No easy way to centralize Dimdows updates?

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Nov 26, 2007.

  1. 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.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Nov 26, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Fred Dagg Guest

    On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 23:39:29 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    <_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.
     
    Fred Dagg, Nov 26, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. 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."
     
    Jonathan Walker, Nov 26, 2007
    #3
  4. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    thingy Guest

    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
     
    thingy, Nov 26, 2007
    #4
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    thingy Guest

    Fred Dagg wrote:
    > On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 23:39:29 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    > <_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
     
    thingy, Nov 26, 2007
    #5
  6. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    EMB Guest

    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.
     
    EMB, Nov 26, 2007
    #6
  7. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    peterwn Guest

    On Nov 27, 7:25 am, thingy <> 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.
     
    peterwn, Nov 26, 2007
    #7
  8. 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! :eek:)


    --
    Jonathan Walker

    "The IT industry landscape is littered with the dead
    dreams of people who once trusted Microsoft."
     
    Jonathan Walker, Nov 26, 2007
    #8
  9. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Enkidu Guest

    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?
     
    Enkidu, Nov 26, 2007
    #9
  10. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Bobs Guest

    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
     
    Bobs, Nov 26, 2007
    #10
  11. In article
    <>,
    peterwn did write:

    > 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.


    :)

    Speaking of own goals, looks like the closed-source companies' increasingly
    heavy-handed licence-enforcement efforts may be persuading some customers
    to switch to open source:
    <http://techdirt.com/articles/20071126/024312.shtml>.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Nov 26, 2007
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Thomas Guignard

    Centralize Thunderbird Address Book

    Thomas Guignard, Jan 11, 2005, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    2,773
  2. Laura

    How to centralize the page?

    Laura, Jul 20, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    475
    Laura
    Jul 20, 2006
  3. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Microsoft doing secret Dimdows updates

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 14, 2007, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    55
    Views:
    1,020
    Max Burke
    Sep 24, 2007
  4. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Re: Microsoft doing secret Dimdows updates

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 25, 2007, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    313
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Sep 29, 2007
  5. Brian Adams
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    343
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Sep 30, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page