Typical Windows User Patches Every 5 Days 388
CWmike writes "The typical home user running Windows faces the 'unreasonable' task of patching software an average of every five days, security research company Secunia said on Thursday. 'It's completely unreasonable to expect users to master so many different patch mechanisms and spend so much time patching,' said Thomas Kristensen, the company's CSO. The result: Few consumers devote the time and attention necessary to stay atop the patching job, which leaves them open to attack. Secunia says that of the users who ran the company's Personal Software Inspector in the last week of January, half had 66 or more programs from 22 or more different vendors on their machines. ... Secunia has published a white paper (PDF) that details its findings."
Seems about right (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Lately? I was just about to say it's been nearly every day for years.
Of course, that includes non-security updates, too, but it checks every damn time you log in. The option is to turn it off completely? That's no good, either.
Re: (Score:2)
How many different mechanisms is that? TFA indicated it's 22 different ones for Windows users. Let's see, there's apt, and then Firefox, so there's 20 to go...
Re: (Score:2)
Is there a big downside risk to letting apt update by itself? It requires superuser access and given how frequently I am inclined to run it, I can see situations where a user without su priveledges might still want updates flowing.
Re:Seems about right (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
On a friend Vista system I've had to deal with updates that twice prevented Windows from loading even in safe mode. The best one though was the update required to Windows update which it couldn't install because it wasn't updated. Luckily updating to service pack 2 messed up the system enough for a reinstall to be required.
Re:Seems about right (Score:5, Insightful)
Patches breaking things is a big deal. Nothing will convince users to never allow updates faster than having one break their system when they desperately need it to be working.
A close second is having MS sneak in user hostile changes under the guise of a critical security update. That makes it impossible to even convince users to "risk it" even for the really important updates.
Though even in the case of Debian, I'm a bit too paranoid to do updates by cron job, it's good enough that if I don't see any rending of garments on debian-security, I presume it's safe enough to try on one system. If nothing bad happens, the rest get updated right away.
Re:Seems about right (Score:4, Informative)
After using Linux I don't understand how Windows users put up with the Microsoft updates that frequently fail to install, sometimes require multiple reboots and then still needing to update everything else manually.
Because none of those things are particularly accurate ?
Re:Seems about right (Score:4, Informative)
2. Multiple reboots: Install Windows XP (without any service packs) and try updating. Count the number of reboots. Try a similar test on any Linux distro (pick a CD as old as you want), notice how you only need to reboot once to have all of the updates apply.
3. Still needing to update anything else manually: Turn on a computer with Windows that hasn't been used in a year. Install all updates. Now go here: http://www.filehippo.com/updatechecker/ [filehippo.com]. Notice how many installers you need to download and run manually. Start up any arbitrarily old Linux distro and run an update. Notice how everything is up to date (note: By default, most distros don't give you the newest version of most software, but this is intentional and can be worked around by using a distro that doesn't suck).
Re:Seems about right (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
1. What OS? It's impossible to diagnose the reason for your anecdote without more specifics. Frankly, it sounds like his laptop is infected and yours had updates that were old enough to be superceded (XP I believe would sometimes fail an update that wasn't needed because of another update.)
2. Installing Windows XP without any service packs is as silly as installing Ubuntu 4.10 (notice that this is four years after Windows XP came out).. Actually, try installing Ubuntu 4.10 and see how many reboots it takes.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
After using Linux I don't understand how Windows users put up with the Microsoft updates that frequently fail to install, sometimes require multiple reboots and then still needing to update everything else manually.
Because none of those things are particularly accurate ?
http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en/sqlexpress/thread/c7d0a234-763b-4f9c-b7ec-3a40df6340a8 [microsoft.com] /value Resume /type dword /data 0 /value Re
Here's the fix, the only way I've gotten this to work. And we've got a lot of machines with Visual Studio where "Everything" was selected (and is actually used), so updating SQL Express is a good idea:
reg add "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL.1\Setup"
reg add "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL.2\Setup"
Re:Seems about right (Score:4, Informative)
What?
Ubuntu (9.10 or 8.04) has constant updates and approximately once a month a kernel fix, which require a reboot. Some other patches has gotten my system into a state which require[1] reboot. You really need to pay attention much more often than "once every 6 months".
[1] The easiest and fastest option.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
yeah, it is different. You only run the updater for one product.
You run one for every single thing on your pc unless you use one a software manager and you still have to run downloads/etc when that comes around.
An ubuntu trivial fix will be trivial in space. Meanwhile a non-trivial fix will still only take you 1 update process.
sucks to be support (Score:4, Interesting)
Since we have a "few" computers all around the house, it's pretty much every time I sit down to one I have to apply patches, and usually a reboot to boot. Sometimes, it's a rarely used computer that I grab (laptop) just to get a few quick things done, and it requires multiple iterations of patches and reboots. Sigh.
I find it exasperating that my experience is almost always, "apply these patches", and then you can do some work with Windows. The good news (for me), I'm finally migrating EVERYTHING (as in replacing with) Macs and Linux. Time and money, that's all it takes.
Interestingly the other day... I got in and was productive immediately on a Windows laptop. Wow! C'est vrai? And when I went to shut it down? "Please do not power down your computer. Windows is installing (3 of 10...) updates..." WTH?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And if you have to patch BEFORE you start working, then that's bad, but if you have to patch when you shut down instead,
Re:sucks to be support (Score:5, Interesting)
And if you have to patch BEFORE you start working, then that's bad, but if you have to patch when you shut down instead, that's bad too. When should these updates happen, ideally?
I'd say a hell of a lot less frequently than once a week! Ideally, you should be able to tell the PC "download and install updates on shutdown" and when you shut it down, the computer downloads and installs the patches you select, then shuts down.
Better yet, it should be like Linux -- you only have to reboot if there's there's an update to the kernel.
Re:sucks to be support (Score:4, Insightful)
"Ideally, you should be able to tell the PC "download and install updates on shutdown" and when you shut it down, the computer downloads and installs the patches you select, then shuts down."
Start->Control Panel->Security Center->Automatic updates->Download updates for me, but let me choose when to install them.
Everytime you're shutting down use start->turn off computer (it'll have a little security center icon if there's updates). It'll install the updates then shut down.
Windows XP Service Pack 3.
Re:sucks to be support (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Usually when I shut down, I'm taking my laptop somewhere else and often running late.
........why wouldn't you just put it to sleep or hibernate it? I only ever do a shut down / reboot on my Windows 7 systems when it's absolutely necessary, which is maybe once a month.
Re:sucks to be support (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, that's bollocks. You have one "reference" from 2003 that refers to minimum RAM required for XP as 250Mb and one that's just some guy posting a Hijackthis log and saying svchost is "making his PC run slow".
I've got a Win 7 x64 Desktop and a Win 7 x86 Laptop; the laptop hibernates at least twice daily and I never have any problems with it waking at all, nor with file system corruption, the desktop currently has 12 days of uptime (new hardware install a couple of weeks ago, it usually runs for a month or two between critical updates) and my svchost currently stands at 350Mb across 11 processes, most of which is the Desktop Window Manager.
Some shitty hardware (a lot of 3G cards for some reason) won't work after hibernating, but I've had that happen under both Windows & Linux, Oh, and Fedora refused to reconnect any of my mounted network shares after hibernating, so I guess Linux has its problems too.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Wrong. In Windows 7 (and probably Vista too) there is a service called Desktop Window Manager Session Manager that sucks up around 100mb of RAM. You can right-click on svchost.exe in the Task Manager and click Go To Services to see which services are running under that particular instance of svchost.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I find it exasperating that my experience is almost always, "apply these patches", and then you can do some work with Windows. The good news (for me), I'm finally migrating EVERYTHING (as in replacing with) Macs and Linux. Time and money, that's all it takes.
Enjoy the brief respite while it lasts. My OSX box seems to want patches to be installed at least every couple of weeks. Even the Ubuntu server that I have in production seems to want an occasional reboot due to patch related processes.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, good plan there. 'cause other operating systems NEVER get patches. Nor does any of the software installed on it. Oh, hang on. Something just popped up. Microsoft AutoUpdate says there's a patch for Office. BRB. Dangit. Now there's like 3 more for various parts of CS4. And now 5 updates for OSX. CyberDuck says there's a new version. Firefox is installing updates.
Um...You might want to come back later. This is going to take a while.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Like I always say, Windows is cheap if your time is worth nothing.
QQ (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm the guy in our household responsible for applying our patches, being an IT professional and all.
Since we have a "few" computers all around the house, it's pretty much every time I sit down to one I have to apply patches, and usually a reboot to boot. Sometimes, it's a rarely used computer that I grab (laptop) just to get a few quick things done, and it requires multiple iterations of patches and reboots. Sigh.
I'm the guy in our household responsible for applying our patches, being an part time Web Developer and all.
Since we have a "few" computers all around the house, I just set Windows Update to download and notify me when updates are available. Providing me convienence and still retaining the ability to opt to not to install a patch.
Since Win7 got installed on my desktop I rarely have to restart for 99.9% of all day to day tasks, but when something out of left field like patch time comes it's increased speed to the login screen makes it much seem less of a chore having to wait 5 minutes while my PC is being updated.
And on my gf's laptop with Vista the reboots are slightly more often and and take a little longer.
But then again I'm on the computer 12 hours out of the day, so 5-10 mins once a week for maintenance really seems to be a non issue.
Re: (Score:2)
why is it so unreasonable? (Score:5, Insightful)
patching for Windows is largely automated...
Heck, my Linux has patches every day and I kinda see that as a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If you use the computer every day it is not, however if you only turn it on every week or two (like my mother) then expect 30minutes of prompts for different updates!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:why is it so unreasonable? (Score:5, Insightful)
The real issue is that Windows doesn't have a centralized update mechanism. Quite frankly the ISV's resisted the idea as they didn't want to have anything seem like Microsoft controlled it. More and more I am leaning towards the belief that Microsoft needs to build a centralized update service and allow ISV's to opt in to it. After they realize they can post their updates without being metered or anything by Microsoft they will find that they don't have to build custom updaters, write services to do it so that they don't have UAC prompts for patches, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In my experience the issue isn't with the Windows OS, but all of the applications. On my boxes I have Java wanting an update and Adobe products wanting updates. Firefox seems to want an update pretty frequently. The anti-virus starts to cry if it hasn't been updated lately. I think the point the report is making is that just about every application these days has its own update frequency. You can't manage non-Microsoft patches with WSUS. Even a product like SMS (or whatever they are calling it these d
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
By and large, patches are a good thing, unless and until they prevent you from getting work done on the machine. Then they become a pain.
I was constantly frustrated and annoyed by the simple fact that Windows lacks a centralized update system that is open for everyone to use. It's got automated updating, sure, but it's a series of individual solutions per vendor and everyone solves the problem in different ways. And either there's an always-running app in the background (of which I had 15-20 at any given
Re:why is it so unreasonable? (Score:4, Insightful)
patching for Windows is largely automated...
When I first installed XP, I set it to "automatic update" and the next day I couldn't get on the internet. Microsoft had replaced my perfectly good network driver with one that didn't work at all. So much for automation; from then on I had it download automatically but installed myself.
And as a Linux user, you're fortunate (OK, smart) to not have to reboot the damned computer five times for every update. You only have to reboot when the kernel gets patched, so patches don't get in your way very often.
Seems to be automatic (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Seems to be automatic (Score:5, Insightful)
The real problem in Windows is that all of these software packages have their own independent (and potentially broken) update mechanisms. One thing that modern Linux distros get right is centralized software updates. My Ubuntu laptop has a dialog box waiting for me most mornings that details any software updates it would like to install, and whether or not they are security related. I could tell it to do it all automatically but I like reviewing the changes before I install them.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But, if everyone used Windows Updates (they can), how could they flog their extra crap? Apple's updater plugs Safari 4 every bloody time. Adobe wants me to install mcafee and other shit. Google has 2 seperate updaters for Talk and the toolbar....
Of all the updating shit, Windows seems to do it the best. If you leave your PC on all the time, it'll do its update some sunday night at 3am. Otherwise, every week or so the shutdown procedure takes an extra minute. BFD.
Re:Seems to be automatic (Score:4, Interesting)
Most programs do have such update features. The question is more how well they work.
When people bring me computers needing a tuneup, usually they have Adobe Reader 8.1.0, Java 1.6.5 to 15 (not 18, the newest), and Flash 10.x (Congrats, Flash. Now if only you had less vulnerabilities)
This is despite them having auto-updaters. Multiple reboots leads to no prompts. Why aren't the updaters working? No idea - at first.
At that point I'll check winver and note it's an XP SP2 machine. After updating to XP SP3, suddenly they all work.
If anyone is having issues managing updates, you might be interested in something like this: http://www.filehippo.com/updatechecker/ [filehippo.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Funny--my Firefox updates when I start it up, my Flash and Java and Adobe Reader update essentially on their own, and Windows updates when I shut it down...Steam updates on its own...Trillian and uTorrent give me a button to push to update them...I'm pretty much a power user, but I've never been prompted to update something that was remotely confusing. As long as things that need updating have an easy button to push to do it for you, I'm happy--extra bonus points if there's a checkbox in the installer to choose between "update automatically" and "prompt annoyingly when an update is available"
Yeah, i really don't see the issue here. The article makes it seem like the act of "patching" involves *any* work at all, but I generally just need to click "ok" unless its set to automatic. I never really have to do anything. I don't see it as "the user has to patch the machine", I see it as "the machine patches itself" every few days, which doesn't sound nearly as bad.
Seems like the article is just FUD.
-Taylor
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, "frequency of patches" is a useless metric. "How much time the user loses to software patching" would have made far more sense.
Developer PROTIP: Unless you've fixed a huge, critical issue, just silently update your program the next time it's shut down. Don't notify me about regular updates, and don't make me manually check for them - I'll forget. And whatever you do, don't make your updater load every time I start my computer.
Re:Seems to be automatic (Score:4, Insightful)
Developer PROTIP: Unless you've fixed a huge, critical issue, just silently update your program the next time it's shut down. Don't notify me about regular updates, and don't make me manually check for them
Unless you're Microsoft... or Apple... If you're a major software vendor, don't even think about silently modifying your programs without letting the users know. Doing so would otherwise invoke the scorn and wrath of the /. community and other like minded, control freak zealots who see conspiracies behind every action.
Re: (Score:2)
my Firefox updates when I start it up, my Flash and Java and Adobe Reader update essentially on their own, and Windows updates when I shut it down...Steam updates on its own...Trillian and uTorrent give me a button to push to update them
So that's 8 'auto-updaters' on your machine. How many resident update/callhome processes would you want to have your average user running? 10? 12? 20? Atleast you use Trillian, some people use both AOL/yahoo/skype IM clients...
Re: (Score:2)
microsoft already extends the Microsoft Update system to their own apps, as well as 3rd party drivers, why can't they further extend it to 3rd party APPS!
It's not confusing, it's infuriating...
I would suppose that it comes down to time. Microsoft already has a terrible reputation for responding to security issues 'in a timely manner'. Can you imagine the can of worms they'd be opening if they offered a centralized mechanism to patch non-MS applications? Beyond the time required to receive the patch from
Ignorant Haters (Score:2, Insightful)
Why just Windows? (Score:4, Informative)
By those standards I'd say MS is doing one hell of a fine job.
Re: (Score:2)
Just wait till you install Twidroid! You'll be updating multiple times a day then :)
Re: (Score:2)
Pandora's jar was opened as soon as always-online systems became the norm. Software producers can ship code that has been less throughly tested, knowing they can patch or send out an update if they find something. Even console games, the once most ironclad software 4th only to military, medical, and flight software, now ships expecting patches to be available by the time the user gets it installed.
The good news is we get software more quickly. The bad news is we get software more quickly.
Luckily, the auto-u
But if they just buy our software (Score:5, Insightful)
We can manage all those patches for them!
Seriously, that is what this looks like to me. It is a load of bullshit over all. Reason being that few things actually need patches for security reasons. The OS, virus scanner, browser, browser plugins and so on sure. However a videogame? No probably not. Well guess what? Turns out most of the stuff that needs patching, patches itself. Windows downloads patches and applies them in the middle of the night. Firefox grabs new versions when you surf, and installs next time it starts up. Virus scanners update silently in the background all the time.
If people actually had to spend time managing patches on all their apps, sure ti might be a problem. However for the most part that isn't the case. In the default config most important apps update themselves.
So... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
the point is that Ubuntu uses one mechanism to provide updates for *all* the software you have installed, as long as you stick to the Ubuntu repos, as is heavily advised and encouraged on all Linux distributions. Windows Update gets you updates to Windows itself, and a few Microsoft applications. For all other applications, you have to use a different mechanism in each individual app, or else you're vulnerable.
(This is an excellent answer to the typical 'why can't I just double-click on an .exe file?!' whin
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is an excellent answer to the typical 'why can't I just double-click on an .exe file?!' whine about Linux software installation, BTW.
Yes. OS X and Windows desktop market share illustrate why binary installers that work across years of operating system releases are dumb.
Until the Linux community can get together and hash the installer problem out, you're not only locking out larger developers, but smaller ones as well. Pretending that this isn't a problem is not a solution.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It is not a problem. Provide source and do not worry about it, or deal with the costs of closed source software.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Verify that the OS we're running on is a supported one (RHEL or CentOS)
This is what I'm talking about. You're just fragmenting "Linux" into a few hundred operating systems.
Customer: Do you support Linux?
Dice: Yep!
Customer: Excellent! Where's the apt-get repository?
Dice: Oh, I mean we support RHEL and CentOS.
Customer: *dialtone*
Re: (Score:2)
as long as you stick to the Ubuntu repos, as is heavily advised and encouraged on all Linux distributions.
I think using Ubuntu repositories on a Gentoo box would be discouraged.
But I guess your post can also be parsed in a different way (if you ignore the bits between the commas):
one mechanism to provide updates for *all* the software you have installed... as is heavily advised and encouraged on all Linux distributions.
Re: (Score:2)
Sylpheed tried to update itself and I said no. The I went to synaptic and looked for the version sylpheed was going to update too and it wasn't there. I suppose some users would accept the update from the application to get a version not available in the repositories.
Re: (Score:2)
apt-get update
apt-get upgrade
Done!
With Windows I have to keep feeds in Google Reader for apps that don't automatically update so I can go to their individual sites, download the newest installers, run them, change the install paths since they were poorly coded and forgot it, do the same with the start menu shortcuts path, uncheck the options to install spyware, toolbars, and change my search page, and finally I can let it do its thing, but I have to go back to close it later. Then for installers that don't
Unreasonable? (Score:2)
This just sounds like someone trying to stir up trouble to get attention. Patching is part of life. It is not a pain, it is about as easy of a task as you can have, most home users don't even know they do it.
Re: (Score:2)
The unreasonable bit is that the "automatic update button" only affects windows updates. Other software handles the update process on its own, imo improperly, because application updates (except for MS applicatiosn) are not integrated into the auto updates.
Linux is the only one that gets this right, and even there only partially: many proprietary third-party applications simply aren't in the repositories. There really doesn't seem to be a "updates only" repo for any OS, as buy-in would still be difficult
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On the up side it would give the haters something else to bitch and moan about. Then we could read articles about MS's "gestapo patch review process", or something similar. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Repos in Linux are not just collections of software- they're a store of trust.
You can (should?) trust that they won't break other programs, they won't install malware.
That is impossible in the Closed source model, really.
(unless you have differnet users for each app, and lock down each install directory?)
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't know you could add Adobe and Blackberry updates to WSUS, incredible!
I'm amazed that it's only every 5 days (Score:2)
Honestly, I would be happy if I could use my Windows system for five days without getting a notice to update something. Between Flash, Firefox, Windows Update, and my AntiVirus software, I must see an update notification every 2 days or so!
Not that Linux or Mac users should be gloating... The software update systems in Fedora and Mac OS X are almost as obnoxious.
Linux (Fedora 12) has patches, too. (Score:2)
Linux (Fedora 12) has patches, too. I patch my systems probably twice weekly.
Couldn't be more correct! (Score:4, Insightful)
Last year I bought for my mother a new computer, she is quite computer literate but I was shocked to find 3 months after purchasing that she has gotten into the habit of turning it on once a week just to give it an hour to "update itself". That was to allow her to spend 30mins every other week doing her online stuff..
I literally couldn't or didn't believe it, but then I actually was there one day and watched as all the mostly default installed apps when through their motions of requesting updates. It literally took about half an hour before to computer was usable without something prompting "Do you want to install this update..."!
In the end I removed some of the crap like Java and the HP printer updater, and told her to turn it on only ever other week for the updates!
Definitely there is some need to consolidate updates into one program..
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe she needs to connect on something faster than dial-up.
Err, just so you know it is a 10mbit broadband.
In other words it's not the downloading of the patches that is the slow part it's the 15 different apps attempting to update when they are first used or actually a program that depends on a program that depends on a program that depends on them is used.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Patching holes in the Titanic (Score:2)
I'm a typical home user (Score:3, Interesting)
and I surely do not experience that amount of 'patching.' I also think updating virus signatures shouldn't be considered a 'patch' per se. Those are essentially database records, not bug fixes. Windows gives me updates about once per month. Once in awhile I get an Adobe or a Java update, but the total is nowhere near what these guys are saying.
Re: (Score:2)
and I surely do not experience that amount of 'patching.' I also think updating virus signatures shouldn't be considered a 'patch' per se.
I'm with you. I don't know if I'm a "typical" home user, but close enough. If I don't include Windows Defender updates, or anti-virus definitions updates, I get maybe a half-dozen patches a month, with most of those delivered automatically through windows update. Flash isn't updated often, my browser isn't updated often, my games aren't updated often... pretty much *nothing* on my computer is updated as often as the OS.
The problem is... (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem, in my opinion, is the fact that patches, particularly Windows Updates, have a track record of breaking things. This leads to a conundrum...automatically update and risk mysterious breakage, or manually update and risk falling behind and being insecure. If you want to make patching less onerous, the first step is to make it as reliable as possible, and then a larger percentage of users will trust automatic updates.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Have any examples of a Windows Update "breaking things"?
Sure...have at it [lmgtfy.com].
Re: (Score:2)
so what? (Score:2, Insightful)
not a 7-day span goes by without ubuntu patches it seems.
it would be better if everything would be more like apple? just ignore problems for months at a time then release large patch sets?
what the world needs now is another "security expert" interpreting useless data.
Re: (Score:2)
But those are package patches most of the time. Are you actually using those packages?
In my case, my most recent batch had a few CUPS updates. If I was retentive about it I'd have removed that whole package from my laptop a while ago since it does not now, nor will in the forseeable future, have a printer attached to it.
Difference in update methods not number of updates (Score:2, Informative)
I think the difference is that with Windows, you have to install updates from Microsoft via one method, updates to Adobe software via another method, updates to Firefox by another method. Lots of things for the user to learn, there isn't just a click one thing and it updates everything.
My Linux box on the other hand, does have quite a few updates, and requires updating often, but, it's just one interface to update everything, including from third party vendors (i.e. Adobe)
Re: (Score:2)
What's REALLY annoying is when Adobe is in the middle of updating and Windows reboots to do ITS update, messing up Adobe's.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If Linux ever gets a strong software presence, it will have the same issues.
In Big-O notation, repositories scale linearly with the number of developers making demands of it. Double the number of developers and you've doubled the workload for the maintainers of the repository. The Linux ecosystem needs to double about 15 times (pulled that out of my ass, 32768x) to be comparable in scale with the Windows ecosystem.
Are the Linux repositories prepared for
That number includes all application patches... (Score:2, Interesting)
Reboot Patches (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't really mind patches. They are usually quiet and seamless, working in the background and not interfering with my work.
The real killers are the updates that require a reboot, and these seem to be on the rise of late. Even worse, these are typically for software that I do not use (IE, Windows Media Player, etc.), but I am required to interrupt my work to reboot my machine so that I can be "secure".
But most are WoW Addon patches! (Score:2)
World of Warcraft Addons get updated at an insane rate, almost as insane as the rate at which a new WoW update patch breaks many of them.
running windows "commando" (Score:2, Interesting)
A friend of mine, runs his PC "commando": no virus software, no firewall, no patches, nothing. He's non-technical and assumes he is going to get a virus no matter what he does and it's just a waste of time pricking around with all that stuff, so he just reinstalls Windows about once every two months when it starts running slow from the viruses. Well, it's a daring tactic, but it seems to work for him.
that's it? (Score:2)
The typical home user running Windows faces the 'unreasonable' task of patching software an average of every five days
Only once every five days? That seems rather mild to me...
Between Windows, Firefox, Office, Java, Adobe Reader, my antivirus, VLC, Pidgin, VirtualBox, EVE, Songbird, and Steam it seems like I'm patching something on a daily basis. And that's just my home machine.
Throw in the fileserver at home... My workstation at the office... My work netbook... And the assortment of servers I'm responsible for... And I'm definitely patching something on a daily basis.
Computers exist to serve people! Not the reverse. (Score:5, Insightful)
Windows can patch itself to hell. Firefox and Adobe too, for all I care -
AS LONG AS THEY DON'T INTERRUPT, STEAL MY FOCUS, PUT UP CRAP ERROR MESSAGES OR REBOOT WITHOUT ASKING!
There's a portable at home I open only on weekends. Want to guess what happens for the first 30 minutes after I turn it on? Yup. An unusable computer that's *updating* itself. Java. Adobe. Firefox. Firefox *add-ins", Windows, and possibly, the current timeline in which I exist.
Needless to say, ALL of these want me to agree/disagree, actually *view* their updates, click a modal dialog, or reboot - repeatedly. I really don't care if updates have to happen, BUT KEEP THEM OUT OF MY FACE.
And don't slow the computer to a crawl. If the update takes all day, do I care? Not if it doesn't interfere with me.
Computers exist to serve ME. Make the computer wait, NOT ME!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Get a Mac! (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, because it's completely reasonable that the *monthly* patches my Mac at work gets 95% of the time require a restart. Why do iTunes or Safari need the system to be restarted? I'm only forced to reboot my Win7 machine due to patches... Hmm, I think once in the time I've had it.
And OS X requires me to put in my password in order to install patches, so it can't patch unattended, or in the background. It's a choice between delaying my work or delaying the patch. Most people are going to pick "delaying the patch," especially if they've got anything open. And that's how security starts to fall apart.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
OSX requires you to put your admin password in. It's called security.
I know *why* it does that, thanks. My point was that it's not an unattended process. You can't set your machine to update overnight, because it needs your password before it'll install updates. You can't do it at the very end of the day, because it reboots, not "shutdown, and then finish on next start." So you'd have to wait around until it finishes, so you can properly shut down your system. That leaves the start of the day, or else you're interrupting your workflow. And the start of the day delays you get
Re: (Score:2)
I usually get weekly batches of stuff for my ubuntu box, BUT the converse is most of it is for stuff from the default installation that I haven't bothered removing (or shouldn't have installed in the first place).
For example, today I saw CUPS had about 3-4 various package updates, but I don't have a printer attached to my laptop at all in any way.