On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 06:59:25PM +0200, Niels Bakker wrote:
And getting the lead time down to 4-6 weeks would be a challenge - remember you have to *ship* the re-mastered patch CD to every retailer and get it on the shelves. That's going to hit your bottom line.
* Michael.Dillon@radianz.com [Mon 08 Sep 2003, 18:03 CEST]:
Ever heard of Windows 98? How about Windows 98 SE (Second Edition)?
Windows 98SE was only available to OEMs and wasn't on shelves in stores. As Valdis also notes, it's an entirely different situation.
Oh, this topic hasn't died yet? Very well: Of course the normal retail software channel doesn't work and would cost too much money. Strawman. A patch CD isn't a product, to be distributed in shrinkwrap and left to sit. It's a periodical (especially in the case of Microsoft, but really, for all of them) with a looser timetable. Ever notice how much trouble the Wall Street Journal has getting a daily issue out for under a buck? How about Business Week, or any of the weekly rags? While it may seem that MS has daily patches, a weekly update is essentially adequate, and likely the finest granularity most folks are going to update on if they actually do attempt it regularly. CDs happen to cost a lot less than a printed magazine, too. Back in the mid 90s, it was trivial to have batches in the low-thousands count (easily handled locally, near the customer acceptance point, rather than centrally, near the vendor) priced in whole cents. Today, it's possible to price the same for fractional cents. The real question: If people don't care enough to hold Microsoft (or any software producer) accountable for the product at sale, what good will having this alternate channel be? Arguing the practicality of CDs as a patch distribution mechanism is pointless, it's trying to find a technical cause for a non-technical problem. It's not a matter of being ABLE (technology) to do something, it's a matter of DOING (people). Sun (to pick a convenient example) was able to ship patch CDs every quarter or month, depending on when you asked and what your support options were, for years in the 90s. Yes, it did fall on us, the IT folks, whether we were called Systems Managers, Network Administrators, whatever, to ensure that policy and procedure included getting the updates IN. We learned our lesson with the Morris worm if we hadn't learned it before that. How many sites hit with Blaster or Sobig.f were business with at least one person designated as IT staff? Too many. That home users have multiplied to even greater numbers than business users is another problem, but realize that many folks who think they can handle their home PC believe so because of what they see at work. (Unemployed people, barring laid-off IT folks who shoul know better anyway, generally cannot afford computers). Culturally, people will be more likely to discpline themselves when they get used to seeing other people disciplined enough to maintain things elsewhere. Call it peer pressure if you have to. I seem to be repeating myself a lot: The problem is not technical; hence the solution is not technical either. Now, other than being a poor attempt to pass the buck, how does this help us as network operators (and similar IT professionals) in fixing the problem? -- Ray Wong rayw@rayw.net