Re: KB951847 Updates

Ah shoot!... I thought I was on
microsoft.public.windows.server.update_services group.

Crossposted my own reply the right group.

Sorry.

"John" <a> wrote in message news:%...
> My WSUS last sync on 05/12/2009 at around 4 am shows that KB951847 updates
> (Microsoft .NET Framework 3.5 Service Pack 1 and .NET Framework 3.5 Family
> Update) expired. They're automatically declined as well.
>
> I have never approved nor declined those updates since they were released.
> They are untouched since the release date. Did MS finally did something to
> cause this to happen?
>

"John" <a> wrote in message news:...

> "John" <a> wrote in message
> news:%...
>> My WSUS last sync on 05/12/2009 at around 4 am shows that KB951847
>> updates (Microsoft .NET Framework 3.5 Service Pack 1 and .NET Framework
>> 3.5 Family Update) expired. They're automatically declined as well.
>>
>> I have never approved nor declined those updates since they were
>> released. They are untouched since the release date. Did MS finally did
>> something to cause this to happen?

New revisions of these packages were released on Tuesday, May 12th, and were
announced by the WSUS Product Team in their blog last week. The expiration
of the previous packages is intentional, happens automatically when new
revisions are published, and has absolutely nothing to do with whether they
were approved or not.

They were automatically declined because you have the option "Auto-decline
expired updates" enabled.

If you had previously approved them, the new revisions would also be
approved.

--
Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCITP:EA, MCDBA
Principal/CTO, Onsite Technology Solutions, Houston, Texas
Microsoft MVP - Software Distribution (2005-2009)

MS WSUS Website: http://www.microsoft.com/wsus
My Websites: http://www.onsitechsolutions.com;
http://wsusinfo.onsitechsolutions.com
My MVP Profile: http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/pro...awrence.Garvin

I just did a manual WSUS sync. There are some new updates. Those dreaded
KB951847 updates come back to nag me to be approved for installation.

Is there any change with the detection logic? I remember the previous
KB951847 force all machines to install ver 3.5 regardless of the presence of
..NET framework. Will this one do the same? I guess I'll find out tomorrow
after all WinXP machines have "checked-in" with WSUS box.

"Lawrence Garvin [MVP]" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
> New revisions of these packages were released on Tuesday, May 12th, and
> were announced by the WSUS Product Team in their blog last week. The
> expiration of the previous packages is intentional, happens automatically
> when new revisions are published, and has absolutely nothing to do with
> whether they were approved or not.
>
> They were automatically declined because you have the option "Auto-decline
> expired updates" enabled.
>
> If you had previously approved them, the new revisions would also be
> approved.
>
> --
> Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCITP:EA, MCDBA
> Principal/CTO, Onsite Technology Solutions, Houston, Texas
> Microsoft MVP - Software Distribution (2005-2009)
>
> MS WSUS Website: http://www.microsoft.com/wsus
> My Websites: http://www.onsitechsolutions.com;
> http://wsusinfo.onsitechsolutions.com
> My MVP Profile: http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/pro...awrence.Garvin
>

Yes it does the same thing.
I did test on a machine with only 2.0 installed and it installed 3.0 and
3.5 as well.
Grrr...

--
Dave Harry

> Is there any change with the detection logic? I remember the previous
> KB951847 force all machines to install ver 3.5 regardless of the presence
> of .NET framework. Will this one do the same? I guess I'll find out
> tomorrow after all WinXP machines have "checked-in" with WSUS box.
>
>

Dave Harry wrote:

> Yes it does the same thing.
> I did test on a machine with only 2.0 installed and it installed 3.0
> and 3.5 as well.
> Grrr...

That's the intended behaviour.

Harry.

"John" <a> wrote in message news:%...
>I just did a manual WSUS sync. There are some new updates. Those dreaded
>KB951847 updates come back to nag me to be approved for installation.
>
> Is there any change with the detection logic?

From my understanding, there is no real change in the detection logic,
they've just clarified the actual intent of the packages (e.g. one set of
packages is for machines that do not have .NET20 installed; the other set of
packages is for machines that do have .NET20 installed). Further, these
revisions only affect WinXP and Win2003, because Vista/Win2008 already has
..NET30 installed by the native OS.

> I remember the previous KB951847 force all machines to install ver 3.5
> regardless of the presence of .NET framework. Will this one do the same?

Yes, unfortunately, it will. There has been no change in the philosophy of
these updates, only a clarification in their title and descriptions.

--
Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCITP:EA, MCDBA
Principal/CTO, Onsite Technology Solutions, Houston, Texas
Microsoft MVP - Software Distribution (2005-2009)

MS WSUS Website: http://www.microsoft.com/wsus
My Websites: http://www.onsitechsolutions.com;
http://wsusinfo.onsitechsolutions.com
My MVP Profile: http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/pro...awrence.Garvin

That is still acceptable because .NET is already installed.

What is not acceptable is to force all machines to install this "update"
including those that don't have any version of .NET installed. I guess MS
definition of "update" is a new software.

"Dave Harry" <> wrote in
message news:...
> Yes it does the same thing.
> I did test on a machine with only 2.0 installed and it installed 3.0 and
> 3.5 as well.
> Grrr...
>
> --
> Dave Harry
>
>> Is there any change with the detection logic? I remember the previous
>> KB951847 force all machines to install ver 3.5 regardless of the presence
>> of .NET framework. Will this one do the same? I guess I'll find out
>> tomorrow after all WinXP machines have "checked-in" with WSUS box.
>>
>>

I have just double checked my WSUS status today. I appears exactly as you
said below. Only the title and descriptions of the updates change. That's
it.

Update ID: f54ace97-a003-44a4-9e36-ef7071f6ce9d
Description:
(a) This combined Service Pack and update is applicable to systems running a
version of .NET prior to version 2.0,
(b) or to systems that have no prior version of .NET framework installed.

I can accept (a).

(b) is totally unacceptable no matter how we look at it. An "Update" should
never introduce new stuff. If we're not sick, why would we take some
medicine?


"Lawrence Garvin [MVP]" <> wrote in message
news:ezBYHz%...
> "John" <a> wrote in message
> news:%...
>>I just did a manual WSUS sync. There are some new updates. Those dreaded
>>KB951847 updates come back to nag me to be approved for installation.
>>
>> Is there any change with the detection logic?
>
> From my understanding, there is no real change in the detection logic,
> they've just clarified the actual intent of the packages (e.g. one set of
> packages is for machines that do not have .NET20 installed; the other set
> of packages is for machines that do have .NET20 installed). Further, these
> revisions only affect WinXP and Win2003, because Vista/Win2008 already has
> .NET30 installed by the native OS.
>
>> I remember the previous KB951847 force all machines to install ver 3.5
>> regardless of the presence of .NET framework. Will this one do the same?
>
> Yes, unfortunately, it will. There has been no change in the philosophy of
> these updates, only a clarification in their title and descriptions.
>
> --
> Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCITP:EA, MCDBA
> Principal/CTO, Onsite Technology Solutions, Houston, Texas
> Microsoft MVP - Software Distribution (2005-2009)
>
> MS WSUS Website: http://www.microsoft.com/wsus
> My Websites: http://www.onsitechsolutions.com;
> http://wsusinfo.onsitechsolutions.com
> My MVP Profile: http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/pro...awrence.Garvin
>

"John" <a> wrote in message news:O362GD$...

> (b) or to systems that have no prior version of .NET framework installed.

> (b) is totally unacceptable no matter how we look at it. An "Update"
> should never introduce new stuff. If we're not sick, why would we take
> some medicine?

I absolutely agree with you John, and I've voiced my objections to the WSUS
product team; who, unfortunately, are only the messengers, not the content
creators.

Until Corporate America complains louder to Microsoft, though, about this
little fiasco, I'm afraid it's likely to continue to go unchanged.

My take, as seems to be the case with you, and is the case with me, that
there are a significant number of organizations with:
[a] Machines that have only the native .NET11 Framework installed
(compliments of Win2003SP1), and
[b] Machines that have only .NET20 Framework installed (to support
ASP.NET 2.0),

and until any of those machines reach their end-of-life, or get replaced by
Windows Server 2008 machines (with .NET30 natively installed), or Windows
Server 2008 R2 (with .NET35SP1 natively installed), or something down the
pipe which will install .NET40 -- Microsoft needs to find a way to continue
to support .NET v1.x and .NET v2.x =ONLY= systems -- and that includes
separately packaged service packs for .NET 20.

Now, the good news is that .NET20 Service Pack 2 can be downloaded from the
Microsoft Download Center, and deployed through non-WSUS technologies.

The BAD NEWS, and contrary to every promise made by Microsoft since 2004
concerning distribution of updates via the MU/WSUS engine, is that the
service pack cannot be applied using existing WSUS technologies because the
..NET Framework SE team has *chosen* not to package the .NET20SP2 update as
an independent package for WSUS.


--
Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCITP:EA, MCDBA
Principal/CTO, Onsite Technology Solutions, Houston, Texas
Microsoft MVP - Software Distribution (2005-2009)

MS WSUS Website: http://www.microsoft.com/wsus
My Websites: http://www.onsitechsolutions.com;
http://wsusinfo.onsitechsolutions.com
My MVP Profile: http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/pro...awrence.Garvin