Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Journal mschuyler's Journal: Are Updates Critical? 2

Yeah, I know this is /., but I live in a Windows-centric world and come here for fresh air. I have recently come across an attitide by some Techs that suggests performing updates on Windows machines is an utter waste of time and causes more problems than it is worth. This conflicts with my firm's 'Best Practices' which suggests that all updates, whether critical or not, are to be implemented as soon as possible. I certainly agree that it is a pain in the behind to do, even when 'automated,' but I must say I have not experienced updates causing very many problems in real life. It's happened once or twice, usually with esoteric and expensive software on a dedicated server, but it certainly is not pervasive. As I remember, the last security audit we had looked at this issue. Since we do them right now, it wasn't an issue and didn't come up in the discussions. So my question is, what do you all think about this? Thanks.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Are Updates Critical?

Comments Filter:
  • Updates, particularly when we're dealing with MS, are always critical. Granted, Service Packs have a habit of disabling some software, and other troubles can occur, but those instances a) tend to be in the minority, and b) are easier to deal with than getting your shit hacked.

    Besides, if a particular update does cause problems, you can always roll back and re-evaluate.
  • if update X2 relies on update X1 which you haven't applied and you need to X2 to fix an important (security) issue?

    Then you have to test X1 and X2 and roll it all out.

"From there to here, from here to there, funny things are everywhere." -- Dr. Seuss