e: Change control (was RE: [On-Topic] Patching with PSEXEC)
I've worked for a number of outsourcing companies and the change control is
always very tight. It's the only way they can do it, but I admit it is
completely inflexible for the client - particularly those that retain IT
staff wh
Hmm do we work for the same company?
Regards,
Chris Orovet
From: James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 3:59 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Change control (was RE: [On-Topic] Patching with PSEXEC)
I've worked for a numb
I have patched tens of thousands of boxes with psexec. My current patching
script I use is a VBScript which I launch from psexec. Works great. Logging is
built-in to the scripts...
Thanks,
Brian Desmond
br...@briandesmond.com
c - 312.731.3132
Active Directory, 4th Ed - http://www.briandesmond.
ace any repercussions from deploying w/out testing? I
>> would use them as an opportunity to either work with him or go above him
>> with a plan on “this is how we should handle change, xxx problems happened
>> because we had no process and ExampleA and ExampleB problems would have been
e been
> prevented, here’s how….”
>
>
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> *From:* James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, August 31, 2009 12:09 PM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Re: [On-Topic] Patching with PSEXEC
>
>
>
> The problem is al
[mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 12:09 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: [On-Topic] Patching with PSEXEC
The problem is all the companies with these stringent change control processes
have been, to speak proverbially, bitten squarely in the ass by a lack of
ensibly is a company I
> will not work for.
>
>
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> *From:* tony patton [mailto:tony.pat...@quinn-insurance.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, August 31, 2009 8:08 AM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Re: [On-Topic] Patching with PSEXEC
>
>
>
&
elll!!) . A company not thinking sensibly is a company I will not work for.
Dave
From: tony patton [mailto:tony.pat...@quinn-insurance.com]
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 8:08 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: [On-Topic] Patching with PSEXEC
What I mean by no control is two-fold:
1. I don
alue of logging, reporting, error
> handling, etc…
>
>
>
> It’s a significant challenge.
>
>
>
> -sc
>
>
>
> *From:* James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, August 31, 2009 11:32 AM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Re: [On
ton
> Desktop Operations Cavan
> Ext 8078
> Direct Dial 049 435 2878
> email: tony.pat...@quinn-insurance.com
>
>
> From: Jon Harris To: "NT System Admin Issues" <
> ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com>
> Dat
From: James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 9:49 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: [On-Topic] Patching with PSEXEC
We used to use a batch script using psexec to patch 500 Windows NT
Server systems because management wouldn't pay for anything
31/08/2009 16:37
Subject:
Re: [On-Topic] Patching with PSEXEC
Okay I will bite on this, why no WSUS? I am directing this to the OP
now. It is relativity free, it does require a license for a machine but
it will run on a desktop (not very well but it will run). Server licenses
are not chea
n.
>
> To use PSEXEC long-term would be a full-time job, and we have enough to do
> at the minute.
>
> Regards
>
> Tony Patton
> Desktop Operations Cavan
> Ext 8078
> Direct Dial 049 435 2878
> email: *tony.pat...@quinn-insurance.com*
;
>
>
> *From:* James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, August 31, 2009 9:49 AM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Re: [On-Topic] Patching with PSEXEC
>
>
>
> We used to use a batch script using psexec to patch 500 Windows NT Server
>
ance.com
From:
Jonathan Link
To:
"NT System Admin Issues"
Date:
31/08/2009 15:30
Subject:
Re: [On-Topic] Patching with PSEXEC
Out of curiosity, what exactly is running at machine startup (and why
can't you control it)? Or are you confusing startup with logon? Startup
and
, August 31, 2009 10:18 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: [On-Topic] Patching with PSEXEC
The reasoning for not using GPO's is the amount of things that are already
running on machine startup, no control over this.
Machine shutdown GPO is an option.
-sc, the reason I mentioned
ystem Admin Issues
Subject: RE: [On-Topic] Patching with PSEXEC
The reasoning for not using GPO's is the amount of things that are
already running on machine startup, no control over this.
Machine shutdown GPO is an option.
-sc, the reason I mentioned logging, or lack thereof, is
I agree on the "it becomes a full time job part".
However, he specifically mention non-MS apps... and WSUS won't do that.
-sc
From: James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 9:49 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: [On-Topic] Patch
@quinn-insurance.com
>
>
> From: "Sam Cayze" To: "NT System Admin Issues"
> Date: 31/08/2009 13:35 Subject: RE:
> [On-Topic] Patching with PSEXEC
> --
>
>
>
> +1
>
> I just use psexec for the random one-off tasks.
&
se PSEXEC long-term would be a full-time job, and we have enough to do
at the minute.
Regards
Tony Patton
Desktop Operations Cavan
Ext 8078
Direct Dial 049 435 2878
email: tony.pat...@quinn-insurance.com
From:
"Sam Cayze"
To:
"NT System Admin Issues"
Date:
31/08/2009 13:35
We used to use a batch script using psexec to patch 500 Windows NT Server
systems because management wouldn't pay for anything. We had to do the OS,
Internet Explorer (all versions), Adobe, Office, all the other stuff. We
started off using a text file full of data being parsed for the relevant
syst
You don't want logging? Did you mean that? I'd suggest it's critical.
I'd say that trying "roll your own" methods for patch management on 2800
desktops is going to be pretty tough to manage, unless you have a VERY
locked down and cookie-cutter infrastructure.
-sc
From: tony patton [mail
+1
I just use psexec for the random one-off tasks.
Sam
From: Kennedy, Jim [mailto:kennedy...@elyriaschools.org]
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 6:57 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: [On-Topic] Patching with PSEXEC
Ok, I am going off in a
Ok, I am going off in a completely different direction. I did not see the part
where you talked to others about PSEXEC so I don't know why you are going in
that direction.
Why not just script it to the machines via GPO. If it is a machine policy the
install/update will run with elevated privs s
24 matches
Mail list logo
