If you were talking to someone whose organization is considering Microsoft Windows Server Update Services, what would you say?
How would you rate it and why? Any other tips or advice?
We are just a customer and an end-user. I'm not sure of which version of the solution we're using. I'd advise new potential users to implement the product and to regularly check on it. We have some equipment that is not being updated. That's on us. It's necessary, however, to implement constant evaluations for which equipment is actually connected to the solution. I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten overall. We're mostly quite happy with the product.
My advice for anybody who is looking into Windows Server Update Services is that if you want something with more control then you need to look into getting an alternative product. I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.
At this point, it accomplishes everything that I need to do. I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.
I would suggest that anyone considering implementing this solution take the time to research it completely before implementation. Without doing that there will be problems when it's installed and it's important to remember that with this product there are some things that cannot be edited once it's been implemented. I would rate this product an eight out of 10.
I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.
I would rate this solution as eight of ten.
I would suggest sharing packages between clients. I am not using this solution extensively now because I am on the architect's side. I am working as a freelancer and I use this solution with most of my clients. I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.
I am not satisfied with this solution. There are constant issues and most of the time it doesn't work. I would rate this solution a four out of ten.
When I see the other open-source solutions — such as Linux and other options like FreeDSB or Unix — almost every one of them has an alternative solution to Microsoft Windows Server. That becomes a big problem for products that are not open-source because people don't need to spend money to get a good working product. If it comes freely, there really is no good reason to pay. The development of products that are not open-source begins to suffer in the market because the profitability is limited. So that's a problem. Sometimes the non-open source solution would be chosen because the selection of the right product is dependent on the need and capability and not the cost. In other situations, the cost is more important and the choice will be for users to go to the open-source solutions because they are free. The point is that choosing Microsoft Windows Server over other options is not a black-and-white proposition. There is a big gray area depending on the need. Because Microsoft Windows Server is not open-source that makes it have limited application. In rating the product, because of that, I would rate this as only a five out of ten. This is not so much because the product is bad, but because there are so many other solutions that are essentially free that many companies can take advantage of.
The ability to have more fine control within this solution is very important. It is not available for the solution in its current state.
We all know it's really hard to get good pricing and cost information.
Please share what you can so you can help your peers.