Microsoft Black Tuesday Patches Bring Blue Screens of Death 179
snydeq (1272828) writes "Two of Microsoft's kernel-mode driver updates — which often cause problems — are triggering a BSOD error message on some Windows systems, InfoWorld reports. 'Details at this point are sparse, but it looks like three different patches from this week's Black Tuesday crop are causing Blue Screens with a Stop 0x50 error on some systems. If you're hitting a BSOD, you can help diagnose the problem (and perhaps prod Microsoft to find a solution) by adding your voice to the Microsoft Answers Forum thread on the subject.'"
Phew. (Score:5, Insightful)
I work in schools, preparing for a huge summer deployment, just re-imaged every PC on-site.
Fortunately, although I pushed the updates out over WSUS, my image was taken BEFORE patch Tuesday. Anything that hasn't been out for a least a month is in beta testing, as far as I'm concerned, and after a month it either "works" (for some definition) or something like this will come to my attention.
Have all the PC's imaged in my rooms, but only have a handful actually deployed at the moment while I test. The very first blue-screen I see, any kernel-mode patch this month will be changed to "Declined" so no further PC's get it.
Yet again, those people who get all stroppy about "you should install updates the SECOND they come out".... real life hits you again. And the downtime from a potential "zero-day" that I'll probably never witeness is nothing compared to potentially rolling out faulty updates to hundreds of PC's that would then have to be re-imaged, and/or having a faulty update inside your images forcing you to reverse changes (in my case, to pre-summer images which is a HUGE step backwards) and re-deploy.
Re:Phew. (Score:5, Insightful)
I've never understood that mentality ... usually I give patches from any vendor a few weeks or more to have a shakedown period.
Let someone else do the beta testing.
I've seen more problems caused by applying fresh steaming patches than I have seen problems solved by it.
Re:The suck, it burns .... (Score:5, Insightful)
Gee, I don't like Micro$oft as much as the next Linux Zealot, but let's be fair here...
M$ is darned if they do and darned if they don't. When they hold up patching stuff they get pillaged in the press for not getting the gaping security holes in their OS fixed soon enough. When they release stuff too soon and stuff like this happens, they get racked over the coals for not knowing what they are doing, cannot develop/test/integrate their software. M$ has ebbed and flowed on the quality of their patches in the past, they've been slow, they've released some really disruptive software. Being fair, they don't do too bad on either responsiveness or on the introduction of new bugs.
So lighten up on Micro$oft, at least on this front. Now Windows 8 metro and removing the 'start' button? Fire away at that garbage....
Re:I just ran an update and don't have any problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh wait, I'm on Linux.
Which distribution? I have had issues with Linux patches too.. Not as often as with Microsoft patches, but problems none the less.
Re:Fortunately there is Linux.... (Score:2, Insightful)
My problem is this: WHO is going to PAY me for my time?
Goddamn, how entitled can you be? How about this question: how much time have you saved by using a computer running Windows to do your job? But, what, you expect Microsoft to shell out your hourly rate every time something on your computer doesn't work right? That must mean that you cut Microsoft a portion of every check you make from working on your Windows machine, right? Or wait, you keep all that money don't you? And Microsoft never expects you to cut them part of your check, do they? It's a one-time fee with a giant agreement saying that they are not 100% perfect, isn't that right?
Now, WHO the hell is going to PAY me for having to spend MY TIME to reply to this crap?
Re:The suck, it burns .... (Score:2, Insightful)
Microsoft has competitors in the OS market???? Uh, no, no they don't. At least nobody that approaches even 1/4 of the market share.
But really the OS market is not Microsoft's primary concern, but a means to an end. There clamp on the market is Office in the corporate environment, which drives Windows to the desktop, both professionally and for home computers. They have no real competitors in either the OS or Office worlds. You might claim Red Hat/Linux has made inroads, but only in the server market.
Yea, I know.. All the Apple zealots are foaming at the mouth now... Sorry, didn't mean to take a swipe at the sacred OSx/IOs cow, but it really doesn't have that large of a market share and most of those systems still run windows on the side...
Re:The suck, it burns .... (Score:2, Insightful)
On the other hand, Apple, Debian and Redhat manage to release timely security patches that don't cause crashing en-masse.
Perhaps, but they have a much smaller market share and support much less diverse hardware configurations, especially Apple.
Re:Fortunately there is Linux.... (Score:4, Insightful)
That's because it broke through normal wear and tear. If someone from Ford came out to your house one night and swapped parts and as a result your formerly running car wouldn't start in the morning, you would certainly be entitled to compensation for your time and trouble as well as a fix fro your car.
Re:Fortunately there is Linux.... (Score:4, Insightful)
If it doesn't work right because of something MS did and they then leave him to fix it, why not?
I'm pretty sure MS insists on being paid for each and every install of Windows.
Since you were perfectly free to not reply at all, you're an unpaid volunteer.
Re:The suck, it burns .... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The suck, it burns .... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, but that is because the developers are now required to test their own code before it goes to testing,
Well that explains things. Apparently prior to this, developers would just deploy their code without ever testing it. No wonder they had so many bugs!
Out in the real world, developers test their code before submitting it to source control. They write unit tests to verify the functionality. QA verifies that the functionality works after that, still finding bugs that weren't obvious to the developers. For example, what happens when you run code on a variety of chipsets. If you're really lucky, a SDE-T might write some of the unit tests for you.
A BSOD that only happens to some people is a great example of something that rigorous QA should catch but that developers are likely to miss. Developer testing is not a replacement for QA. They should be doing both.