[62778] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Windows updates and dial up users
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Mon Sep 22 13:10:17 2003
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 10:07:45 -0700
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
To: "Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve@telecomplete.co.uk>,
Roy Bentley <roy@royb.org>
Cc: valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu, Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com>,
nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309221117120.27145-100000@serv1.thn>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
>> Realise that this would require MS to take responsibility for putting out
>> bad code. That's quite unlikely, IMO.
>
> Hmm no, they dont have to take that approach, they currently provide
> updates as part of their license agreement to users, this would just be
> an enhancement of their existing facility offering a new level of
> security whereby users can gain access to critical updates without
> putting their machines at risk by connecting to the global Internet...
>
Actually, they don't, and, that's probably why they don't want others
redistributing their patch software. If you run Windows update, you have
to agree to half a dozen additional and supplemental EULAs before you can
actually get your software patched. (I carefully had someone else agree
on the one Windows system I have to cope with so that _I_ am still not
a party to a Micr0$0ft EULA).
It would be an enhancement for the users, but, for Micr0$0ft, it's all about
the EULA, and, if it is distributed on CD, it's much harder for them to
enforce the "you must agree to the supplemental EULA" provisions.
Owen
