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 