RE: Still trying to decide - Implementing a PM system

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

SUS runs fine on an existing server as long as there's enough RAM to
comfortably run IIS and a fair bit of disk space for all of the patches.

RM



                                                                           
             Dale Francisco                                                
             <[EMAIL PROTECTED]                                             
             elautomotive.com>                                          To 
                                       "Patch Management Mailing List"     
             04/01/2004 08:35          <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
             AM                        gement.org>                         
                                                                        cc 
                                                                           
             Please respond to                                     Subject 
             "Patch Management         RE: Still trying to decide -        
               Mailing List"           Implementing a PM system            
             <patchmanagement@                                             
             listserv.patchman                                             
               agement.org>                                                
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           




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]


---
To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]






---
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]