From: Gary Britt 

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