There's a whole new slew of new MS windows updates. Jeeze!
I thought all the XP bug-fixes were going to settle down after a year of
two but the activity seems to increase.
The last lot were about 43 MB in my case as I have MS Office.
Has anyone kept a running total of how many MB of download have been
needed to keep patching XP ever since its launch? It must be some big
figure.
From: "Zak"
| There's a whole new slew of new MS windows updates. Jeeze!
|
| I thought all the XP bug-fixes were going to settle down after a year of
| two but the activity seems to increase.
|
| The last lot were about 43 MB in my case as I have MS Office.
|
| Has anyone kept a running total of how many MB of download have been
| needed to keep patching XP ever since its launch? It must be some big
| figure.
I expect WinXP SP3 to be ~.5GB !
--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm
In comp.security.misc Zak
> Has anyone kept a running total of how many MB of download have been
> needed to keep patching XP ever since its launch? It must be some big
> figure.
Well, if you wanted to spend some time, you could get a rough estimate
by using the security bulletin search:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/current.aspx
You can search that based on product (eg XP) and service pack installed
and it should return all security bulletins for that product that are
not covered by the service pack. Then total all the download sizes, add
in the size of the service pack and you have your rough estimate.
On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 21:31:47 +0100, Zak wrote:
> There's a whole new slew of new MS windows updates. Jeeze!
>
> I thought all the XP bug-fixes were going to settle down after a year of
> two but the activity seems to increase.
>
> The last lot were about 43 MB in my case as I have MS Office.
>
> Has anyone kept a running total of how many MB of download have been
> needed to keep patching XP ever since its launch? It must be some big
> figure.
The new Mac's can run most of the windows programs now check it out, it
might be the better way to go
--
Admin
* www.privacyoffshore.net (No Logs Internet Surfing)
* Anonymous Secure Offshore SSH-2 Surfing Tunnels
Zak wrote:
> There's a whole new slew of new MS windows updates. Jeeze!
>
> I thought all the XP bug-fixes were going to settle down after a year of
> two but the activity seems to increase.
>
> The last lot were about 43 MB in my case as I have MS Office.
>
> Has anyone kept a running total of how many MB of download have been
> needed to keep patching XP ever since its launch?
Ask the same question for typical Linux distros and you might get a clue
that it's not that bad.
A way bigger question is why it usually recommends a reboot whereas a
restart of the service or driver is normally sufficient.
Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
> Ask the same question for typical Linux distros and you might get a clue
> that it's not that bad.
>
> A way bigger question is why it usually recommends a reboot whereas a
> restart of the service or driver is normally sufficient.
Two very good points. This reboot thing is immensely grotesque, and
Linux is in no way better than Windows regarding the patches. Theo de
Raadt (OpenBSD) pointed out that Linux and Windows have the same rapid
development cycle, which leads to crap.
http://www.forbes.com/intelligentinfrastructure/2005/06/16/l inux-bsd-unix-cz_dl_0616theo.html
Kind regards
Ludovic
"Zak"
news:Xns9819DB035637D64A18E@127.0.0.1...
> There's a whole new slew of new MS windows updates. Jeeze!
>
> I thought all the XP bug-fixes were going to settle down after a year of
> two but the activity seems to increase.
>
> The last lot were about 43 MB in my case as I have MS Office.
>
> Has anyone kept a running total of how many MB of download have been
> needed to keep patching XP ever since its launch? It must be some big
> figure.
Sick of them. I fully understand the need to improve on security. But the
number of release/patches would indicate bad programming.
Apart from that my system is slowing to a crawl in the last 6 months or so
and it's clean, fully patched and run regular defrags/cleanups - I put it
down to the patches/updates
Clive
Zak wrote:
> There's a whole new slew of new MS windows updates. Jeeze!
>
> I thought all the XP bug-fixes were going to settle down after a year of
> two but the activity seems to increase.
>
> The last lot were about 43 MB in my case as I have MS Office.
>
> Has anyone kept a running total of how many MB of download have been
> needed to keep patching XP ever since its launch? It must be some big
> figure.
I've accumulated 50 critical/important security patches for XP (93 mb)
since SP2. May have missed one or two. It's a pain but at least they're
doing something. You can't tell me the others don't have their share.
Jon
Ludovic Joly wrote:
> Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
> > Ask the same question for typical Linux distros and you might get a clue
> > that it's not that bad.
> >
> > A way bigger question is why it usually recommends a reboot whereas a
> > restart of the service or driver is normally sufficient.
>
> Two very good points.
One totally retarded assumption that everything in a distro repository
is part of the operating system, and one irrelevancy based on the fact
that two completely different things need to be services differently.
You're as clueless as Gobbleslop.....
Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
> Zak wrote:
> > There's a whole new slew of new MS windows updates. Jeeze!
> >
> > I thought all the XP bug-fixes were going to settle down after a year of
> > two but the activity seems to increase.
> >
> > The last lot were about 43 MB in my case as I have MS Office.
> >
> > Has anyone kept a running total of how many MB of download have been
> > needed to keep patching XP ever since its launch?
>
> Ask the same question for typical Linux distros and you might get a clue
> that it's not that bad.
Utter clueless nonsense. Updates and patches for Windoze FAR outweigh
patches for any *nix operating system. Even if you include a standard
browser, email client, and a couple bells and whistles that make it
surpass anything a Windoze install could ever even hope to offer.
The only way anyone would believe your rubbish is if they were so brain
dead they believed all the "third party" packages in a distribution
and/or repository were part of the "core" OS.
Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
> Zak wrote:
> > There's a whole new slew of new MS windows updates. Jeeze!
> >
> > I thought all the XP bug-fixes were going to settle down after a year of
> > two but the activity seems to increase.
> >
> > The last lot were about 43 MB in my case as I have MS Office.
> >
> > Has anyone kept a running total of how many MB of download have been
> > needed to keep patching XP ever since its launch?
>
> Ask the same question for typical Linux distros and you might get a clue
> that it's not that bad.
>
> A way bigger question is why it usually recommends a reboot whereas a
> restart of the service or driver is normally sufficient.
You can do an unatteded update and limit it to one reboot.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/downloads/servicepacks/ sp3/hfdeploy.htm#installing_sseveral_hhotfixes_ttogether_teh f
Jon wrote:
>> A way bigger question is why it usually recommends a reboot whereas
>> a restart of the service or driver is normally sufficient.
>
>
> You can do an unatteded update and limit it to one reboot.
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/downloads/servicepacks/
> sp3/hfdeploy.htm#installing_sseveral_hhotfixes_ttogether_teh f
Now this has been updated a long time ago. Since about '03 the Hotfix
Chaining is not needed any more because it's safely implemented by the
update.exe installer, and since '04 a problematic error in the installer
has been fixed as well (so all updates since XP SP2 are safe, but old
updates can be added the new installer as well).
I was about telling that no reboot is needed at all.
TwistyCreek wrote:
> The only way anyone would believe your rubbish is if they were so brain
> dead they believed all the "third party" packages in a distribution
> and/or repository were part of the "core" OS.
Windows also is a distro of a kernel, some core utilities, a default
shell and many programs. So the comparison is valid to a certain point.
Jon wrote:
> I've accumulated 50 critical/important security patches for XP (93 mb)
> since SP2.
I've got 90, and they're all together about 45 MB. :-)
> It's a pain but at least they're doing something.
It might be good for you to not know what they're aware of but not
doing. And no, I don't just mean the inherently insecure bullshit
programs like MSIE, MSOE or Windows Messenger. Microsoft is deliberately
ignoring problems where they even have a fully tested solution already
implemented on later versions of Windows.
Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
> TwistyCreek wrote:
>
> > The only way anyone would believe your rubbish is if they were so brain
> > dead they believed all the "third party" packages in a distribution
> > and/or repository were part of the "core" OS.
>
> Windows also is a distro of a kernel, some core utilities, a default
> shell and many programs. So the comparison is valid to a certain point.
Yes nitwit, And up TO that point Windows has had considerably more
patches/updates/problems than any Linux distribution. Your bumbling
"not so bad" statement is patently FALSE when a level comparison is
made.
"Jon"
news:1155142630.038690.321830@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com.. .
> You can do an unatteded update and limit it to one reboot.
Did I miss something, or does that particular site refer to nothing but Win
2000?
The OP in this thread mentions XP alone, or are you suggesting that 'fix'
will also work with XP?
Nomen Nescio wrote:
> Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
>
>> TwistyCreek wrote:
>>
>>> The only way anyone would believe your rubbish is if they were so brain
>>> dead they believed all the "third party" packages in a distribution
>>> and/or repository were part of the "core" OS.
>> Windows also is a distro of a kernel, some core utilities, a default
>> shell and many programs. So the comparison is valid to a certain point.
>
>
> Yes nitwit, And up TO that point Windows has had considerably more
> patches/updates/problems than any Linux distribution.
So far there've been only 3 updates to the kernel itself, and being
delivered as big differences of binaries doesn't reflect much of the
actual code change. May I remind you that Linux actually reached 2.6.18?
These are 18 big updates since 2.6.0 with certainly a lot of bigger changes.
And your claim is generally wrong: Current total updates for Windows XP
are merely 150 MB, and about 1 GB in total over all time, whereas a
decent RedHat 9.0 has about 300 MB in total and about 2 GB over time for
Linux itself, core binaries, BinUtils, X.org and KDE only.
Tx2 wrote:
> "Jon"
> news:1155142630.038690.321830@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com.. .
>
> > You can do an unatteded update and limit it to one reboot.
>
> Did I miss something, or does that particular site refer to nothing but Win
> 2000?
> The OP in this thread mentions XP alone, or are you suggesting that 'fix'
> will also work with XP?
Oops. Here's something more recent.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/updates/sp1/hfd eploy.mspx
Zak wrote:
> There's a whole new slew of new MS windows updates. Jeeze!
speaking of which, how do you run the new windows
network analyzer???
Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
> Nomen Nescio wrote:
> > Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
> >
> >> TwistyCreek wrote:
> >>
> >>> The only way anyone would believe your rubbish is if they were so brain
> >>> dead they believed all the "third party" packages in a distribution
> >>> and/or repository were part of the "core" OS.
> >> Windows also is a distro of a kernel, some core utilities, a default
> >> shell and many programs. So the comparison is valid to a certain point.
> >
> >
> > Yes nitwit, And up TO that point Windows has had considerably more
> > patches/updates/problems than any Linux distribution.
>
> So far there've been...
You don't even know the difference between a "fix" and something that's
under continual development for fuck's sake.....LOL!
And by the way you obsessive cunt, nobody believed your "plonk" lies
anyway. LOL!!!
Nomen Nescio
> Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
> > TwistyCreek wrote:
> > > The only way anyone would believe your rubbish is if they were so brain
> > > dead they believed all the "third party" packages in a distribution
> > > and/or repository were part of the "core" OS.
> > Windows also is a distro of a kernel, some core utilities, a default
> > shell and many programs. So the comparison is valid to a certain point.
> Yes nitwit, And up TO that point Windows has had considerably more
> patches/updates/problems than any Linux distribution. Your bumbling
> "not so bad" statement is patently FALSE when a level comparison is
> made.
Your OS war is very boring.
Yours,
VB.
--
Ich würde schätzen, dass ca. 87% aller spontanen Schätzungen völlig für
den Arsch sind.
Ralph Angenendt in debate@ccc.de
"Jon"
news:1155152870.551207.205620@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com.. .
> Tx2 wrote:
>> "Jon"
>> news:1155142630.038690.321830@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com.. .
>>
>> > You can do an unatteded update and limit it to one reboot.
>>
>> Did I miss something, or does that particular site refer to nothing but
>> Win
>> 2000?
>> The OP in this thread mentions XP alone, or are you suggesting that 'fix'
>> will also work with XP?
>
> Oops. Here's something more recent.
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/updates/sp1/hfd eploy.mspx
ah, my mind can rest easy now....... ;-)
In comp.security.misc Sebastian Gottschalk
> And your claim is generally wrong: Current total updates for Windows XP
> are merely 150 MB, and about 1 GB in total over all time, whereas a
> decent RedHat 9.0 has about 300 MB in total and about 2 GB over time for
> Linux itself, core binaries, BinUtils, X.org and KDE only.
Dear lord, if you're going to make a claim that Linux takes more patches
than Windows, at least understand the nature of a Linux "patch". It is
not just a replacement for a single DLL or itty bitty binary. It is a
complete replacement of the affected application. The binary, the help
files, the included libraries, the config files, etc etc etc. This is
particularly true on a distribution that uses a dependancy based package
tool. This makes any "size" based comparison useless as the sizes of the
patches are completely different. That Linux distributions also distribute
third party applications and their associated patches also means that
there will be more MB of data included on a Linux distro's patch site
than Microsoft's, who only distribute their own patches for the most part.
Here's an illustration using Slackware Linux 10.2. There are 42 patches
for that version, totaling 276MB. However, only 14 of those (36MB) are
related to system critical applications, and that's being generous by
including X-Windows. The packages I included in the system critical set
were bash, bin, bzip, libxml, mod_ssl, openssh, openssl, sudo and x11-*.
If your criteria also includes KDE (mine doesn't since I have a perfectly
functional X-Windows system using neither KDE nor Gnome), that adds another
4 packages (79MB) for a total of 18 packages and 115MB. Everything else is
a third party application such as Apache, sendmail, MySQL, PHP, GIMP and
so on. You'll note no kernel patch in Slackware. That's because Slackware
uses the 2.4.x line still as it is more stable and less buggy. Slackware
also includes only a basic set of third party applications, whereas RedHat
has somewhat of a reputation for being bloated with applications.
So to summarize, you're comparing apples to oranges. It just doesn't work.
Nice try to spread a little FUD though.