From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_01B0_01C2C90B.E09BDF10
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   Because you are describing to different things.  Look at the =
integrated install feature of Windows 2000 as an example of the extra =
effort required.

Rich

  "Geo."  wrote in message
news:3e3a5abe{at}w3.nls.net...
  How do you test a service pack? You install it into a full install and =
then
  test right? Why is that any different than putting it into a full =
install CD
  and doing a patch from the CD then testing?

  Geo.

  "Rich"  wrote in message news:3e39faaa{at}w3.nls.net...
     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_01B0_01C2C90B.E09BDF10
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








   Because
you are describing =
to=20
different things.  Look at the integrated install feature of =
Windows 2000=20
as an example of the extra effort required.
 
Rich
 

  "Geo." <georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>
wrote=20
  in message news:3e3a5abe{at}w3.nls.net...Ho=
w do=20
  you test a service pack? You install it into a full install and =
thentest=20
  right? Why is that any different than putting it into a full install =
CDand=20
  doing a patch from the CD then
testing?Geo."Rich" =
<{at}>=20
  wrote in message news:3e39faaa{at}w3.nls.net...&nbs=
p; =20
  I answered this earlier.  If you create a new complete install =
you=20
  musttest a new complete install.  This is
non-trivial.  =
Now I=20
  see you want toadd a whole new mode of install.  That would =
be even=20
  more testing and worse,I don't think that that adds any value as =
at best=20
  it would be functionallyequivalent to the service pack install, =
which=20
  requires its own testing.   I do
verify that some =
fixes are=20
  installed.  I don't verify them allbecause I've never had a =
problem=20
  with the ones I have
verified.Rich 
"Geo." <georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>
wrote in =
message news:3e39ecfc$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
 =20
  "Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:3e38c26d$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
 =20
  >   For other reasons, I think it is
impractical.  =
You=20
  expect a fullrelease  for any
update.  This is a =
good way to=20
  discourage any software vendor from  making
releases.  =
The=20
  testing effort is enormous.<  What's
to test, it's a =
patched=20
  version, it's not expected to be any more  stable than the =
full=20
  version after you apply patches.  But
perhaps MS could =
learn=20
  something here from the free softwarecommunity.  The =
testing=20
  should be continuous and the improvement should be there in  =
every=20
  new build. Granted a security patch may introduce a new bug but =
the =20
  release should also contain the mods for the 22 other bugs that were=20
  fixed  since the last
iso.  What you do is a =
monthly=20
  build, all month long they run it internally then  release it =
just=20
  like they do with beta builds to beta testers, except  =
instead of=20
  trying to tightly control distribution you promote everyone =
to  share=20
  their copies with everyone else running the same version (just =
like =20
  security patches can be shared, it will save bandwidth by not=20
  requireing  everyone to
download).  Now before =
you go=20
  off on the copying issues involved consider something,  =
consider a=20
  thousand people who run an illegal copy of NT and consider =
the  same=20
  thousand people running linux instead. Which is worse for =
MS? =20
  >>   Back to the selfish reasons, I do
not want to do =
full=20
  productinstalls.  Updates are very easy in =
comparison. =20
  <<  I believe I specified in
the previous post that =
there=20
  should be a "patch"  mode install, where all
it does is check =
version=20
  numbers on all installed  files and just replaces the ones =
that need=20
  replaced. Might take a little  longer than a single hotfix =
but=20
  probably be faster than applying half a  dozen hotfixes.. =
certainly=20
  less labor intensive than applying 6 hotfixes.  =
>>Also,=20
  unlike you, I don't have problems building an up to date=20
  systemfrom 
scratch.  I  bet you do but =
you=20
  just don't know it. Have you ever taken the time to  verify =
that all=20
  the hotfixes are actually installed and that you are =
infact =20
  running the latest versions of all the files they replace?=20
  Trustingwindows  update doesn't mean you are
really up to =
date.=20
  It just means the right  entries are in your =
registry. =20
  >>   Finally, we've already discussed
that you can =
build your=20
  ownintegrated  installs for Windows
including service =
packs and=20
  hotfixes.<<  My building my
own installs isn't =
going to=20
  protect the internet from old  exploitable software being =
installed=20
  daily because the people installingit  can't get the =
current=20
  build on CD. 
Geo.

------=_NextPart_000_01B0_01C2C90B.E09BDF10--

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