Microsoft has further streamlined its operating system development cycle by announcing that Windows Server 2016 will join Windows 10 in moving to a twice-a-year update cycle.
It follows on from the company's shift to releasing updates for Windows 10, in the Spring and Autumn. The Office 365 productivity suite has also been taken twice-yearly.
The move will provide a cohesive and predictable sense to Windows Updates going forward and will enable sysadmins and consumers alike to prepare for the changes ahead (though as of yet, it's estimated that less than a quarter of Windows 10 users have received the Creators Update, released in April).
However, it will also serve to drive adoption of services. Enterprise rollout is now small task, and a huge change to a new edition every few years has been one of the catalysts that has led to out of date software still being installed on thousands of PCs - including those used by the NHS and Met Police as well as London Councils.
By switching to a more regular pattern, adoption is more likely and, while there are still issues surrounding the freedom of sysadmins over what they do and don't want to have installed on their networks, Microsoft will always argue the payoff is the ability to stay up to date, and to remain secure with the minimum of disruption.
Not every server will receive this treatment. The Nano Server, with its non-GUI front-end and tiny footprint, will get new releases every six months, supported for 18 months (known as the semi-annual branch).
Bigger servers will get releases every six months but with a long-term stable release every two-three years - much as Ubuntu does now (this is called the Long Term Service Channel or LTSC, replacing the existing LTSB). The LTSC releases will have a footprint of five-to-six years but, of course, there will be "leanings" from Microsoft to allow it to handle the incremental stuff.
In truth, these changes aren't massive. What Microsoft has done is add an air of predictability to policies that were actually, for the most part, happening anyway, but the unification of years of disparate policies can only be a good thing for users. And of course for Microsoft.
Microsoft claims Check Point's methodology is all wrong - figure more like five million, not 250 million
Microsoft's explanation still raises as many questions as it answers
Wikileaks dumps info on 'Brutal Kangeroo', the CIA's malware toolkit for hacking 'air-gapped' networks
CIA's Brutal Kangeroo malware suite likened to Stuxnet
Commuters less than chuffed - many fined for not having a ticket