Microsoft Releases Replacement Patch With Two Known Bugs 140
snydeq writes Microsoft has re-released its botched MS14-045/KB 2982791 'Blue Screen 0x50' patch, only to introduce more problems, InfoWorld's Woody Leonhard reports. "Even by Microsoft standards, this month's botched Black Tuesday Windows 7/8/8.1 MS14-045 patch hit a new low. The original patch (KB 2982791) is now officially 'expired' and a completely different patch (KB 2993651) offered in its stead; there are barely documented revelations of new problems with old patches; patches that have disappeared; a 'strong' recommendation to manually uninstall a patch that went out via Automatic Update for several days; and an infuriating official explanation that raises serious doubts about Microsoft's ability to support Windows 9's expected rapid update pace."
Oh microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
And people still come up to me and say they can't use free software cause they need enterprise-grade quality
Never useful info given with patches (Score:5, Insightful)
What pisses me off as a consumer is that Microsoft patches never come with any kind of useful information.
"There are X patches available", and when you click a specific patch you get "This is a stability patch for Windows 8" or something generic like that.
How can a consumer make an informed decision to go ahead and install patches or not without hours of looking up KB numbers?
I'd like more info, so that unless a patch specifically fixes a security bug, I'd rather leave the rest of the patches uninstalled as long as my system runs ok.
Re:Oh microsoft (Score:1, Insightful)
How is this insightful? Are links difficult now? (Score:2, Insightful)
You are talking about the short summary in the windows update UI, but there is always a direct link to a Knowledge Base article with much more details.
Are Slashdot posters really unable to follow a direct hyperlink to the information you are after without spending hours on it?? WTF??
Don't know what you are talking about (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps you should give it 3 secs investigation before you shout off.
3 secs should be just enough to click the "more information" link.
Re:Don't know what you are talking about (Score:5, Insightful)
3 secs should be just enough to click the "more information" link.
Every time I have clicked a "more information" link, I have been taken to a completely useless webpage that contains no information about the KB in question.
Re:Don't know what you are talking about (Score:3, Insightful)
Before you get too smug, please explain how clicking on "more information" would help explain the mystery of Windows Update Agent 7.6.7600.320 and all of the associated problems it causes? That's only one example of many over the last couple decades.
There has always been *lots* of holes in the Microsoft KB and explanations of patches. Saying just click on more information implies that Microsoft has documented everything and the OP is simply an idiot and/or lazy. In this case he isn't.
Re:Never useful info given with patches (Score:5, Insightful)
How can a consumer make an informed decision to go ahead and install patches or not without hours of looking up KB numbers?
Consumers don't make such decisions. If you want that level of control over your OS, don't use Windows. This isn't a knock against Windows or anything: it's just part of the closed-source model. You trust them. If they do a good job, then it saved you effort. If they do not, you get burned. That is the trade-off.
I love watching these threads... (Score:2, Insightful)
There are so many ACs who post in response to MS-centric articles. It's almost as if you can feel the shame and terror as you read your way through.
Re:Never useful info given with patches (Score:4, Insightful)
I doubt it's much different in other platforms. Mac OS or Android or Linux. When there is an update, most people don't have the time to carefully go over what it's doing. Nor should they.
When the plumber comes to my house, as he did yesterday, all I care about is that the hot water is coming and the toilets flush. I don't crawl under the sink to see if he properly greased the pipes or whatever the hell it is plumbers do.
I have met people who work for Microsoft and Apple and they are neat and earnest and are by all appearances proper and trustworthy citizens. I've also met people who contribute to open source OSs. They look like the guy who stands on the on-ramp with a sign asking for change. A little bit dangerous with greasy hair and a a psychotic glimmer in the eyes.
I'm kidding of course, and just tweaking people who use Linux (like myself), but as Eclipse (played by Frank McRae) said to Sylvester Stallone upon his imprisonment in the classic American film Lock Up, "You gotta trust somebody. Let me hip you to the joint."
Re:Never useful info given with patches (Score:5, Insightful)
But of course that info should be right there on the windows update window.
It was there in WinXp.
Microsoft seems to think that dumbing down all their user interfaces = the future of computing.
Re:Don't know what you are talking about (Score:2, Insightful)
I just ran updates on my Win7 box because of this comment, and I can verify this: The more information link does NOT take you to a related KB article. In fact three of the links timed out, the rest went to pages with zero information about what the update did, and no further information can be found.
I can, however, Google the patch to find the exact KB article I need. There is no way to find that page from any line of clicking that starts from Windows Update though.
Re:Oh microsoft (Score:4, Insightful)
What enterprise-grade quality?
Software from a billion dollar plus company, which required a PO large enough to justify firing the person who approved it, not just the one who implemented it.
If MS F's up, you can blame them as they yell at you to fix it. If your cobbled together, zero budget, but works 99% of the time solution fails, then it is 100% on you.
It is completely unfair, but that's the way it is. If the Oracle DB blows up in a patch, you can point to not having a 2nd instance to use as a test system. The finance guys can point to the lack of an extra $100k to spend on a test system and the CEO can blame Oracle/budget to the board.
If the same issue occurs on mysql, everyone points at you and you alone, since you could have just set up a second system for cheap - never mind that that would double the admin/patch/test time with no corresponding increase in headcount.
Pendants: This is done in serial, not parallel, otherwise you are not staging it properly to test it.