Several times over the years I've wagged this dog, trying to point out that what we need is the equivalent or better of IBM's methodology for maintaining the OS, which is called SMP. It's a database application that generates and installs the operating system on a new machine, and then manages not only the OS, but most of the products installed (it can be bypassed). Typically, adding software and maintenance to the OS is handled by the systems programmer using SMP processes to "receive" and then "apply" the maintenance/new products to the OS.
To accommodate SMP, IBM and many vendors package software and maintenance in SMP's format. The systems programmer typically receives these products and maintenance into the SMP database, and then uses SMP to study and implement selected maintenance, thus giving the installation control over what goes into the machine and what doesn't, on a detailed basis. It also helps give vendors equal access to the OS because their products and maintenance are handled in exactly the same way as IBM's. Learning (and controlling) the products and maintenance installed in this fashion is a simple matter of using SMP information and processes. Microsoft knew about this mechanic since day 1, but chose to ignore it - at our and the industry's great peril - and to centralize the packaging and distribution of their OS's so end users and software vendors would survive at MS's convenience, not the other way around (which is what SMP can be said to accomplish). I don't know what plans IBM has for Linux packaging/maintenance, but if/when they retrofit it to work in this fashion, MS will either have to catch up or be gone. Bill > >>Sounds to me like it all comes down to managed computing---how much > >>influence/control do you want > the OS maker to have on your daily computing life? Some want > M$ to handle all of it; others don't want anyone else's hands > in the mix but their own. There are different kinds of > users, obviously.<< > > Agreed Michael, but as users we all have choice over > accepting and not accepting updates to the OS. Same with > upgrades. I just want the choice to be extended longer than > what we get today with respect to patches to existing > operating systems moving forward. > > The reality in the business world is a machine's useful life > is way longer than what operating system manufacturers are > supporting from a security patch perspective. The built in > obsolescence is not hardware, it is the OS, and it is not > that the OS is not working and providing hardware services, > it is security patches the operating system providers are stopping. > > Don't get me wrong. I believe businesses need to move along > to bigger and better hardware and operating systems in > general, but I also know it is not always practical or appropriate. > > > Rick > White Light Computing, Inc. _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
