Text 15604, 267 rader
Skriven 2007-01-23 21:07:52 av Rich (1:379/45)
Kommentar till text 15603 av Rich Gauszka (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: eweek's john pallatto is claiming Monthly Microsoft Patch Hides Tri
===============================================================================
From: "Rich" <@>
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_005F_01C73F32.8B678340
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
It's an eweek story that one of the Ziff Davis zdnet blogger's =
ridiculed and according to him so did many of the responses to the = original
story. See http://blogs.zdnet.com/Orchant/?p=3D327. The = orginal is at
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2086423,00.asp.
Rich
"Rich Gauszka" <gauszka@dontspamhotmail.com> wrote in message =
news:45b6e9dc$1@w3.nls.net...
not sure - It's under FoxNews Technology but the writer John Pallatto=20
appears affiliated with eweek.com. checking the archives it looks like =
Fox's=20
Tech Tuesday is a product of Ziff Davis Media Inc. Does this mean MS =
pissed=20
off both Fox and Ziff Davis? <g>
"Gary Britt" <GaryNOSPAMBritt@generalcogster.com> wrote in message=20
news:45b6e394$1@w3.nls.net...
> Is this a Fox story or an eWeek story that is carried by Fox's =
website?
>
> Gary
>
> Rich Gauszka wrote:
>> ROFL - looks like MS pissed off someone at Fox News
>>
>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,246023,00.html
>>
>> The solution was quick and simple, but the irritation was enormous. =
>> Microsoft decided it would use the security patch process to sneak =
IE 7=20
>> onto the desktops of millions of PC users.
>>
>> If it was going to try this tactic, it should have at least made =
sure=20
>> that the installation was so reliable that it would work virtually =
every=20
>> time. Microsoft has likely set back IE 7 adoption by months at =
least for=20
>> the people who experienced these problems.
>>
>> I know that I was prepared to make a permanent switch to Firefox if =
I=20
>> found that I could not restore my IE 6 configuration. I may yet =
make=20
>> greater use of Firefox just to reduce my dependence on Explorer.
>>
>> It's significant that Microsoft apparently hasn't tried a similar =
trick=20
>> with its corporate customers who are much more particular about how =
and=20
>> when they upgrade to any new application. The cries of outrage =
directed=20
>> at Redmond would have been a lot louder and more anguished.
>>
>> There is no question that thousands of Windows XP users like myself =
have=20
>> successfully or even deliberately installed IE 7 and are pleased =
with the=20
>> new browsing features it gives them.
>>
>> But why does Microsoft believe it must treat its customers like =
children=20
>> and trick them into installing a new application? It's like parents =
>> tricking babies to swallow bitter medicine by mixing it with some=20
>> applesauce.
>>
>> It's bad enough that the Internet allows Microsoft to reach out and =
touch=20
>> our computers whenever it decides to do security and application =
updates.
>>
>> Yes, it's true this is the most efficient way for Microsoft to =
patch its=20
>> software. Without the Internet, prompt distribution of security =
updates=20
>> would be impossible.
>>
>> Then there are those annoying automated prompts that pop up every =
time=20
>> one of your applications crashes, asking whether you want to send a =
>> notice to Mother Microsoft, telling her what bad things those nasty =
>> applications did to crash Windows. You are never far from the =
comforting=20
>> arms of Microsoft.
>>
>> But the security update channel shouldn't be used by Microsoft to =
launch=20
>> marketing experiments on its customers. Nor should the patch =
mechanism be=20
>> used to spring new products on users without their full knowledge =
and=20
>> acceptance.
>>
>> There should be a further examination of this process to see =
whether=20
>> Microsoft is violating the terms of its antitrust agreements with =
state=20
>> and federal governments by using the security patch channel as a =
sly=20
>> technique to head off competing applications from the PC desktop.
>>
>> As for myself, I will forever approach future "security" updates =
with=20
>> great caution. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on =
me."
>>=20
------=_NextPart_000_005F_01C73F32.8B678340
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.6000.16386" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> It's an eweek story that =
one of the=20
Ziff Davis zdnet blogger's ridiculed and according to him so did many of =
the=20
responses to the original story. See <A=20
href=3D"http://blogs.zdnet.com/Orchant/?p=3D327">http://blogs.zdnet.com/O=
rchant/?p=3D327</A>. =20
The orginal is at <A=20
href=3D"http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2086423,00.asp">http://www.e=
week.com/article2/0,1895,2086423,00.asp</A>.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Rich</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"Rich Gauszka" <<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:gauszka@dontspamhotmail.com">gauszka@dontspamhotmail.com</=
A>>=20
wrote in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:45b6e9dc$1@w3.nls.net">news:45b6e9dc$1@w3.nls.net</A>...</DI=
V>not=20
sure - It's under FoxNews Technology but the writer John Pallatto =
<BR>appears=20
affiliated with eweek.com. checking the archives it looks like Fox's =
<BR>Tech=20
Tuesday is a product of Ziff Davis Media Inc. Does this mean MS pissed =
<BR>off=20
both Fox and Ziff Davis? <g><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>"Gary Britt" =
<<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:GaryNOSPAMBritt@generalcogster.com">GaryNOSPAMBritt@genera=
lcogster.com</A>>=20
wrote in message <BR><A=20
=
href=3D"news:45b6e394$1@w3.nls.net">news:45b6e394$1@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>=
> Is=20
this a Fox story or an eWeek story that is carried by Fox's=20
website?<BR>><BR>> Gary<BR>><BR>> Rich Gauszka =
wrote:<BR>>>=20
ROFL - looks like MS pissed off someone at Fox =
News<BR>>><BR>>> <A=20
=
href=3D"http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,246023,00.html">http://www.fo=
xnews.com/story/0,2933,246023,00.html</A><BR>>><BR>>>=20
The solution was quick and simple, but the irritation was enormous.=20
<BR>>> Microsoft decided it would use the security patch process =
to=20
sneak IE 7 <BR>>> onto the desktops of millions of PC=20
users.<BR>>><BR>>> If it was going to try this tactic, it =
should=20
have at least made sure <BR>>> that the installation was so =
reliable=20
that it would work virtually every <BR>>> time. Microsoft has =
likely set=20
back IE 7 adoption by months at least for <BR>>> the people who=20
experienced these problems.<BR>>><BR>>> I know that I was =
prepared=20
to make a permanent switch to Firefox if I <BR>>> found that I =
could not=20
restore my IE 6 configuration. I may yet make <BR>>> greater use =
of=20
Firefox just to reduce my dependence on =
Explorer.<BR>>><BR>>> It's=20
significant that Microsoft apparently hasn't tried a similar trick=20
<BR>>> with its corporate customers who are much more particular =
about=20
how and <BR>>> when they upgrade to any new application. The =
cries of=20
outrage directed <BR>>> at Redmond would have been a lot louder =
and more=20
anguished.<BR>>><BR>>> There is no question that thousands =
of=20
Windows XP users like myself have <BR>>> successfully or even=20
deliberately installed IE 7 and are pleased with the <BR>>> new =
browsing=20
features it gives them.<BR>>><BR>>> But why does Microsoft =
believe=20
it must treat its customers like children <BR>>> and trick them =
into=20
installing a new application? It's like parents <BR>>> tricking =
babies=20
to swallow bitter medicine by mixing it with some <BR>>>=20
applesauce.<BR>>><BR>>> It's bad enough that the Internet =
allows=20
Microsoft to reach out and touch <BR>>> our computers whenever =
it=20
decides to do security and application =
updates.<BR>>><BR>>> Yes,=20
it's true this is the most efficient way for Microsoft to patch its=20
<BR>>> software. Without the Internet, prompt distribution of =
security=20
updates <BR>>> would be impossible.<BR>>><BR>>> Then =
there=20
are those annoying automated prompts that pop up every time =
<BR>>> one=20
of your applications crashes, asking whether you want to send a =
<BR>>>=20
notice to Mother Microsoft, telling her what bad things those nasty=20
<BR>>> applications did to crash Windows. You are never far from =
the=20
comforting <BR>>> arms of Microsoft.<BR>>><BR>>> But =
the=20
security update channel shouldn't be used by Microsoft to launch =
<BR>>>=20
marketing experiments on its customers. Nor should the patch mechanism =
be=20
<BR>>> used to spring new products on users without their full =
knowledge=20
and <BR>>> acceptance.<BR>>><BR>>> There should be a =
further=20
examination of this process to see whether <BR>>> Microsoft is =
violating=20
the terms of its antitrust agreements with state <BR>>> and =
federal=20
governments by using the security patch channel as a sly <BR>>>=20
technique to head off competing applications from the PC=20
desktop.<BR>>><BR>>> As for myself, I will forever =
approach future=20
"security" updates with <BR>>> great caution. "Fool me once, =
shame on=20
you. Fool me twice, shame on me."<BR>>> =
<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_005F_01C73F32.8B678340--
--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
* Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)
|