There's also the liability issue of "I host my own copy of some bits. My copy of those bits gets hacked or otherwise b0rked. Random customer uses my bits, hoses their machine, sues Redmond."
At least, that's the reasoning I encountered when I had the conversation about higher ed being able to hand out SP2 CDs. Whatever the reason, it's not kosher under any licensing terms that I'm familiar with. Based on your description of your environment, I'd definitely go the distributed WSUS route if your WAN links are getting overloaded. - L On 2/2/06, Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Not to mention it's my understanding that it's not legal to distribute > service packs "outside" the MS cloud and host MS code like service > packs/hotfixes like that. > > This is why universities cannot hand out SP cdroms and some such things. > > Since the Department of Justice... it's been my impression that MS tends > to want to control the bits so they can yank parts if need be [see > recent SP update notifications for Office due to stupid lawsuit between > guy and MS on Access] > > WSUS had to get some eula's rewritten to allow the geeks to do allow > consultants to do patching and what not. > > Molkentin, Steve wrote: > > > Mark, > > WSUS (and SMS for that matter) uses the "Background Intelligent > > Transfer Service" (that's what it's called) to do just this on large > > files, in that it is smart enough to recognise downtime on your > > network to send files, and manages the resumption of large files if it > > had to stop transferring them. It is pretty seamless in my experience > > - all our links are less than T1 (except for the internet pipe into > > our head office), and we manage to push a lot of stuff around using > > WSUS quite well with no interruption to business. > > It's not hard to setup an older PC as a local WSUS cache - it needs > > little in the way of processor and RAM (really), and will get over any > > cost issue and give you the ability to distribute, etc. Additionally, > > it takes away all the responsibility of the staff member to > > install/connect/download the service pack (and don't start me on the > > fact that they shouldn't have admin rights to install it in the first > > place). > > My $0.02 inc GST... > > themolk. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of > > *Creamer, Mark > > *Sent:* Friday, 3 February 2006 6:18 AM > > *To:* ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > > *Subject:* [ActiveDir] distributing large service pack files > > > > The structure of our WAN is such that we have lots of small > > offices all over the country, each with a few to a hundred or so > > PCs, connected by not-so-fast links. The biggest locations have > > T1s, but many don't. Keeping these things patched is a nightmare. > > We do not have distributed servers, and really nothing except the > > PCs themselves to cache something for local delivery. Which brings > > me to my question…is it even conceivable that something like an > > internal-only BitTorrent could be leveraged to distribute > > something as large as a service pack? I think it might be more > > efficient than a 3^rd party patch management solution or WSUS, > > which I can't use because of not having distributed file caches. > > If this is nutty, dish out the dirt, but I'll want to understand > > why it's nutty too J > > > > Thanks > > > > ***Mark Creamer* > > > > *Systems Engineer* > > > > Cintas Corporation | 6800 Cintas Boulevard | Mason, OH 45040 > > > > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cintas.com > > > > > > This e-mail transmission contains information that is intended to > > be confidential and privileged. If you receive this e-mail and you > > are not a named addressee you are hereby notified that you are not > > authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this > > communication without the consent of the sender and that doing so > > is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please reply to the message > > immediately by informing the sender that the message was > > misdirected. After replying, please delete and otherwise erase it > > and any attachments from your computer system. Your assistance in > > correcting this error is appreciated. > > > > -- > Letting your vendors set your risk analysis these days? > http://www.threatcode.com > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ > -- ----------------------- Laura E. Hunter Microsoft MVP - Windows Server Networking Author: _Active Directory Consultant's Field Guide_ (http://tinyurl.com/7f8ll)
