From: John Cuccia 

On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 21:57:21 -0500, "Geo."  wrote:

>"John Cuccia"  wrote in message
>news:fbp33vcm5q25sf2ksdqg767b3d232gk6si{at}4ax.com...
>
>> What's worse is keeping tens, or hundreds, of geographically dispersed
>> servers patched.  That pretty much precludes your "click to
apply one"
>> method.
>
>Geographically makes no difference. I do all my patches remotely. I simply
>put all the patches in one directory on one server, order them by date, then
>just attach to that server (C$ or whatever) and click down the list from any
>of the servers.

You need to log onto every server to do that.  If you have more than a
dozen or so servers that becomes unwieldy.  Loading large patches across
WAN links can be quite time-consuming, too.

> Likewise I could setup a windows update server and just let
>the servers update themselves but I prefer a more manual approach due to
>downtime issues.

What downtime issues? If a patch is going to break a server, it doesn't
matter if you run it by hand or using an automated process, no?

>I can go to http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/current.asp and find
>all the patches for NT/IIS/SQL/Exchange/ISA/IE
>
>Now granted only NT/IIS/IE are included in the OS but where do you go to
>find that for Linux/Apache/Netscape/KDE?

I have no idea where to find the Linux stuff, I don't have (have never had)
any Linux systems.  I hope to build one soon .

My point was this:  a single download point in no way implies that there is
a coherent design/test program for those pieces.

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