From: Gary Britt 

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"      > 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
>     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"      
>     >     > 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? 
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >     "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."
>     >     > >

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