Text 15616, 199 rader
Skriven 2007-01-24 10:18:42 av Rich Gauszka (1:379/45)
  Kommentar till text 15615 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>

eWeek is part of ZD
http://www.ziffdavis.com/products/print/eweek

eWEEK remains true to its mission of 20 years, providing core IT buyers with
the strategic news and reviews they need to make optimal buying decisions.
eWEEK's award-winning journalists and labs analysts provide the news, analysis,
opinion and expert product reviews necessary for 400,100 information technology
professionals to make the best technology decisions for their companies. No
other IT newsweekly delivers timely, insightful actionable information focused
on news, views and reviews.


"Gary Britt" <GaryNOSPAMBritt@generalcogster.com> wrote in message
news:45b7790d$1@w3.nls.net...
LOL, That's a good point as well.  I take it eWeek is not part of ZD
publications as well.

Gary

Rich wrote:
>    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?
>  Rich
>
>     "Gary Britt" <GaryNOSPAMBritt@generalcogster.com
>     <mailto: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>
>     >     <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>
>     >     <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)