did you hear the latest concerning "monthly updates" from microsoft
GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Introduction to Linux - A Hands on Guide
This guide was created as an overview of the Linux Operating System, geared toward new users as an exploration tour and getting started guide, with exercises at the end of each chapter.
For more advanced trainees it can be a desktop reference, and a collection of the base knowledge needed to proceed with system and network administration. This book contains many real life examples derived from the author's experience as a Linux system and network administrator, trainer and consultant. They hope these examples will help you to get a better understanding of the Linux system and that you feel encouraged to try out things on your own.
Click Here to receive this Complete Guide absolutely free.
it appears the problems are much bigger than they're "monthly updates" seem to fix. seems the whole back end is open so wide you can march a martian invasion thru and nothing but a full jettison of Windows will fix the problem
who knows, maybe they are trying to stave off a possible stock market crash if they were to tell everybody to switch to Linux
They had to go to monthy security releases because cusotmers complined about spending every weekend applying patches. If they only release them once per month then you supposedly only have to spend one weekedn per month patching.
took em 6 months to fix a "critical" valnerablilitiy?, sounds like they were trying to patch up teh bug they put in the code themself and tehn make a new one so tehy can sell people the valnerabilityies so people can snoop thru ur comp, yep defidently same old lyies, making something mroe secure and more relieable, but in realitiy just making it less small valerabilites and more big ones so tehy can make money off new windows releases, and also so big companies can pay them to make it consume more reasources so you ahve to buy the newest ahrdware to make anyhting run the elast bit relaible
"They had to go to monthy security releases because cusotmers complined about spending every weekend applying patches. If they only release them once per month then you supposedly only have to spend one weekedn per month patching."
Back in the days of Yore (about 1981) the problem of keeping up with patches for the IBM operating system was becoming a time consuming problem for both IBM and its customers. IBM came up with the idea that instead of each customer applying whatever patches they needed as they needed them that periodically every customer would mass apply every IBM patch whether the customer needed the patch or not. Then IBM dispatched its sales team to convince all of their customers that this was the Holy Grail of bug squashing. A lot of people were charmed into working one Sunday a month (more or less) to mass apply patches.
Previously the customers would hit a bug and ask IBM for the specific patch for that bug. Then they would apply the patch and test it to make sure it got rid of the bug before allowing the patch into production. Now, with the new system, each IBM customer was applying large numbers of patches which may or may not be relevent to their situation and turning them over to production without testing.
I don't think that any IBM customer stuck with the mass apply plan for as long as a year. Every customer would run into a Monday morning when the mainframe was down until the software people restored the software back to the way it was on Saturday. Then management would hold a post-mortum on the down time and that was the end of mass applying IBM patches.
Based on ancient history I predict that Microsoft's monthly patches will make Microsoft software less stable rather than more stable.
jailbait: I think you have a point. I mean at what point will it be that all these "patches" loading the overhead to the point that the OS has trouble getting CPU use? It's just this thought that got me to switch.
patching wont affect cpu use, except when the patching itself occurs, that is unless these patches add new "features" which undoubtedly they do in a very loose sense of the phrase i doubt it would ever come to the point that a "normal user" would notice the extra cpu lag on top of the original resource hogging
having patches several tiems a week?@!!!, man, i never dled a patch for my linux system (exept the first few as that was when i was compiling the kernel and wanted it preemtive, and some other sutff, small bug fixes, and a few security fixes i think they were for, now i dont even try to read about patches as for most usurs patches are a waste of time, forcing people to patch just becuase is like puting a anti-tank with a anti-aircraft gun on top of a bugar king just because teh military needed them placed on top of a bugar king in there fort on some distant land in some imaginary universe, does anyone here think it makes sence to mass patch even tho for the most part almost every patch is somthing that doesent efect you (like fixing a bug in a refigurator when you dont even have one, and stil paying the guy to fix it just becuase they told you to)
Originally posted by SciYro took em 6 months to fix a "critical" valnerablilitiy?, sounds like they were trying to patch up teh bug they put in the code themself and tehn make a new one so tehy can sell people the valnerabilityies so people can snoop thru ur comp, yep defidently same old lyies, making something mroe secure and more relieable, but in realitiy just making it less small valerabilites and more big ones so tehy can make money off new windows releases, and also so big companies can pay them to make it consume more reasources so you ahve to buy the newest ahrdware to make anyhting run the elast bit relaible
Even "in the dream world" you can push the spell check button.