Text 15607, 139 rader
Skriven 2007-01-24 00:38:20 av Rich Gauszka (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 Gauszka" <gauszka@dontspamhotmail.com>

I don't disagree with what you stated yet unfortunately there are many Windows
users who do just what Pallatto did.  I assume Microsoft knows that few ( with
the exception of large corporations ) would apply the IE7 blocker. Was it
intentional by MS? - probably. Should a computer user be aware of what they are
updating? - yep. Should Microsoft get a little grief over this? - I'd say yes.


"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 know not to just do the auto update my machine without checking for
> custom inspection of what is being installed all that much.  Anyone doing
> automatic updates without inspecting what's being installed isn't paying
> attention and hasn't been paying much attention to automatic update issues
> over the past 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
>> ridiculed and according to him so did many of the responses to the
>> original story.  See http://blogs.zdnet.com/Orchant/?p=327.  The orginal
>> is at http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2086423,00.asp.
>>  Rich
>>  "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>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     "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."
>>     > >

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
 * Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)