April 16, 2013 at 11:41 pm
Comments posted to this topic are about the item The Patch Wild, Wild West
April 17, 2013 at 12:36 am
Ugh. I see that as a big step backwards. The ability to rollback is a huge necessity. I much prefer the current system.
Jason...AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
_______________________________________________
I have given a name to my pain...MCM SQL Server, MVP
SQL RNNR
Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw[/url]
Learn Extended Events
April 17, 2013 at 5:09 am
A rollback procedure for iOS would be nice, as there have been a few occasions where an update has introduced a bug that requires a new update immediately.
April 17, 2013 at 6:47 am
As for SQL Server running only on a Microsoft platform, I can understand it. It is much easier for MS to maintain SQL Server. But, you have to use a MS platform. Now with Oracle, it can get a version that will run on different platforms, basically either a MS-Windows platform or a UNIX/Linux platform. It would be nice to have SQL Server on Linux but I don't see that happening. SQL Server development is how I make my money. Automatic updates are how I could lose (more of) my hair. Hopefully MS will keep their Server systems away from the Windows 8 update process.
Dan Beggs
April 17, 2013 at 8:05 am
iOS devices being almost entirely consumer oriented, it makes sense in that environment to automate the process and make it as "easy" as possible, at the cost of control. If Microsoft goes down this route, it's only a matter of time before enough corporate customers complain and force them to address the issue. I'll wait until then to adopt Windows 8 and its server cousins.
Hakim Ali
www.sqlzen.com
April 17, 2013 at 8:24 am
hakim.ali (4/17/2013)
iOS devices being almost entirely consumer oriented, it makes sense in that environment to automate the process and make it as "easy" as possible, at the cost of control. If Microsoft goes down this route, it's only a matter of time before enough corporate customers complain and force them to address the issue. I'll wait until then to adopt Windows 8 and its server cousins.
I agree with this. The iOS style of updates makes sense for consumer devices but not in an enterprise business environment. All things are more tightly controlled in an enterprise environment. It would be bad for Microsoft to do this for enterprise servers and environments. :crazy:
April 17, 2013 at 10:37 am
I think the sensible thing for Microsoft to do is branch their Windows OS product along business and consumer lines (leverage where they can), otherwise they risk losses in both customer bases.
April 17, 2013 at 10:45 am
hakim.ali (4/17/2013)
iOS devices being almost entirely consumer oriented, it makes sense in that environment to automate the process and make it as "easy" as possible, at the cost of control. If Microsoft goes down this route, it's only a matter of time before enough corporate customers complain and force them to address the issue. I'll wait until then to adopt Windows 8 and its server cousins.
I think that's one thing that is actually somewhat strong about the app-store/marketplace update model - the updates are done by the different companies. If they decide to push too many new updates that break functionality, they'll find themselves without a customer base to keep doing that. Yes, I'd love a "rollback" feature in those stores, but at the same time it's up to the developers to satisfy their customers so I can support that. It's definitely targeted at consumers.
I don't see MS going this route for their major server products. They may bundle it in to Windows Update, but I can't see it going the way of the marketplace apps where you just get an update with no option to remove/rollback. That would break too many big customers and MS would find themselves in the position of losing customers rather than retaining them. I can see them doing it for the Modern/Metro apps as they aren't core to the OS functioning, though some may be useful. I can't see them doing this for server or OS level patches. Even their Surface RT patches for the OS and firmware go through Windows Update. Modern apps are updated through the store and I haven't seen too many major problems there (with the exception of one app introducing ads to their free version, which resulted in a bunch of negative feedback 🙂 ).
April 17, 2013 at 10:59 am
Peter Schott (4/17/2013)
I think that's one thing that is actually somewhat strong about the app-store/marketplace update model - the updates are done by the different companies. If they decide to push too many new updates that break functionality, they'll find themselves without a customer base to keep doing that. Yes, I'd love a "rollback" feature in those stores, but at the same time it's up to the developers to satisfy their customers so I can support that. It's definitely targeted at consumers.
I hear you, but there's an issue here. If you've purchased a service, breaking the service with a patch is an issue and there's little you can do, despite the contract that has been made with you. The ability to roll back one version would make sense here.
I don't see MS going this route for their major server products. They may bundle it in to Windows Update, but I can't see it going the way of the marketplace apps where you just get an update with no option to remove/rollback. That would break too many big customers and MS would find themselves in the position of losing customers rather than retaining them. I can see them doing it for the Modern/Metro apps as they aren't core to the OS functioning, though some may be useful. I can't see them doing this for server or OS level patches. Even their Surface RT patches for the OS and firmware go through Windows Update. Modern apps are updated through the store and I haven't seen too many major problems there (with the exception of one app introducing ads to their free version, which resulted in a bunch of negative feedback 🙂 ).
You'd think, but just this week we had Win 7 issues with patches (onsoftware.en.softonic.com/microsoft-recommends-uninstalling-faulty-windows-7-patch). This will happen with Win 8, WS2012, etc. Deliver enough patches and you'll make mistakes.
Right now there are multiple ways to update machines in Win 8. Windows Update, the Store, and maybe others. Right now there hasn't been a lot of consistency as MS tries to move from the desktop to a more Metro, cleaner style. I like the direction, but it appears to be done in Win 8 inconsistently. I worry that may carry through to the patching processes.
April 17, 2013 at 11:18 am
I actually agree with your first point about me purchasing a service that could then be broken by a developer releasing an update. It's happened before and I'm sure it will happen again. Most of the time this is for an app, not an OS. I can complain to the developer and if enough people join me, it's possible that the app will be rolled back or re-updated. Sometimes the breaking change is part of a larger change to make things better. Sometimes it's a mistake. I would love a rollback feature somehow, but not sure how to implement. That does remind me of the Adobe Reader mess for WP7 a while back. They'd finally released a nice update to the PDF reader app, then somehow the version in the store showed an "update" that rolled back to the original version - losing all of the nice enhancements in the process. It was made right a couple of weeks later, but very frustrating to those of us who didn't check the version properly and just hit "update" on it. 🙁
As for the Win8 process, I see that broken cleanly into two separate updates. One goes through the "Store" process - this affects the Modern apps, including the "core" apps like Mail, Calendar, Maps, etc. They're just apps and can be uninstalled or reinstalled. The second is your standard Windows Update - OS patches, drivers, and so on. I'm pretty sure I can uninstall one of the latter if it gives me fits. I cannot revert a Store update (or at least not without some hacking beforehand to make a backup copy and hoping I know what I'm doing). I just don't see the two mixing because they serve slightly different purposes. One is mostly handled by the developers (with MS as an intermediary before publishing the new version). The other is MS directly pushing OS-level updates and the like. Office for the Surface is a little bit of an outlier here because it's a desktop app, not a Modern app so can't be updated through the Store.
I agree that patches can be released that cause damage, but if it's an OS-level update, that can still be reverted. I also agree that being able to roll back a Store update would be a "nice to have" feature, regardless of platform. I guess Android is the closest to this because all apps can come in an APK format and those can be backed up. You can then reinstall from an older APK if needed. iOS and Win8 don't support something similar to my knowledge.
April 17, 2013 at 4:22 pm
"easier for Microsoft, but it's a big step backward for companies"
This is not a big step backwards for a company who develops excellent patches, tests everything so they know that it works perfectly, and can guarantee that it will work first time every time. If you always get it right, and really right, there is no problem.
Is this the rep that Microsoft has? If not then there needs to be either the ability to roll back patches, or a team of people working night and day fixing those pesky patches that fail.
Not all gray hairs are Dinosaurs!
April 17, 2013 at 4:58 pm
Miles Neale (4/17/2013)
"easier for Microsoft, but it's a big step backward for companies"This is not a big step backwards for a company who develops excellent patches, tests everything so they know that it works perfectly, and can guarantee that it will work first time every time. If you always get it right, and really right, there is no problem.
Is this the rep that Microsoft has? If not then there needs to be either the ability to roll back patches, or a team of people working night and day fixing those pesky patches that fail.
It's not that all MS patches fail, but some do, including a few Win7 patches last week. They do work night and day (I've talked to some of them), but it's still an impact to people when there are issues.
I think we should always be able to roll back, since we never know if there will be issues.
April 17, 2013 at 5:05 pm
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (4/17/2013)
Miles Neale (4/17/2013)
"easier for Microsoft, but it's a big step backward for companies"This is not a big step backwards for a company who develops excellent patches, tests everything so they know that it works perfectly, and can guarantee that it will work first time every time. If you always get it right, and really right, there is no problem.
Is this the rep that Microsoft has? If not then there needs to be either the ability to roll back patches, or a team of people working night and day fixing those pesky patches that fail.
It's not that all MS patches fail, but some do, including a few Win7 patches last week. They do work night and day (I've talked to some of them), but it's still an impact to people when there are issues.
I think we should always be able to roll back, since we never know if there will be issues.
I agree that not all fail. And in fact most are very successful. And the folks work more hours than we realize. But when a patch fails it is really a big deal. And if we have no option to back it out, there is an instant need for a very quick correct hot fix. If that isn't possible, we have to have the ability to back things out.
Not all gray hairs are Dinosaurs!
April 18, 2013 at 12:02 pm
Well on the devil's advocate side of the argument - if you don't know why your patch might fail, it's going to be difficult to guarantee a way to back it off. Chances are that the factor that caused the patch to fail will also be the thing getting in your way when trying to unapply the patch.
That's unfortunately a difficulty intrinsic in any open system (too many variations to make something 100% foolproof).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your lack of planning does not constitute an emergency on my part...unless you're my manager...or a director and above...or a really loud-spoken end-user..All right - what was my emergency again?
May 13, 2013 at 12:47 am
OCTom (4/17/2013)
hakim.ali (4/17/2013)
iOS devices being almost entirely consumer oriented, it makes sense in that environment to automate the process and make it as "easy" as possible, at the cost of control. If Microsoft goes down this route, it's only a matter of time before enough corporate customers complain and force them to address the issue. I'll wait until then to adopt Windows 8 and its server cousins.I agree with this. The iOS style of updates makes sense for consumer devices but not in an enterprise business environment. All things are more tightly controlled in an enterprise environment. It would be bad for Microsoft to do this for enterprise servers and environments. :crazy:
Apple has found the iOS devices being adopted more and more by businesses but have seen no need to amend the way they do their upgrades/patches and I can see this continuing. The iOS philosophy is to have everything controlled by the manufacturer so if anything goes wrong they can pinpoint where the problem is - hence the refusal to have Flash on iOS.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 14 (of 14 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply