I have installed HFNetChk in about 20+
environments and have never required scripts or anything more complicated than
running from the HFNetChk GUI. The only problem I occasionally run into is
related to patches not working properly with applications on test machines.
>From my experience HFNetChk is by far one of the easiest and most cost
effective solutions for managing patches. The GUI is excellent and the built-in
help can get a new user up and running quickly - its all point and click. Don't
let the simplicity fool you with any product. Always plan your roll-out
strategy and policies before you actually implement them and always remember to
roll-out patches on test machines or isolated machines first. Then perform a
larger scale roll-out.
-----Original Message-----
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]
Welcome to the Virus.Org Mailing List Archive 