bjf123 Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 A coworker just showed me this article. It seems like a little bit of "the sky is falling" hysteria, but with Microsoft, you never know. Regardless, it's an interesting read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 Lindows sure has some weird marketing tactics . . . . not my style ! ;) Bruno Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linuxdude32 Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 Not my style either. I don't like it when companies use the same tactics that Microsoft is normally accused of using, in this case trying to scare people from using Office 2003. I think they could get their point across without using some questionable tactics - it just ends up making them look silly.As with almost everything, there is a kernel of truth however. Microsoft has already said that they intend to force patches to future versions of Windows so it wouldn't surprise me if they're doing this with Office 2003. Forced patches may sound like a good thing, but Microsoft service packs often change hundreds of files for no apparent reason across the operating system as many system admins will attest to. I, for one, would prefer to know exactly what every patch is for and I'd refuse to give Microsoft the ability to patch my machine automatically. SuSE yes, Microsoft no. Microsoft has put out too many patches that have broken things or caused system slowdowns, only to be fixed by later patches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teacher Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 The thing I did not like about the article was that his references/links proving his assertions were other articles written by the same author. That spells scam/spoof to me! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonicDragon Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 Very strange article indeed. Forced patches may sound like a good thing, but Microsoft service packs often change hundreds of files for no apparent reason across the operating system as many system admins will attest to. I, for one, would prefer to know exactly what every patch is for and I'd refuse to give Microsoft the ability to patch my machine automatically. SuSE yes, Microsoft no. Microsoft has put out too many patches that have broken things or caused system slowdowns, only to be fixed by later patches.I agree with you that forced patches might not be a good idea. But, i like that idea of having an "update my system automatically" check box, that's checked by defaut, but a user who knows that they are doing can uncheck the box. That sounds much more reasonable to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarryB Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 The thing I did not like about the article was that his references/links proving his assertions were other articles written by the same author. That spells scam/spoof to me! it is sad though, that he is seen in some business circles to rep the linux community...(which is what he tries deliver himself as)..Glad we have this forums..and other.... more honest venues Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linuxdude32 Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 I agree with you that forced patches might not be a good idea. But, i like that idea of having an "update my system automatically" check box, that's checked by defaut, but a user who knows that they are doing can uncheck the box. That sounds much more reasonable to me.I totally agree. Having at as an option, even as the default setting (for the less experienced users) is probably okay -- I just want it to continue to be an option and Microsoft is considering changing it so it isn't an option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest genaldar Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 You have to look at it from microsoft's point of view. So many of the exploits that have made the news lately have been holes that were fixed for months. But because most admins are lazy there were more unpatched systems than patched systems. It makes ms look bad. Sure the holes shouldn't exist, but they do and ms correcting their mistakes is a good thing. Not nearly as good as making fewer of em, but the world isn't perfect.I understand there are procedures at most companies that prevent them from patching live systems before those patches are thoroughly tested. But come on, that doesn't take 6 months. Any patches you've failed to apply to your system after 6 months will never be applied. And the minute that hole gets exploited they'll blame microsoft.The school I go to is a good microcosm of this. Everyone has a laptop. Well everyone who takes at least 12 credits, which is 90% of the students. And all of the faculty, even if they teach only 1 class. So many people were ignoring even auto-update that every time a patch gets released the system admins send out emails to everyone on campus telling them to install the patch. That friday we get a reminder. Then another the following monday. At that point they're down to 50-75 people who haven't patched (out of 1400 laptops). Over the next two weeks they send 3 more reminders to just those students. At that point after 6 emails if the patch still hasn't been applied they're access to the campus network is blocked, forcing them to go to the help desk so the patch can be applied for them. Normally 80% of those last hold outs are forced to go to the help desk. And when they get there they act dumb founded as to why they were blocked.Lastly I doubt that even if ms forces you to install the updates I'm sure they're be ways around it. My school forces us to keep office scan 5 on our system. It even checks for updates every time we reboot (as long as we're on the network). According to the campus system admins there is no way around this. But about a dozen of us removed officescan in a way that prevents it from re-installing (which it tries if it fails to find a copy when it checks for updates). All of us use other virus scanners (most of us are Norton folks), so are systems are still safe, we just don't have to deal with their slow anti-vir. And I guarantee none of us need to be reminded 6 times to install a critical patch. Good admins find a way to make the software do what they want, even if its not supposed to work that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeber Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 Don't forget Michael Robertson was the guy who started MP3. com and was it's CEO. He's used to selling his concepts to people in the entertainment industry, which often requires a person to be very forceful and excessively enthusiastic. I suspect he's carried over some of his "huckster" attitude into Lindows. I'm not excusing him...just trying to understand where he's coming from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonicDragon Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 The school I go to is a good microcosm of this. Everyone has a laptop. Well everyone who takes at least 12 credits, which is 90% of the students.*Drool!!!* That must be sooo nice!I bet your right though. Even though they would be *forced updates* i'm sure some people would find away around it. But, i still wouldn't want to deal with it. Having the option to choose is a more more appropriate stratagy IMHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.