What bloggers are saying about the latest in information technology



Big computer programs almost always have flaws or vulnerabilities in them upon release, some of which may be outright errors, and some merely vulnerabilities that would be impossible to detect ahead of time. Microsoft Vista, which I use on my own notebook, is of course one of the largest commercial computer programs of all times, and there are certainly flaws and vulnerabilities in this first release. Although Microsoft does seem to be going in the right direction with Vista, it's not quite there yet. But I'm not going to use this space to debate the relative merits or downfalls of Vista. It runs my notebook and more or less does what it is supposed to do, and I have no major complaints.



Software vendors release patches and updates as a matter of course, as the software matures and the writers are able to either add improvements or fix things that need fixing. The automatic update feature of Vista lets this happen behind the scenes, so I don't have to be bothered with it. Most ordinary users are like me-they don't want to be bothered with it, and if it were left up to them, the updates would simply not occur, and their systems would remain unnecessarily vulnerable. Network administrators responsible for multiple machines and mission-critical servers however, want to retain more control, so auto-update is usually turned off so the patches can be installed after examination and testing. Similarly, individual end users with slow dial-up lines won't want auto-update, simply because the auto-update will inevitably occur at an inconvenient time, like when they're trying to do some serious web-surfing, and the auto-update download will slow the system down to a crawl. These users will want to have control over the updates, so they can be executed at a more convenient time.



The point of all this is the recent brouhaha last week over a so-called "stealth" Windows update, which apparently occurred without giving users the option of denying or delaying it. The update was actually an update to how Windows issues updates. Confused? Me too. ZDNet discussed the issue and confirmed the existence of the update. Some of the earliest discussions actually said that users who set their computers to not install updates received the updates, but an update on the ZDNet blog above clarifies this issue. There are four settings on Vista, which allow for users to either (1) install updates automatically, (2) download updates but let me choose whether to install them, (3) check for updates but let me choose whether to download and install them, or (4) never check for updates. The controversial update was applied to systems automatically that had selected one of the first three options, but not on systems that were set for the fourth option.



Another CNet blog describes Microsoft's reaction and explanation.
Reactions have been extreme, however, with CNet blogger Michael Horowitz actually calling Windows "spyware". I know you don't like Microsoft Michael, but spyware? Come on. Spyware is a piece of rogue software that installs itself on a system for the purpose of gathering information that a person would not otherwise provide, and sends it back to a covert host for dishonorable purposes, such as identity theft or dissemination of spam. To say that Microsoft Vista is "spyware" is inaccurate.



The update itself contains nothing evil, and there is certainly no need to roll back the update, even if it did occur without the user's knowledge. But Microsoft did blunder in not providing some notification to users that the update would take place. It would have been simple enough to send users who had selected options two and three a pop-up or nag screen of some sort that said, "we need to update how your computer receives updates," and then allow the user to proceed with the recommended action at their convenience. Instead, the update was just pushed through.

ITworld.com

• Email
• Print
• Share
  • Slashdot
  • Digg
  • Stumble
  • Reddit
  • Newsvine