James said:
This is just plain silly. It may be fine for the EXPERIENCED user to
examine each and every update and determine if it is appropriate but the
average user and the novice would have a very difficult if not
impossible time determining whether or not to allow the update or deny
it. I completely agree with Leythos that automatic updating is the way
to go for most users. And I must say that I have yet to find anyone
whose box was messed up because of applying automatic updates.
On the contrary, your position is "silly," as well as grossly
irresponsible. Let me explain:
I'm confident that Microsoft does its level best, consonant with the
regard for cost effectiveness that any successful business must keep in
mind, to ensure that the patches distributed via Windows Update and the
Automatic Update mechanism are safe and effective. However, there is no
humanly possible way for Microsoft to test all these patches under every
conceivable combination of hardware, other patches, device drivers, and
applications that exist in the "wild." There is nearly an infinite
number of diifferent possibilities. The sad truth of the matter, is
that, despite Microsoft's best efforts, the installation of some of
these patches will almost invariably results in less secure, unusable,
or sometimes unbootable computers. People who negligently allow WinXP
to automatically update itself will have no idea why their computer is
suddenly malfunctioning. They have no idea that any update, much less
which specific one(s), has bee installed. But the person who manually
installs an update, and then sees the resulting problem has a lock on
the whole "cause and effect" concept. Recovery is much simple when the
cause of the problem is known. (And the user may be completely
"technically inexperienced;" he really doesn't need to perfectly
understand what a patch is doing, he just needs to know which one he
installed immediately prior to the onset of his problem. This is
child's play.)
Additionally, from an individualistic (OK, I'm American, and mostly
proud of it.) point-of-view, I find it nearly impossible to understand
how anyone could possibly be comfortable turning over control of their
own property and personal information to a corporate or government
entity. Not that I'm accusing Microsoft of spying, but the potential is
there. Should the Department of Homeland Security (a.k.a. the American
gestapo) suddenly decide that computer users might somehow,
inadvertantly support terrorism, pressure might be put upon software
manufacturers to provide lists of registered users, the software they
use, and how it's used. Rather like how they're currently trying to get
libraries to monitor our reading habits. Paranoia aside (VBG), what
ever happened to the principle of self-reliance?
Finally, people who are too lazy to learn how to safely use their own
computers shouldn't have computers (or at least shouldn't be allowed to
connect to the Internet), no more than untrained and unlicensed drivers
should be allowed to operate motor vehicles on the highways. They are a
danger to themselves and others. Such "Obliviots" make the Internet all
that much more dangerous for the rest of us, because they refuse to
learn how to take the most basic of security precaustions, and help
spread malware hither and yon.
--
Bruce Chambers
Help us help you:
You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH
