Microsoft: Whoops, Patch Tuesday might screw your database connections Applications using the Open Database Connectivity (ODBC) interface may fail to connect after installing the November Patch Tuesday Windows updates, according to Microsoft. Users may see the apps that use the Microsoft ODBC SQL Server Driver have problems, with some attempts to access databases generating an error message when …
Here's a clue why they can't :
"operating systems impacted are Windows 11 versions 22H2 and 21H2, Windows 10 versions 22H2, 21H1, and 20H2, Windows 10 Enterprise LTSC 2019 and LTSC 2016, Windows 10 Enterprise 2015 LTSB, Windows 8.1; and Windows 7 SP1. Also affected Windows Server 2022, 2019, 2016, Windows Server 2012 R2 and 2012, Windows Server 2008 R2 SP1, and Windows Server 2008 SP2"
They would have to test every single fix in every patch release for each OS version, with and without every single service pack and combination thereof. It is the inevitable consequence of having a huge monolithic OS.
I see even LTSC versions got hit by this.
This is what happens when you don't really have a QA department.
For those who don't know, MS pretty much got rid of it's AQ department some years ago.
https://www.networkworld.com/article/2453929/would-microsoft-really-cut-its-qa-department.html
"They would have to test every single fix in every patch release for each OS version"
No, they wouldn't, only for the OS versions which are actually still supported (Windows 7 isn't, as aren't server 2008, 2008 R2 and 2012).
As for the Windows variants that are still supported, it's Microsoft's job to make sure the shit the produce works.
The function of an OS is to create a layer above hardware such that application programmers can produce applications without concern for the underlying hardware. So they (MS) would "need to test against every item of supported hardware" too, to be comprehensive. Clearly not an option per patch.
Windows is a broken OS, it far overreaches the functionality required of an OS and reduces its effectiveness as a result.
MS is driven by profit, and to make future purchases seem worthwhile is compelled to include new shiny-shiny to justify the next upgrade/sale - far, far beyond the requirements of an OS. This approach will only continue, creating an ever growing snowball whose only chance of survival is to remain too large to fit in hell, ie. it's ubiquitous, and no C-Suite is going to rip out "what works" to improve the overall industry.
Then, to pour salt into the open wound, Microsoft releases patches that break things in Windows.
Windows is to an OS what the Maxim Flying Machine is to a kite.
Not sure about "want". They're selecting from what's available. I want an electricity supplier that responds to customer concerns promptly without a load of runaround, with customer services that service the customer, not the organisation. But I'm not delusional! So I pick one.
MS gained ground, in part, by buying out (eliminating) competition[1]. AFAIC, that's absolutely fine, it's a free market. It further retained that ground by creating vendor lock-in: contractually and by creating a perceived dependency on proprietary data formats. With a wee dash of sales spiel.
Until recently (say 2-5 years) application software required by SMEs, while available, weren't comprehensive on alternative platforms. The developers were raised on Windows at school (lock-in) so came out knowing that dev stack, so the majority of apps were developed on 'doze (meaning reduced training for software houses). Historically, software houses of expensive software (eg. CAD, DTP) were happy for students to use pirated software, as it ensured that when those students hit the market, they were au fait with that product: less training overhead for their new employer, stability for the software vendor and further OS lock-in. As most of the applications were on Windows, that created further dependency on that platform.
Now the up-and-comers have access to the web they can explore beyond that lock-in, so that situation's changing. Businesses are not now totally dependent on proprietary data formats, which is a good thing. But existing businesses will still stick with M$ as it's a huge professional risk for an owner/C-Suite to ditch the established and try something new. Only new organisation really have that option, which requires their education (by the IT industry) and understanding, without just following the flock.
I think what people (businesses) want are stable tools without monthly headaches and bullshit. People (home users), well, that depends on whether on not they can play their favourite games or use their desired sequencing software.
[1] If they could buy-out Linux, they would. But there's no one to pay off.
"Yup, and it's what people want."
Anyone believing that is just stupid. Try to buy a machine without Windows and you know why everyone has it: It's literally force-sold with machine.
Windows is the reason why desktop machines are dying very, very fast and people use just mobile phones: No Windows there and *that* is showing what people want.
This post has been deleted by its author
"Only ODBC, so very old programs only."
... and anyone not running MS SQL on Windows. But of course no-one does that in your world, do they? MS fan boy ignorance is colossal, again.
Intentional sabotage to me. "Too bad you're running Oracle, you should be running our toy database".
> Literally every patch Tuesday has a showstopping bug now…..
Yes, but since it doesn't really matter, there is no incentive to do something about it. They will eventually fix the bug (or not), and the yeasayers will be thrilled MS is delivering.
MS clearly doesn't care anymore. Bugs (fortunately most just annoying) have become a common feature of MS products, some remain unfixed through several major versions, and since I have missed out between Win7 and Win11 I can say that despite what some claim, old Windowses (2000, XP, 7) were way more stable than 11. There was the occasional bug back then too, but patching wasn't a game of Russian roulette like today.
They certainly don't. And why should they, after all despite being utter shite their software presents the backbone of most businesses around the world.
The same businesses that also happily bend over to get reamed after migrating to Azure (which is as bad as Microsoft's standalone software).
"their software presents the backbone of most businesses around the world."
Most *desktops* around the world. Which is more or less the meaningless part of operation.
Most businesses are sane enough *not* to run corporation backbones on anything Microsoft has ever made, it's either actual mainframe or some Unix-derivative.
Win 7 - finally eol for extended-hyperexpensive-support on Jan 14 2023, usually very stable because of its age and lack of fiddling yet MS are still able to build and install new bugs for it ...
Should we take bets on whether they will fix the issue before support finishes or leave it hanging ...?
In one hand,we can patch our systems but major functionalities could be broken
In the other hand, we could let major functionalities working but let security holes opened that could lead to disasters.
Take your pick.
== Bring us Dabbsy back! ==
"In one hand,we can patch our systems but major functionalities could be broken. In the other hand, we could let major functionalities working but let security holes opened that could lead to disasters. Take your pick."
Why not both? Patch our systems and introduce a new security hole due to a bug.... Impaled by a burning stick.
Given only those two options (rather than GTFO, pick a working platform) logic would clearly dictate staying with M$.
If you patch, the "bad actors" have new zero days to find, while you're waiting for December's patch Tuesday to be perfect (Touch the screen! Heal yourself!).
Either way, your system is borked for at least a month, but theoretically M$ are on your side, and you're already paying them thru the nose anyhoo.
Pick a working platform, and stop paying for shit.
I was going to suggest 'Page 3'. After all, applying an MS patch as soon as it is released, is guaranteed to make your systems go TITSUP.
Note for the mostly heathen residents of the USA...
You won't understand the joke so don't even try.
Bring back Dabsy
Bring this site back to the UK where it belongs.
"I was going to suggest 'Page 3'. ... Note for the mostly heathen residents of the USA... You won't understand the joke so don't even try."
Ahem... Some of us have enough knowledge of UK/British press to get the joke. Please don't assume the entire US audience is that homogenous. The backhanded insult was not appreciated, but the joke was good enough to avoid a downvote.
(The Internet -- bringing cultures together since day one. That's why forums exist, right?)
all these years developing stuff one would have thought that Microsoft devs would have a long list of things like "Print Spooler", which often get broken when they release a new Operating System.
Shirley it's not too much work to write a list and then have devels refer to it before starting coding, during coding and then again afterward coding - and especially before releasing the OS on the general public ?
I obviously do not know what I am talking about..........
ALF
Ya know, maybe it would have been better if the Anti-Trust lawsuit 20 years ago HAD broken Microsoft into separate independent divisions like we'd all hoped. Obviously this big, fat, trundling pig of a software provider is no longer able to pull itself out of it's wallowing hole and release reliable code. It just lays there, surrounded by the stench of its own hubris, while the rest of the world tries to walk around it without getting their shoes covered in shit.
Had me worried there, as this affects SQL Server I would always recommend using the SQL Server specific version on your clients and servers anyway over the included version.
At least the write only memory was intentional.
That's a feature Mike - obviously you should be using Teams rather than Zoom. I actually much preferred Teams meetings to Zoom - they are always so flaky that I can miss any I want by just saying "client wouldn't work" and it wouldn't be questioned.
Was going to add the joke icon, but MS have form on deliberately breaking other companies competing products.
"... noticed it only affects the 30-year old ODBC interface"
Windows is even older, so it's also irrelevant to you, right? You also don't seem to know anything about databases.
ODBC is still the only interface which almost works when you want to connect to database in a Windows-machine. By design. Even MS SQL uses it.
It's funny, seeing all the "who uses that ancient junk" versus "don't touch ODBC" approaches.
Both views are symptomatic of the sticking-plaster nature of the design of windows. So many bits bolted together, nobody really knows what strings move when you pull on one corner.
Is it really so difficult to aim to create a small and compact set of tools? "But backward compatibility" I hear business leaders scream. Yeah, tell that to those ancient 16-bit Windows 3 applications that are still in circulation - never migrated to new tech because business doesn't want to pay for development again and again. (So I now keep VM's around for certain things).
Still, it could be worse, it could be the arcane rituals of TNSNAMES.ORA; which I've had many an amusing argument with supposed DBAs that don't understand that "My" old copy of TNSNAMES works; whereas their "optimised" one doesn't. Where the criteria is that the database application actually, you know, lets you do something.
Yes, I sit in an org with a load of legacy cruft around. I don't know many large outfits that aren't infected by ancient ODBC or Oracle...
NASA & COBOL
One of my lecturers told us that the Shuttle missions' launch code[1] was the same COBOL code that was used during the Saturn V (and other) missions. The rationale was that it works, and no one had the political power, or insanity levels, to risk porting it to any thing else (risking a major balls-up).
I can't find sources. Has anyone got any info on this? I suspect it was true. If so, is it still the case, or have they gone, er, VBA now?
[1] Phrased to wind up the Norks reading El Reg!
Thanks for the response.
No, he never had a straight face, he's Welsh!
I did try to imply that "launch code" was slightly tongue in cheek. My apologies for misleading you. Perhaps "systems used by NASA at the time" would have been more appropriate.
"Mainly assembler" sounds impractical for ground based systems, on-board okay.
Thanks for the refs.
I don’t know what code they ran, but those early IBM flight computes on shuttle loaded up different bits of code, initially from tape, as the mission progressed. Not enough RAM/ROM to hold the whole lot.
I believe in later life these were solid stated but still the same processors 30 years on.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
