Centralize Thunderbird Address Book Thomas Guignard Firefox 2 01-21-2005 01:28 PM



Advertisments