Microsoft to force Windows updates?
Windows Answers »General Discussion »Microsoft to force Windows updates? |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Steve wrote at: 2003-08-22 11:37:02
Microsoft to force Windows updates? | |||
|
Ogden Johnson III <oj3 (~=~) cpcug.org> wrote: >The facts of life are that each time something like msblaster jumps >off, we find the internet hampered by virus-driven traffic because >thousands upon thousands of machines, run by people who should >certainly know better [IOW, not just your Grand-Uncle Ben nor your >Great-Aunt Mary, who barely know how to turn their computer on], >*don't* use protective measures like proper firewalls, up-to-date >virus protection, or taking advantage of MS-provided patches. I agree with you about AV and firewalls. But there's a legitimate question about the risk/reward ratio in downloading MS patches which have caused numerous problems in the past. And there are certainly issues involved in force-feeding patches... . |
|||
|
Rick wrote at: 2003-08-22 11:55:36
Microsoft to force Windows updates? | |||
|
"Steve" <r (~=~) h.inv> wrote in message news:vfhckvcem8970ippcsnvihdbj20sev77ru (~=~) 4ax.com... > Ogden Johnson III <oj3 (~=~) cpcug.org> wrote: >>The facts of life are that each time something like msblaster jumps >>off, we find the internet hampered by virus-driven traffic because >>thousands upon thousands of machines, run by people who should >>certainly know better [IOW, not just your Grand-Uncle Ben nor your >>Great-Aunt Mary, who barely know how to turn their computer on], >>*don't* use protective measures like proper firewalls, up-to-date >>virus protection, or taking advantage of MS-provided patches. > > I agree with you about AV and firewalls. But there's a legitimate > question about the risk/reward ratio in downloading MS patches which > have caused numerous problems in the past. And there are certainly > issues involved in force-feeding patches... I spent 4+ years migrating companies from Netware to Windows NT4 and Win2K, and now in the past three years most of my jobs have been migrating companies from NT4/2K to Linux, BSD and other *nix flavors. Seems corporate America has finally had enough of the Gates/Ballmer merry-go-round: constant security problems, forced software audits, service packs that haven't been properly tested, trying to keep their IT staffs trained on a half-dozen Windows versions, etc etc. From what I can see, at least for business/server use the trend is away from MS and towards open source software. IMO it's a healthy switch. Rick . |
|||
|
kurttrail wrote at: 2003-08-22 13:30:58
Microsoft to force Windows updates? | |||
|
"Will Denny" <wjd4444uk (~=~) yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:uk$NsmNaDHA.2284 (~=~) TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... > Hi > > All users have a 'License' to use XP (or one version of > Windows) - they don't own that copy of XP ( or any > other version of Windows). "'Copies' are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term 'copies' includes the material object, other than a phonorecord, in which the work is first fixed." - http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/101.html Maybe Will needs to take a look at Copyright Law! > When I passed my > driving test - I could drive any car, not just the one > that I passed my driving test in - case scenario? What state was that in? The state of confusion?! -- Peace! Kurt Self-anointed Moderator microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea http://microscum.kurttrail.com "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron! "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!" . |
|||
|
Mike Mueller wrote at: 2003-08-22 13:49:23
Microsoft to force Windows updates? | |||
|
Will- You are correct that all users have a license (legit or not) to use their OS. I did; however, qualify the statement by saying if you are network connected. The EULA only allows use of the OS, not to network. Most ISPs require an agreement- TOS. Your DL allows you to drive a car or light truck. A CDL is required for heavy duty and/or commercial vehicles. It will also have endorsements for what type; ie air brakes, haz mat, etc. Furthermore; a DL or CDL can have restriction codes placed on it; ie auto trans only, corrective lenses required. I won't touch Organ Donor stickers. Mike : Hi : : All users have a 'License' to use XP (or one version of : Windows) - they don't own that copy of XP ( or any other : version of Windows). When I passed my driving test - I : could drive any car, not just the one that I passed my : driving test in - case scenario? : : Will : : "Mike Mueller" <mikemueller (~=~) NOSPAMecinet.net> wrote in : message news:%23Oe97eNaDHA.1740 (~=~) TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... :: Hi Will, :: You should have 1 license per OS family. If you :: have an :: ME license, you automatically are licensed for 98 & 95. :: You don't a license to drive a car, only if you drive on :: the :: streets. Same applies here; you can own and use a :: computer, :: just need a license if you network. :: :: Mike :: :: :: ::: Hi Bruce ::: ::: Does that mean if one person owns 4 PCs only one license ::: is needed? A bit heavy on 'National Security' - I ::: thought. ::: ::: Will ::: ::: "Bruce Chambers" <bchambers (~=~) nospam.cableone.net> wrote ::: in ::: message news:vkcie0ehv9j9dd (~=~) corp.supernews.com... :::: Greetings -- :::: :::: Personally, I prefer John Dvorak's solution: :::: require all computer :::: owners to get a license. :::: :::: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1224343,00.asp :: :: : : : --- : Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. : Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). : Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: : 19/08/2003 . |
|||
|
Mike Mueller wrote at: 2003-08-22 14:25:06
Microsoft to force Windows updates? | |||
|
Will- No apology needed. This is an educational thread to all. Everyone should be able to see that others may look at things differently than they do. We can also see that requirements may differ. My license gets renewed every 8 years. I also need to pass a vision test when I renew. Maybe the internet license can have a test and to pass you have to check which attachment you should not open... Mike : Hi Mike : : Indeed you did qualify your statement - I would like to : apologise for any remiss comment that I made. : : I have a 'condition' whereby I have to renew my DL every : 3 years. It is a full license, but... : : Will : : "Mike Mueller" <mikemueller (~=~) NOSPAMecinet.net> wrote in : message news:eL%23s73NaDHA.2328 (~=~) TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... :: Will- :: :: You are correct that all users have a license (legit or :: not) :: to use their OS. I did; however, qualify the statement :: by :: saying if you are network connected. :: :: The EULA only allows use of the OS, not to network. Most :: ISPs require an agreement- TOS. :: :: Your DL allows you to drive a car or light truck. A CDL :: is :: required for heavy duty and/or commercial vehicles. It :: will :: also have endorsements for what type; ie air brakes, haz :: mat, etc. Furthermore; a DL or CDL can have restriction :: codes placed on it; ie auto trans only, corrective lenses :: required. I won't touch Organ Donor stickers. :: :: Mike :: :: ::: Hi ::: ::: All users have a 'License' to use XP (or one version of ::: Windows) - they don't own that copy of XP ( or any other ::: version of Windows). When I passed my driving test - I ::: could drive any car, not just the one that I passed my ::: driving test in - case scenario? ::: ::: Will ::: ::: "Mike Mueller" <mikemueller (~=~) NOSPAMecinet.net> wrote in ::: message news:%23Oe97eNaDHA.1740 (~=~) TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... :::: Hi Will, :::: You should have 1 license per OS family. If you :::: have an :::: ME license, you automatically are licensed for 98 & 95. :::: You don't a license to drive a car, only if you drive :::: on :::: the :::: streets. Same applies here; you can own and use a :::: computer, :::: just need a license if you network. :::: :::: Mike :::: :::: :::: ::::: Hi Bruce ::::: ::::: Does that mean if one person owns 4 PCs only one ::::: license ::::: is needed? A bit heavy on 'National Security' - I ::::: thought. ::::: ::::: Will ::::: ::::: "Bruce Chambers" <bchambers (~=~) nospam.cableone.net> wrote ::::: in ::::: message news:vkcie0ehv9j9dd (~=~) corp.supernews.com... :::::: Greetings -- :::::: :::::: Personally, I prefer John Dvorak's solution: :::::: require all computer :::::: owners to get a license. :::::: :::::: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1224343,00.asp :::: :::: ::: ::: ::: --- ::: Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. ::: Checked by AVG anti-virus system ::: (http://www.grisoft.com). ::: Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: ::: 19/08/2003 :: :: :: : : : --- : Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. : Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). : Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: : 19/08/2003 . |
|||
|
PCyr wrote at: 2003-08-22 16:21:20
Microsoft to force Windows updates? | |||
|
It's a bit of both. -- Check out http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com for amazing tweaks and fixes Member of "Newsgroups are for everyone" (Perdita X. Twitt is a self-appointed, self-righteous, ruthless, bitchy net-cop too!) Email address is fake to prevent SPAM. Real email address is pcyr2000 AT hotmail DOT com Change the obvious to the obvious. ------------------ "Steve" <r (~=~) h.inv> wrote in message news:vcockvoj85o2c6v0nv6u5qk5u5seas529o (~=~) 4ax.com... > "PCyr" <heywood_jabloeme (~=~) hotmail.com> wrote: >>Macs are very user-friendly, and very secure. > > Is the Mac OS really that much more secure than Windows? Or does its > apparent security have more to do with hackers spending their time > attacking the dominant OS? > . |
|||
|
kurttrail wrote at: 2003-08-22 19:50:26
Microsoft to force Windows updates? | |||
|
abekl98034mypants (~=~) yahoo.com wrote: >> That's why even MS uses Akamai Linux servers to protect their web >> site from DoS attacks! LOL! > > ---------------------------- > This is a common bit of misinformation from people who don't > understand MS's content distribution infrastructure. > > Akamai is one of several companies who provide content distribution > network (CDN) services to MS - nothing to do with security at all. > MS's front facing servers all run Windows Server 2003. > > For example, when you go to MS and use any of their online tools to > determine what updates for a product are needed/available, that > determination is made by negotiation between the client OS (you) and > one of hundreds of MS Windows 2003 servers on the Redmond campus. > > Once the files needed are identified, the information is passed on to > to the CDN (if server load is high), which transparently serves up the > actual files for download. > > That's how it actually works. Clearly, you're not an IT pro. http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Akamai+microsoft&sa=N&tab=wn -- Peace! Kurt Self-anointed Moderator microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea http://microscum.kurttrail.com "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron! "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!" . |
|||
|
kurttrail wrote at: 2003-08-22 19:51:36
Microsoft to force Windows updates? | |||
|
Will Denny wrote: > Hi > > Whether I'm an IT Pro or not, I've heard my mother-in-law... Oh, yes > you were talking about an IT Pro - apart from the many MS Certs - I > have MSc and BSc(Hons) degrees - both in Computing/IT Business. > > You know the Redmond Campus... > > BTW, Linux sux. Said the MicroBrainDead! -- Peace! Kurt Self-anointed Moderator microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea http://microscum.kurttrail.com "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron! "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!" . |
|||
|
stan@temple.edu wrote at: 2003-08-22 22:09:53
Microsoft to force Windows updates? | |||
|
In misc.consumers Steve <r (~=~) h.inv> wrote: > Earlier this week, the Washington Post quoted Mike Nash, Microsoft > corporate vice president, as saying the company is "looking very > seriously" at requiring at least home users to have their operating > system automatically updated when Microsoft sends out a fix. Another > Microsoft security official was quoted as saying that having home and > small business users automatically receive and install software fixes > "would help the safety of a lot more customers." And perhaps if Microcrap would get things right the first time, they would not have to send out updates about as often as the sun rises. Nothing is perfect, esp. software, but this is beyond reason. Microsoft advertised Winblows XP as its most secure OS yet. In spite of that, hardly a day went by after Winblows XP was released before someone found a way to remotely exploit it. It just amazes me how Microcrud maintains such dominance in the OS industry when it clearly has no clue about developing quality software. While my Winblows XP was busy being blasted by that Blaster worm, my Mac OS X system that sits right next to the PC in my office was uneffected. This is despite the fact that both systems have RPC services running on them and both are unprotected on a high bandwidth Internet port. Well, I finally had enough and now my Winblows PC is protected. The reason I did not apply the patch to my Winblows system sooner was because the last time I applied a Microcrud patch, it brought my system to a halt and I had to finally back out that patch after spending a lot of troubleshooting the problem. As far as I am concerned, Microcrap ought to be paying people to use its dysfunctional OS. . |
|||
|
PCyr wrote at: 2003-08-22 22:22:30
Microsoft to force Windows updates? | |||
|
But understand, the registry allows power users to do advanced customizations. -- Check out http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com for amazing tweaks and fixes Member of "Newsgroups are for everyone" (Perdita X. Twitt is a self-appointed, self-righteous, ruthless, bitchy net-cop too!) Email address is fake to prevent SPAM. Real email address is pcyr2000 AT hotmail DOT com Change the obvious to the obvious. ------------------ "Dr. Gee" <pam (~=~) ieee.org.REMOVE.THIS> wrote in message news:bi63pe$1im (~=~) dispatch.concentric.net... > In article <vcockvoj85o2c6v0nv6u5qk5u5seas529o (~=~) 4ax.com>, Steve <r (~=~) h.inv> wrote: >> >>Is the Mac OS really that much more secure than Windows? Or does its >>apparent security have more to do with hackers spending their time >>attacking the dominant OS? > > i use both Win2000 & Mac OS X. i think OS X is more secure. for example, even > my account has admin privlieges, for dangerous operations, it would ask the > password for "root" & it would only apply it to for that specific operation. > > > I also like the installation on OS X a lot better. no stupid registry nor > those VB script. > > regards, > > pam (~=~) home ¤p¬} > > Pam's Ode to Spammers & Telemarketers > > May all spammers & telemarketers die an agonizing death; have no > burial places; their souls be chased by demons in Gehenna from one > room to another for 1000 years. . |
|||
