Updating Tool for Sysadmins

I wanted to take a second and point out a tool that I install on every network that I build, so that I can centralize my patch management. It's called Microsoft Software Update Services, and it runs on Windows 2000 Server and Windows Server 2003. It allows me to synch up local patch copies with MS' public server, and lets me redirect all machines on my network to pull Automatic Updates from my local updates server, instead of MS' public server. This way they can only automatically install updates that I have tested and approved.

IMHO every network administrator should be running this tool. It pretty much negates the points in Jerry Dehanney's IT manager rant. In this scenario, it would have taken less than 4 hours to test, plan, and deploy it... which is how long it took me to do so. Granted, I don't have the FDA breathing down my neck, but with SUS it hardly would have taken three weeks.

4 Comments

  • You and the others totally missed the point of Jerry's rant (and its spelled Dennany). Its NOT that the deployment necessarily took too long, it is that the legally required documentation of the testing that must cover in detail every possible thing affected can take a very very long time. Also, like it or not, someone like Jerry usually has other things on his plate as well.



    Don't get me wrong, I totally agree that most of the problems are due to sloppiness, whether it be users, sysadmins, or developers. But Jerry was simply pointing out that some people live in a world with more legal restriction than you can possibly imagine, so its simply not always a case of sloppiness. So you are wrong -- SUS has nothing to do with the issue since its not the deployment thats the problem in this type of case.

  • If that were the case, then why did he only mention it at the end? It seemed to me the point was the part in red where he said "60,000 nodes". If that was not his point, then maybe he shouldn't have put it in red.

  • My recommendation is to quit reading and posting so fast then -- you clearly are trying to achieve some super high numbers with little quality. I'm not claiming my posts are always of high quality either, but at least I keep the noise level down by not posting so many low quality posts. Nothing personal, we're all trying to figure out this blogging thing, but you are definitely posting way too much that simply says me too and look at me. Feel free to critique me too -- I know I've had some look at me posts too.

  • I re-read his post 3 times, and I respectfully disagree. I'm sorry you felt the post was low-quality... you are free to your own opinion. I know at least one person who was helped by my post, so it was not low-quality to me or that person. Thank you for taking the timne to comment.

Comments have been disabled for this content.