SUS requires a
stand alone Windows 2000/2003 Server does it not? SUS isn't a cheap
solution if this is the case.
Dale Francisco
-----Original Message-----
From: Evan Mann
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 8:22 AM
To: Patch Management Mailing List
Subject: RE: Still trying to
decide - Implementing a PM system
If you have no budget
then why not rely on SUS 2.0 (WUS)? Many people use SUS 1.0 and v2.0
sounds even better.
I wouldn't use Ghost as a
patching solution. I read the posts. Ghost just was never built from the
ground up to be a patch management solution. I prefer to use products
designed around a purpose, and not just "it can do this as well".
From: Marsh,
Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004
11:10 AM
To: Patch Management Mailing List
Subject: Still trying to decide -
Implementing a PM system
Several months back, I mentioned my greenness and the
overwhelming feeling all the choices (regarding patch management) gave
me. I did some research and read a lot more posts. Currently, we do
all patching manually and there is no budget for a patch management solution,
which means my suggestion must be cheap. Norton's ghost seems cheap enough
(we would only need 1 license) though hfnetcheck pro sounded reasonable as
well. I did see that I would need to write scripts for the Ghost to do
updates, that isn't really a task I'm ready to take on. Is hfnetcheckpro
the same, will I inevitably need to learn how to script? Still confused
but learning...Thanks as always.
Sincerely,
Rich Marsh
"It is our attitude at the
beginning of a difficult task which, more than
anything else, will affect its
successful outcome."
William James
1842-1910
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/james/
---
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Welcome to the Virus.Org Mailing List Archive 