[62763] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Windows updates and dial up users
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Roy Bentley)
Mon Sep 22 07:13:40 2003
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309221042390.27145-100000@serv1.thn>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 07:13:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Roy Bentley" <roy@royb.org>
To: "Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve@telecomplete.co.uk>
Cc: valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu, "Sean Donelan " <sean@donelan.com>,
nanog@merit.edu
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Stephen J. Wilcox said:
>
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 18:25:50 EDT, Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com> said:
>>
>> > "I recently put this suggestion to Microsoft and their response
>> basically
>> > avoided the whole issue. Why wouldn't the company want to offer such a
>> CD,
>> > assuming that's the motivation behind their stonewalling?"
>>
>> It would cost money to produce and ship a new CD on a frequent enough
>> basis
>> for it to do any good. Consider that we're seeing worms within 4 weeks
>> of the
>> patch coming out. How many CD duplicating places are willing to take on
>> a multi-million run with a 1-2 week turn-around, once a month, every
>> month?
>
> Ok then different idea, assuming that we're all agreed its MS's
> responsibility
> to ensure users are patched promptly and without extra cost to the end
> user.
>
> Its not a problem patching on a dialup, it just takes longer, this may put
> people off when they see their computer tell them its going to take 3
> hours to
> download and theyre paying per minute on the call
>
> What if MS included something in the Windows Update that gave the user the
> option of calling a toll-free number operated by MS for the purpose of
> downloading.. ?
>
> Steve
>
Realise that this would require MS to take responsibility for putting out
bad code. That's quite unlikely, IMO.
