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"  wrote
in message =
news:45b6f081$1{at}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"      > wrote in message
  >     news:45b6e9dc$1{at}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? 
  >=20
  >=20
  >=20
  >=20
  >     "Gary Britt"      > wrote in message
  >     news:45b6e394$1{at}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








   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
 

  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? 
 
Rich
 

  "Gary Britt" <GaryNOSPAMBritt{at}genera=">mailto:GaryNOSPAMBritt{at}generalcogster.com">GaryNOSPAMBritt{at}genera=
lcogster.com>=20
  wrote in message news:45b6f081$1{at}w3.nls.net...Well=20
  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=20
  automatic updates without inspecting what's being installed isn't =
paying=20
  attention and hasn't been paying much attention to automatic =
update issues=20
  over the past year beginning last April and earlier with the WGA =
trojan=20
  updates.GaryRich
wrote:>    It's =
an=20
  eweek story that one of the Ziff Davis zdnet blogger's > =
ridiculed and=20
  according to him so did many of the responses to the > original =

  story.  See http://blogs.zdnet.com/O" target="new">http://blogs.zdnet.com/O=">http://blogs.zdnet.com/Orchant/?p=3D327">http://blogs.zdnet.com/O=
rchant/?p=3D327. =20
  The orginal > is at http://www.e" target="new">http://www.e=">http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2086423,00.asp">http://www.e=
week.com/article2/0,1895,2086423,00.asp.> =20
  > Rich>  >
>     =
"Rich=20
  Gauszka" <gauszka{at}dontspamhotmail.commailto:gauszka{at}dontspamhotmail.com">gauszka{at}dontspamhotmail.com
A>>    =20
  <mailto:gauszka{at}dontspamhotmai=">mailto:gauszka{at}dontspamhotmail.com">mailto:gauszka{at}dontspamhotmai=
l.com>>=20
  wrote in message>     news:45b6e9dc$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
>    =20
  not sure - It's under FoxNews Technology but the writer John=20
  Pallatto>    
appears affiliated with =
eweek.com.=20
  checking the archives it
looks>     like=20
  Fox's>     Tech
Tuesday is a product of =
Ziff Davis=20
  Media Inc. Does this mean
MS>    =20
  pissed>     off both
Fox and Ziff Davis?=20
  <g>> > >
> =
>    =20
  "Gary Britt" <GaryNOSPAMBritt{at}genera=">mailto:GaryNOSPAMBritt{at}generalcogster.com">GaryNOSPAMBritt{at}genera=
lcogster.com>    =20
  <mailto:GaryNOSPAMBritt=">mailto:GaryNOSPAMBritt{at}generalcogster.com">mailto:GaryNOSPAMBritt=
{at}generalcogster.com>>=20
  wrote in message>     news:45b6e394$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
>    =20
  >  Is this a Fox story or an eWeek story that is carried by=20
  Fox's>     =
website?>    =20
  >>    
> =20
  Gary>     =
>>    =20
  >  Rich Gauszka
wrote:>     > =
> ROFL=20
  - looks like MS pissed off someone at Fox =
News>    =20
  >
>>     >
> http://www.fo" target="new">http://www.fo=">http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,246023,00.html">http://www.fo=
xnews.com/story/0,2933,246023,00.html>    =
=20
  >
>>     >
> The solution was =
quick and=20
  simple, but the irritation was =
enormous.>     >=20
  > Microsoft decided it would use the security patch process=20
  to>     sneak IE =
7>    =20
  > > onto the desktops of millions of PC=20
  users.>     >=20
  >>    
> > If it was going to try =
this=20
  tactic, it should have at least
made>    =20
  sure>     >
> that the installation =
was so=20
  reliable that it would
work>     virtually=20
  every>     >
> time. Microsoft has =
likely set=20
  back IE 7 adoption by months
at>     least=20
  for>     >
> the people who =
experienced these=20
  problems.>     >=20
  >>    
> > I know that I was =
prepared to=20
  make a permanent switch to
Firefox>     if=20
  I>     >
> found that I could not =
restore my=20
  IE 6 configuration. I may yet
make>     =
> >=20
  greater use of Firefox just to reduce my dependence on=20
  Explorer.>     >=20
  >>    
> > It's significant that =
Microsoft=20
  apparently hasn't tried a
similar>    =20
  trick>     >
> with its corporate =
customers=20
  who are much more particular
about>     how =

  and>     >
> when they upgrade to any =
new=20
  application. The cries of
outrage>    =20
  directed>    
> > at Redmond would =
have been=20
  a lot louder and more
anguished.>    
>=20
  >>    
> > There is no question =
that=20
  thousands of Windows XP users
like>     =
myself=20
  have>     >
> successfully or even=20
  deliberately installed IE 7 and are =
pleased>    =20
  with the>    
> > new browsing =
features it=20
  gives them.>     >=20
  >>    
> > But why does Microsoft =
believe=20
  it must treat its customers
like>    =20
  children>    
> > and trick them into =

  installing a new application? It's like=20
  parents>    
> > tricking babies to =
swallow=20
  bitter medicine by mixing it with
some>     =
>=20
  >
applesauce.>    
>=20
  >>    
> > It's bad enough that =
the=20
  Internet allows Microsoft to reach
out>     =
and=20
  touch>     >
> our computers whenever =
it=20
  decides to do security and
application>     =

  updates.>     >=20
  >>    
> > Yes, it's true this is =
the most=20
  efficient way for Microsoft
to>     patch=20
  its>     >
> software. Without the =
Internet,=20
  prompt distribution of
security>    =20
  updates>    
> > would be=20
  impossible.>     >=20
  >>    
> > Then there are those =
annoying=20
  automated prompts that pop up
every>    =20
  time>     >
> one of your =
applications=20
  crashes, asking whether you want to send =
a>    =20
  > > notice to Mother Microsoft, telling her what bad things =
those=20
  nasty>     >
> applications did to =
crash=20
  Windows. You are never far from
the>    =20
  comforting>    
> > arms of=20
  Microsoft.>     >=20
  >>    
> > But the security update =
channel=20
  shouldn't be used by Microsoft
to>    =20
  launch>     >
> marketing experiments =
on its=20
  customers. Nor should the
patch>     =
mechanism=20
  be>     >
> used to spring new =
products on=20
  users without their full
knowledge>    =20
  and>     > >=20
  acceptance.>     >=20
  >>    
> > There should be a =
further=20
  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=20
  sly>     >
> technique to head off =
competing=20
  applications from the PC
desktop.>     >
=

  >>    
> > As for myself, I will =
forever=20
  approach future "security"
updates>    =20
  with>     >
> great caution. "Fool me =
once,=20
  shame on you. Fool me twice,
shame>     on=20
  me.">     > =
>

------=_NextPart_000_0091_01C73F35.F08E9080--

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5