Text 15606, 438 rader
Skriven 2007-01-23 21:32:10 av Rich (1:379/45)
Kommentar till text 15605 av Gary Britt (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_0091_01C73F35.F08E9080
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I don't think that is the reason for the ridicule. The most =
interesting of these is that the guy claimed to be surprised. Quoting = from
the zdnet article which quotes from a response to the eweek one
Do you actually read the publication you're a senior editor of? If =
yes, how could you not have known that Microsoft was planning on = including
IE7 in their scheduled monthly update? A casual search found = no less than a
dozen articles and posts on eWEEK discussing this = decision. If you don't read
your own publication well then. what are you = reading?=20
Rich
"Gary Britt" <GaryNOSPAMBritt@generalcogster.com> wrote in message =
news:45b6f081$1@w3.nls.net...
Well I'd have to agree. I wouldn't give any tech writer not smart =
enough to=20
know not to just do the auto update my machine without checking for =
custom=20
inspection of what is being installed all that much. Anyone doing =
automatic=20
updates without inspecting what's being installed isn't paying =
attention and=20
hasn't been paying much attention to automatic update issues over the =
past=20
year beginning last April and earlier with the WGA trojan updates.
Gary
Rich wrote:
> It's an eweek story that one of the Ziff Davis zdnet blogger's=20
> ridiculed and according to him so did many of the responses to the=20
> original story. See http://blogs.zdnet.com/Orchant/?p=3D327. The =
orginal=20
> is at http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2086423,00.asp.
> =20
> Rich
> =20
>=20
> "Rich Gauszka" <gauszka@dontspamhotmail.com
> <mailto:gauszka@dontspamhotmail.com>> wrote in message
> news:45b6e9dc$1@w3.nls.net...
> not sure - It's under FoxNews Technology but the writer John =
Pallatto
> appears affiliated with eweek.com. checking the archives it =
looks
> like Fox's
> Tech Tuesday is a product of Ziff Davis Media Inc. Does this =
mean MS
> pissed
> off both Fox and Ziff Davis? <g>
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> "Gary Britt" <GaryNOSPAMBritt@generalcogster.com
> <mailto:GaryNOSPAMBritt@generalcogster.com>> wrote in message
> 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
> > > onto the desktops of millions of PC users.
> > >
> > > If it was going to try this tactic, it should have at least =
made
> sure
> > > that the installation was so reliable that it would work
> virtually every
> > > time. Microsoft has likely set back IE 7 adoption by months =
at
> least for
> > > the people who experienced these problems.
> > >
> > > I know that I was prepared to make a permanent switch to =
Firefox
> if I
> > > found that I could not restore my IE 6 configuration. I may =
yet make
> > > greater use of Firefox just to reduce my dependence on =
Explorer.
> > >
> > > It's significant that Microsoft apparently hasn't tried a =
similar
> trick
> > > with its corporate customers who are much more particular =
about
> how and
> > > when they upgrade to any new application. The cries of =
outrage
> directed
> > > at Redmond would have been a lot louder and more anguished.
> > >
> > > There is no question that thousands of Windows XP users like
> myself have
> > > successfully or even deliberately installed IE 7 and are =
pleased
> with the
> > > new browsing features it gives them.
> > >
> > > But why does Microsoft believe it must treat its customers =
like
> children
> > > and trick them into installing a new application? It's like =
parents
> > > tricking babies to swallow bitter medicine by mixing it with =
some
> > > applesauce.
> > >
> > > It's bad enough that the Internet allows Microsoft to reach =
out
> and touch
> > > 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
> > > software. Without the Internet, prompt distribution of =
security
> updates
> > > would be impossible.
> > >
> > > Then there are those annoying automated prompts that pop up =
every
> time
> > > 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
> > > arms of Microsoft.
> > >
> > > But the security update channel shouldn't be used by =
Microsoft to
> launch
> > > marketing experiments on its customers. Nor should the patch
> mechanism be
> > > used to spring new products on users without their full =
knowledge
> and
> > > acceptance.
> > >
> > > There should be a further examination of this process to see =
whether
> > > Microsoft is violating the terms of its antitrust agreements =
with
> state
> > > and federal governments by using the security patch channel =
as a sly
> > > technique to head off competing applications from the PC =
desktop.
> > >
> > > As for myself, I will forever approach future "security" =
updates
> with
> > > great caution. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, =
shame
> on me."
> > >
------=_NextPart_000_0091_01C73F35.F08E9080
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> I don't think that is the =
reason for=20
the ridicule. The most interesting of these is that the guy = claimed to
be=20
surprised. Quoting from the zdnet article which quotes from a =
response to the eweek one</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr style=3D"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>Do you actually read the publication you're a senior editor of? =
If yes,=20
how could you not have known that Microsoft was planning on including =
IE7 in=20
their scheduled monthly update? A casual search found no less than a =
dozen=20
articles and posts on eWEEK discussing this decision. If you don't =
read your=20
own publication well then=85 what are you reading? </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<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>"Gary Britt" <<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:GaryNOSPAMBritt@generalcogster.com">GaryNOSPAMBritt@genera=
lcogster.com</A>>=20
wrote in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:45b6f081$1@w3.nls.net">news:45b6f081$1@w3.nls.net</A>...</DI=
V>Well=20
I'd have to agree. I wouldn't give any tech writer not smart =
enough to=20
<BR>know not to just do the auto update my machine without checking =
for custom=20
<BR>inspection of what is being installed all that much. Anyone =
doing=20
automatic <BR>updates without inspecting what's being installed isn't =
paying=20
attention and <BR>hasn't been paying much attention to automatic =
update issues=20
over the past <BR>year beginning last April and earlier with the WGA =
trojan=20
updates.<BR><BR>Gary<BR><BR>Rich wrote:<BR>> It's =
an=20
eweek story that one of the Ziff Davis zdnet blogger's <BR>> =
ridiculed and=20
according to him so did many of the responses to the <BR>> 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 <BR>> 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>.<BR>> =20
<BR>> Rich<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> =
"Rich=20
Gauszka" <<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:gauszka@dontspamhotmail.com">gauszka@dontspamhotmail.com</=
A><BR>> =20
<<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:gauszka@dontspamhotmail.com">mailto:gauszka@dontspamhotmai=
l.com</A>>>=20
wrote in message<BR>> <A=20
=
href=3D"news:45b6e9dc$1@w3.nls.net">news:45b6e9dc$1@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>=
> =20
not sure - It's under FoxNews Technology but the writer John=20
Pallatto<BR>> appears affiliated with =
eweek.com.=20
checking the archives it looks<BR>> like=20
Fox's<BR>> Tech Tuesday is a product of =
Ziff Davis=20
Media Inc. Does this mean MS<BR>> =20
pissed<BR>> off both Fox and Ziff Davis?=20
<g><BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> =
<BR>> =20
"Gary Britt" <<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:GaryNOSPAMBritt@generalcogster.com">GaryNOSPAMBritt@genera=
lcogster.com</A><BR>> =20
<<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:GaryNOSPAMBritt@generalcogster.com">mailto:GaryNOSPAMBritt=
@generalcogster.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>=
> =20
> Is this a Fox story or an eWeek story that is carried by=20
Fox's<BR>> =
website?<BR>> =20
><BR>> > =20
Gary<BR>> =
><BR>> =20
> Rich Gauszka wrote:<BR>> > =
> ROFL=20
- looks like MS pissed off someone at Fox =
News<BR>> =20
> ><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>> =
=20
> ><BR>> > > The solution was =
quick and=20
simple, but the irritation was =
enormous.<BR>> >=20
> Microsoft decided it would use the security patch process=20
to<BR>> sneak IE =
7<BR>> =20
> > onto the desktops of millions of PC=20
users.<BR>> >=20
><BR>> > > If it was going to try =
this=20
tactic, it should have at least made<BR>> =20
sure<BR>> > > that the installation =
was so=20
reliable that it would work<BR>> virtually=20
every<BR>> > > time. Microsoft has =
likely set=20
back IE 7 adoption by months at<BR>> least=20
for<BR>> > > the people who =
experienced these=20
problems.<BR>> >=20
><BR>> > > I know that I was =
prepared to=20
make a permanent switch to Firefox<BR>> if=20
I<BR>> > > found that I could not =
restore my=20
IE 6 configuration. I may yet make<BR>> =
> >=20
greater use of Firefox just to reduce my dependence on=20
Explorer.<BR>> >=20
><BR>> > > It's significant that =
Microsoft=20
apparently hasn't tried a similar<BR>> =20
trick<BR>> > > with its corporate =
customers=20
who are much more particular about<BR>> how =
and<BR>> > > when they upgrade to any =
new=20
application. The cries of outrage<BR>> =20
directed<BR>> > > at Redmond would =
have been=20
a lot louder and more anguished.<BR>> >=20
><BR>> > > There is no question =
that=20
thousands of Windows XP users like<BR>> =
myself=20
have<BR>> > > successfully or even=20
deliberately installed IE 7 and are =
pleased<BR>> =20
with the<BR>> > > new browsing =
features it=20
gives them.<BR>> >=20
><BR>> > > But why does Microsoft =
believe=20
it must treat its customers like<BR>> =20
children<BR>> > > and trick them into =
installing a new application? It's like=20
parents<BR>> > > tricking babies to =
swallow=20
bitter medicine by mixing it with some<BR>> =
>=20
> applesauce.<BR>> >=20
><BR>> > > It's bad enough that =
the=20
Internet allows Microsoft to reach out<BR>> =
and=20
touch<BR>> > > our computers whenever =
it=20
decides to do security and application<BR>> =
updates.<BR>> >=20
><BR>> > > Yes, it's true this is =
the most=20
efficient way for Microsoft to<BR>> patch=20
its<BR>> > > software. Without the =
Internet,=20
prompt distribution of security<BR>> =20
updates<BR>> > > would be=20
impossible.<BR>> >=20
><BR>> > > Then there are those =
annoying=20
automated prompts that pop up every<BR>> =20
time<BR>> > > one of your =
applications=20
crashes, asking whether you want to send =
a<BR>> =20
> > notice to Mother Microsoft, telling her what bad things =
those=20
nasty<BR>> > > applications did to =
crash=20
Windows. You are never far from the<BR>> =20
comforting<BR>> > > arms of=20
Microsoft.<BR>> >=20
><BR>> > > But the security update =
channel=20
shouldn't be used by Microsoft to<BR>> =20
launch<BR>> > > marketing experiments =
on its=20
customers. Nor should the patch<BR>> =
mechanism=20
be<BR>> > > used to spring new =
products on=20
users without their full knowledge<BR>> =20
and<BR>> > >=20
acceptance.<BR>> >=20
><BR>> > > There should be a =
further=20
examination of this process to see =
whether<BR>> =20
> > Microsoft is violating the terms of its antitrust agreements =
with<BR>> =
state<BR>> =20
> > and federal governments by using the security patch channel =
as a=20
sly<BR>> > > technique to head off =
competing=20
applications from the PC desktop.<BR>> > =
><BR>> > > As for myself, I will =
forever=20
approach future "security" updates<BR>> =20
with<BR>> > > great caution. "Fool me =
once,=20
shame on you. Fool me twice, shame<BR>> on=20
me."<BR>> > =
></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0091_01C73F35.F08E9080--
--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
* Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)
|