So, there was an article here the other day about the ease of patching Windows vs the Ease of patching Linux (focusing on a server environment). The article came to the conclusion that keeping Windows patched and up to date is far easier than doing so in Linux. As a result, it was HEAVILY criticized, and later in the day when I went back to find it, it appears to have been taken down. Anybody know whats up with that?

I did not see the article however if it's conclusion was that patching windows is easier than linux then that is entirely incorrect.

It takes about 2 or 3 clicks to patch Ubuntu, any Redhat based distribution and most other linux versions.

On the CLI front "apt-get update" on ubuntu or "yum update" on RH does the same thing.

What you just said was the gist of the first 100 or so comments made on the article (excepting the authors attempt to refute that), along with people mentioning RedHat Enterprise support options and Zenworks I think.

Perhaps that is the reason the article was pulled.

I guess despite the pretty heavy bias at THG towards windows, even they figured that they had to preserve their reputation and yank that article.

I hope that the author learned his lesson because seriously, it takes me more conscious effort to patch my windows systems than it ever has for my linux systems (fedora and ubuntu). I am also told that updating your entire machine in Gentoo is as easy as a single "emerge world" command.

Anyways, I have seen THG drop the ball on a couple of occasions but overall they do pretty well, so I hope they keep that up.

-Zorak

Yeah, I just think that pulling the article was the wrong way to go about it. Maybe issuing an updated article or a retraction, but pretending it never happened seems shady to me.

It was funny that the article never considered the fact that when you update on many linux distros, you also update the other programs that were installed through your package manager. That is something that Windows will never be able to do (not a flaw, just basic logistics).

Anyone aware of WSUS, SMS, or Alteris?

WSUS.. You set it up on your server. It downloads the patches, you go out and review the patches and check if you want them installed or not. You're done. The reason you review is to make sure it won't interfere with any business applications you have running.

SMS does the same thing on a higher level generally over LANs.

Alteris, again, the samething but designed to go over WANs as well.

Updating Windows is simple when using WSUS which takes about 10 minutes of total time to setup, make sure you have everything working properly, and create a baseline system to ensure you have all proper updates. After that, its a matter of confirming you want all your PCs updated with the updates. Open WSUS, check the box for the update you want installed on all computers, confirm you want to do it and you're done. All computers get updated.

I don't see how it can really be any easier or secure than that. I'm well aware Zenworks is pretty much the exact same thing and has been since I first had the chance to work with it back in late 99 or early 2000.

One key area.. restarts. I know its an old chestnut but it does have to be said I only need to reboot for a kernel.. You can do most of the SMS thing on Ubuntu with a server as repositories are effectively the same thing as SMS.

I will concede SMS / Active directory does have its plus points but personally I'll just set up my own repo and go that way.