From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0113_01C2C89E.DEA4B780
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   I answered this earlier.  If you create a new complete install you =
must test a new complete install.  This is non-trivial.  Now I see you =
want to add a whole new mode of install.  That would be even more = testing
and worse, I don't think that that adds any value as at best it = would be
functionally equivalent to the service pack install, which = requires its
own testing.

   I do verify that some fixes are installed.  I don't verify them all =
because I've never had a problem with the ones I have verified.

Rich

  "Geo."  wrote in message =
news:3e39ecfc$1{at}w3.nls.net...
  "Rich"  wrote in message news:3e38c26d$1{at}w3.nls.net...

  >   For other reasons, I think it is impractical.  You expect a full =
release
  for any update.  This is a good way to discourage any software vendor =
from
  making releases.  The testing effort is enormous.<

  What's to test, it's a patched version, it's not expected to be any =
more
  stable than the full version after you apply patches.

  But perhaps MS could learn something here from the free software =
community.
  The testing should be continuous and the improvement should be there =
in
  every new build. Granted a security patch may introduce a new bug but =
the
  release should also contain the mods for the 22 other bugs that were =
fixed
  since the last iso.

  What you do is a monthly build, all month long they run it internally =
then
  release it just like they do with beta builds to beta testers, except
  instead of trying to tightly control distribution you promote everyone =
to
  share their copies with everyone else running the same version (just =
like
  security patches can be shared, it will save bandwidth by not =
requireing
  everyone to download).

  Now before you go off on the copying issues involved consider =
something,
  consider a thousand people who run an illegal copy of NT and consider =
the
  same thousand people running linux instead. Which is worse for MS?

  >>   Back to the selfish reasons, I do not want to do full product =
installs.
  Updates are very easy in comparison.  <<

  I believe I specified in the previous post that there should be a =
"patch"
  mode install, where all it does is check version numbers on all =
installed
  files and just replaces the ones that need replaced. Might take a =
little
  longer than a single hotfix but probably be faster than applying half =
a
  dozen hotfixes.. certainly less labor intensive than applying 6 =
hotfixes.

  >>Also, unlike you, I don't have problems building an up to date =
system from
  scratch.

  I  bet you do but you just don't know it. Have you ever taken the time =
to
  verify that all the hotfixes are actually installed and that you are =
in fact
  running the latest versions of all the files they replace? Trusting =
windows
  update doesn't mean you are really up to date. It just means the right
  entries are in your registry.

  >>   Finally, we've already discussed that you can build your own =
integrated
  installs for Windows including service packs and hotfixes.<<

  My building my own installs isn't going to protect the internet from =
old
  exploitable software being installed daily because the people =
installing it
  can't get the current build on CD.

  Geo.


------=_NextPart_000_0113_01C2C89E.DEA4B780
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








   I answered this =
earlier.  If you=20
create a new complete install you must test a new complete =
install.  This=20
is non-trivial.  Now I see you want to add a whole new mode of=20
install.  That would be even more testing and worse, I don't think
= that=20
that adds any value as at best it would be functionally equivalent to = the=20
service pack install, which requires its own testing.
 
   I do
verify that some =
fixes are=20
installed.  I don't verify them all because I've never had a =
problem with=20
the ones I have verified.
 
Rich
 

  "Geo." <georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>
wrote=20
  in message news:3e39ecfc$1{at}w3.nls.net..."Rich"=20
  <{at}> wrote in message news:3e38c26d$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
>  =20
  For other reasons, I think it is impractical.  You expect a full=20
  releasefor any update.  This is a good way to discourage any =
software=20
  vendor frommaking releases.  The testing effort is=20
  enormous.<What's to test, it's a patched
version, it's not =
expected=20
  to be any morestable than the full version after you apply=20
  patches.But perhaps MS could learn something here from the =
free=20
  software community.The testing should be continuous and the =
improvement=20
  should be there inevery new build. Granted a security patch may =
introduce=20
  a new bug but therelease should also contain the mods for the 22 =
other=20
  bugs that were fixedsince the last iso.What
you do is a =
monthly=20
  build, all month long they run it internally thenrelease it just =
like they=20
  do with beta builds to beta testers, exceptinstead of trying to =
tightly=20
  control distribution you promote everyone toshare their copies =
with=20
  everyone else running the same version (just likesecurity patches =
can be=20
  shared, it will save bandwidth by not requireingeveryone to=20
  download).Now before you go off on the copying issues
involved =

  consider something,consider a thousand people who run an illegal =
copy of=20
  NT and consider thesame thousand people running linux instead. =
Which is=20
  worse for MS?>>  
Back to the selfish reasons, =
I do=20
  not want to do full product installs.Updates are very easy in=20
  comparison.  <<I believe I
specified in the =
previous post=20
  that there should be a "patch"mode install, where all
it does is =
check=20
  version numbers on all installedfiles and just replaces the ones =
that need=20
  replaced. Might take a littlelonger than a single hotfix but =
probably be=20
  faster than applying half adozen hotfixes.. certainly less labor =
intensive=20
  than applying 6 hotfixes.>>Also, unlike
you, I don't =
have=20
  problems building an up to date system
fromscratch.I  =
bet you=20
  do but you just don't know it. Have you ever taken the time =
toverify that=20
  all the hotfixes are actually installed and that you are in =
factrunning=20
  the latest versions of all the files they replace? Trusting =
windowsupdate=20
  doesn't mean you are really up to date. It just means the =
rightentries are=20
  in your registry.>>  
Finally, we've already =
discussed=20
  that you can build your own integratedinstalls for Windows =
including=20
  service packs and hotfixes.<<My
building my own installs =
isn't=20
  going to protect the internet from oldexploitable software being =
installed=20
  daily because the people installing itcan't get the current build =
on=20
 
CD.Geo.

------=_NextPart_000_0113_01C2C89E.DEA4B780--

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4