Microsoft, Apple and Ubuntu update services examined

By Justin Mann on July 11, 2008, 8:46 PM
One hallmark of modern operating systems is their ability to be “dynamically” updated on a routine basis. This is incorporated into Windows, Mac OS X and various distributions of Linux in one form or another, and became critically important as always-on Internet access became more common. Thus, the reliability of the online update service is very important. That's why this recent report of OS update reliability was interesting to me. The report states that so far, Microsoft has been a cut above the competition in providing a reliable update service.

According to them, Microsoft's Windows Updates had absolutely no downtime in recent history, Apple had only a few hours of downtime and Ubuntu, currently the most popular desktop Linux distro, had nearly two days of downtime. An interesting perspective, but one that I feel is skewed. The data was retrieved by a company called Pingdom who polls the update services all day long. There are a few things to consider when looking at the data, however. For one, Ubuntu's update service, like many Linux update services, is based on a system of mirrors – if one mirror fails, there are still others to take its place. It is unclear if Pingdom took this into consideration. It seems unlikely that many mirrors would be down simultaneously.

Another thing to consider is the length of time it takes to push security updates out. Microsoft has always put themselves on a fixed cycle, hence why so many of us are familiar with “Patch Tuesday”. Other operating systems do not take this approach and can issue updates more frequently than that. Scope is also a consideration. Windows Update is reserved solely for system updates, whereas other update services like System Updates through Apple will apply updates for hosts of programs, not just the OS and an office suite. Still, Microsoft does deserve some credit. When the vast majority of installed PCs are running Windows and no doubt thousands of installations occur per day, making sure your update servers are available around the clock is paramount.




User Comments: 3

Got something to say? Post a comment
BlackIrish said:
Of course, Apple is always Superior in any way possible since they are doing everything differently, which must mean they are better then Microsoft and Windows.Why have patch Tuesday when you can have everyday (annoying and interrupting) patch day that patches even stuff that you don't want to patch since it can become more buggy and sluggish (see: itunes doesn't recognise my ipod)...
Ed Vim said:
I think this article is very misleading. It ignores the more important issue of WHY updates and patches are necessary by focusing on data that in my experience just doesn't seem accurate. (I run Linux and OS X at home, mostly Windows at work.) Adding a focus on the percentage of Windows patches that completely screwed up once stable systems vs. Apple or Ubuntu ones that produced the same results would have at least added something substantial. Or writing about how a clean install, no updates, of a Linux or OS X is safer to use online than an unpatched Windows install would at least state the obvious. I see this as yet another MS FUD piece. All three of the mentioned OSs have strengths and weaknesses, but this article hinders more than helps any real discussion.
phantasm66 said:
I use yum with Fedora core and have never, ever had a single problem. Ever.
Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.