Microsoft Ends Development of Windows Server Update Services

joshuark shares a report: Microsoft has officially announced that Windows Server Update Services (WSUS) is now deprecated, but plans to maintain current functionality and continue publishing updates through the channel. This move isn't surprising, as Microsoft first listed WSUS as one of the "features removed or no longer developed starting with Windows Server 2025" on August 13. In June, the company also revealed that it would also soon deprecate WSUS driver synchronization.

While new features and development for WSUS will cease, Microsoft said today that it plans to continue supporting the service's existing functionality and updates, which will still be distributed, even after deprecation. "Specifically, this means that we are no longer investing in new capabilities, nor are we accepting new feature requests for WSUS," Microsoft's Nir Froimovici said on Friday. "However, we are preserving current functionality and will continue to publish updates through the WSUS channel. We will also support any content already published through the WSUS channel."

Rent seeking

[Tailhook]

The replacement is various "cloud-based" services. Among those, the ones that offer any degree of control over deployment have fees.

Re:

[jmauro]

Not just rent seeking, but actively trying to tie all Windows servers into the Azure infrastructure so the cost of moving to somewhere else will be so high no one will do it. It'll make no sense to the accountants to pay for AWS or Oracle cloud services and then still have to pay Azure to do any server management.

Re:

[arglebargle_xiv]

You're looking at it the wrong way, read it as "Microsoft Promises to Stop Fucking up WSUS Any Further from Here Forward". Now if only they'd do the same for Windows itself.

Re:

[Z00L00K]

To some extent true, and the problem will be when WSUS can't fetch more updates.

However for many large companies the WSUS service is essential for the inner networks that have to be protected from direct internet access at almost any cost, so those systems will have to resort to pure manual patching or go unpatched instead.

Re:

[arglebargle_xiv]

Yeah, it does seem like the sort of critical service that you wouldn't want to discontinue. I wonder if they'll be forced to reverse the decision when they hear from USG agencies who don't want to make their infrastructure dependent on MS cloud services?

and for envs where internet is not directly open?

[Joe_Dragon]

and for envs where internet is not directly open? or limited bandwidth?

Re:

[bill_mcgonigle]

I've set up apt-mirror sites for the this reason; WSUS would fill the same niche.

I guess if the Internet is already firewalled you're at less risk running unpatched Windows. But not against Stuxnet-types.

Microsoft can lose those sites to Linux and still make more money by enslaving the vast majority of sites to subscription-fee updates.

Remember - never make your business wholely reliant on any other single business. They don't care about you.

Re:

[apparently]

and for envs where internet is not directly open? or limited bandwidth?

Presumably, those environments would continue to use wsus since TFS [slashdot.org] made a point of saying that wsus isn't going away.

It was dead to me over 15 years ago

[Yo,dog!]

*nm*

Intune

[pmsr]

It's all about Intune revenue. Much more difficult to setup and manage, but much more profitable to Microsoft.

Please explain

[az-saguaro]

This is a question for the IT experts, as I am not in the industry. My question is based on my observations as an outsider.

Back in the 1990's and into the early 2000's, it seemed to me that MS was the upstart parasite in the "big boys" britches. Windows Server was trying to worm itself into corporate computing, trying to displace Unix and similar systems that had reigned for quite a long time. Rightly or wrongly, sadly or happily, GUI Windows took over in the corporate world, and MS got especially rich h

Re:

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

MS shows no signs of being less interested in corporate IT, if nothing else there's just way too much money there; but they do seem increasingly willing to neglect anyone who can't either be converted into a 'cloud' customer or at least shoved into a 'cloud'-shaped box for the purposes of management and billing(eg. tying "Azure ARC" to being the cheapest way to get extended support for Server 2012R2 or basically ignoring Hyper-V in favor of "Azure Stack" that's basically paying to run Azure stuff on hardwar

Re:

[az-saguaro]

Thank you - very insightful answer. It confirms my non-expert impressions that I get from "reading between the lines" of what the pros talk about here on Slashdot.

Azure Arc?

[Kryptonut]

Anyone know off the top of their head if you can manage the updates for free in Azure Arc?

Re:

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Nope [microsoft.com]. At least not using Azure Update Manager or Azure Policy [microsoft.com] scheduled remediation.

You might well be able to do it for less than the quoted monthly cost by deliberately keeping ARC machines out of the scope of management, as defined for billing purposes for everything but patch Tuesday, and handling the update logic yourself against the REST API, but you'd still get hit for at least a day per server that way; and if you are going to futz with that could probably just enable SSH or powershell remoting an

Re:

[Kryptonut]

In that case, PSWindowsUpdate is probably still the most viable option. It does work well and wouldn't be hard to generate reports using / initiating updates that are decided to be safe. Thanks, given me something to think about.