Windows update Vs Ubuntu Update

[Josh]

A few months ago, Steve Ballmer publicly noted that Windows Vista was “a work in progress.” That inspired a predictable outpouring of Vista-bashing. After all, look how many updates Windows Vista has had since it was first released. Obviously, it was a disaster, or there would have been no need for that many updates, right? Why couldn’t Microsoft get it right the first time?

The reality? All modern operating systems used as mainstream business and consumer platforms are “works in progress” and require frequent updates to fix bugs and resolve security issues (and occasionally to add features). Many of those bugs and security issues don’t surface until the code gets deployed widely, and even then it sometimes takes detective work to figure out where the actual problem is. Presumably, the big issues get worked out within a few months, and the pace of updates drops off (but not to zero).

More at Source.

[zridling]

Ed Bott running Linux. Hell froze over again? He should run his Ubuntu VM more often. Not sure why he's rebooting all the time, but I haven't had to reboot in three months of daily use.

The point Ed should have made is that updating the OS more frequently is a good thing. Vista is quite solid with SP1. Too bad that wasn't what Microsoft sold to the consumer in January 2007. That next 15 months was not fun! 

[Josh]

Actually, the point I see from this story is that while people complain about Vista and XP requiring "so many updates", linux requires just as many on a default install. The only difference is linux includes hundreds of smaller applications which can cause security problems while windows only includes a handful of larger applications.

[Edvard]

Yes, I couldn't imagine the horror of one service pack not only updating my OS, but also my Xplorer2, irfanview, FARR, Litestep, PDFCreator, FileZilla, CCleaner, Autohotkey, SnicoEdit, SciTe, MagicISO, Pixia, Locate32, MobyDock, ImageMagick, Ghostscript, WinRoll, etc, ad nauseum (just to name a few...).

 

[Lashiec]

Both Windows and Linux require tons of updates on a monthly basis, either for the operating system, or for the software you use. In the case of Linux, I guess things could be improved if you tailor the distro to your needs.

It would be nice if there was a way to update everything from Windows Update, but in that case, there should be a way to cleanly uninstall any piece of software, since some apps leave many things behind. Mac OS X is a different thing, because its updates are not nearly as frequent, and so, they're fairly bigger, but they also improve things and introduce minor new features, so in a way they can be considered Service Packs.

Also, one thing it's usually forgotten, it's that Windows Update rarely includes hotfixes, the sole reason XP was not perfect for me until SP3.

[Josh]

No hotfixes? Is that not what comes out every 2nd tuesday?

[Lashiec]

Uh, no, what it comes out every Tuesday are security updates mostly (at least on XP). The hotfixes are scattered around Microsoft sites.

[Josh]

Most of the hotfixes dont apply to all systems and a lot of them require you contact MS directly.

[f0dder]

Most of the hotfixes dont apply to all systems and a lot of them require you contact MS directly.

-Josh (July 16, 2008, 12:09 PM)

Which is plain wrong, they should just offer them for download with whatever special warnings they feel they need. Having to contact Microsoft sucks - my best experience was talking with a Swedish MS support guy in Ireland... and that's not something I'd generally classify as a success story.

[Josh]

If they offered them for download with a warning, the warning would be overlooked and they would triple their support calls. I know where I work, we have several special patches made by MS which have no use to the public outside of our environment.

[allen]

Any software that isn't "a work in progress" is considered to be abandonware. Most people ditch applications that aren't in active development (I'm often prone to this as well.).

That said, I wanted to share this--it's 53.6 Megs of absolute wtf?!

SYMPTOMS
In Windows Vista and in Windows Server 2008, when you check the spelling of English language text in an application that uses the English dictionary, all the following words cannot be recognized and are flagged as being misspelled:
Friendster
Klum
Nazr
Obama
Racicot

One example of an application that uses the English dictionary is Windows Mail.

Consider the following example scenario:

You compose an e-mail message in Windows Mail.

In the Options dialog box, on the Spelling tab, under Language, you select English.

You type a word that appears in the previous list.
In this scenario, this word is flagged as being misspelled.

Note This issue also occurs if the application uses the German dictionary.

Seriously... I mean, really. I mean...

WORKAROUND
To work around this issue, add the word to the dictionary. To do this, perform one of the following actions.

Note  These two actions apply to Windows Mail only.

Right-click the flagged word, and then click Add to Dictionary.

Click Add to Dictionary in the Spelling & Grammar dialog box.
When you add the word to the dictionary, the word is added to the Custom.dic dictionary file.

But it's still going to nag me about this update (listed as type: important!) . . . where's the "I applied the workaround button"?

MSN Support Page

[f0dder]

allen: IMHO the problem isn't that you get an update like that (53 megs, though? O_o) - the problem is the fscktarded users that have actually bitched at MS for not including those words in the default dictionaries.

[allen]

My mistake, 56 MB.  I wouldn't be so astonished by the update if not for the size... people are stupid and shit when their spell checker misses some words (words I wouldn't expect to be in there anyway...), Microsoft addresses it. But 56 megs... ungh. Where's the checkbox to indicate "I applied the workaround."