Op Sun, 18 Jun 2006 14:18:35 +0100, schreef William Poaster:
> This message was posted on Usenet, NOT JLAforums, & on Sun, 18 Jun 2006
> 13:44:24 +0200, Richard Rasker posted this:
>
>> Op Sat, 17 Jun 2006 23:24:42 -0400, schreef Black Dragon:
>>
>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>
>>>> [IP] Another Windows Genuine Advantage screw up
>>>
>>>> ,----[ Snippet ]
>>>>| I was not amused to find out that the reason it had stopped monitoring
>>>>| was that at 3am Windows Update had loaded the Windows Genuine Advantage
>>>>| module, then rebooted the system after installing it, then refused to
>>>>| allow the system to start up until someone clicked on the box warning
>>>>| that the Dell supplied Windows Xp was not genuine.
>>>>|
>>>>| How long until some critical system is screwed up by this?
>>>> `----
>>>
>>>> http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200606/msg00121.html
>>>
>>> Anybody who is naive enough to have critical systems automatically
>>> updated deserves the potential consequences.
>>
>> Anybody who is naive enough to have critical systems running Windows
>> deserves the consequences.
>
> Indeed so.
>
> Wasn't there (sometime ago) a case where M$ were *forcing* updates of SP2?
Yup, and Redmond had a devil of a dilemma there: either force the
updates, in the process breaking a large number of systems, or leave even
larger numbers of systems as secure as a wet paper bag, with all expected
consequences regarding their reputation.
And indeed, security has since improved from "wet paper bag" to just
"paper bag".
> Automatic updates could be turned off afterwards, I understand, but would
> the "Average Joe" (the wintrolls are so fond of) know how to, or even
> care?
These updates were mostly meant to harden "Average Joe's" computer - so
forcing them was beneficial for this user group. Also, these people didn't
suffer much from applications and functionality breaking as a result of
these updates (at least not more than the average breakage rate, as caused
by malware and other Windows shortcomings). And don't forget that terms
such as "firewall" have only become more or less common knowledge about
three years ago.
Quite a number of businesses, however, got some quite nasty surprises as a
result of these updates.
> What's to stop M$ doing it again in the future, & even *disabling* how
> automatic updates could be turned off.
I couldn't care less. The more Redmond resorts to unilateral, invasive
actions to keep an iron grip on their astronomically overpriced junk,
the more people will eventually balk, and turn to alternatives.
>> (And yes, I agree that automatic updates in critical systems are a bad
>> idea too, even when running Linux.)
>
> Yes, but AFAIK linux users haven't had updates forced on them, &
> automatic updates turned on without permission...
>
> Ah, but I forget M$'s EULA which says it's *their* software, but they
> aren't responsible if anything breaks. At least with linux, it's *your*
> software when you've bought it (or even downloaded for free).
I'm still amazed at the stupidity of people, putting up /en masse/ with
paying far too much (and over and over again, at that!), just for the
right to use what is without a shadow of a doubt the poorest quality
operating system available today, bundled with some of the absolute
poorest quality applications (e.g. IE, OE, Notepad) in their respective
categories.
In other words: Microsoft are *amazingly* good salesmen - they simply have
to be, given the poor quality-to-price ratio of their products.
Richard Rasker
--
Linetec Translation and Technology Services
http://www.linetec.nl/
|
|
