Jeff wrote:
> On Wednesday 15 September 2004 02:31 pm, Levi Bard wrote:
>
>>>Don't you think that's just a tad irresponsible?
>>
>>No. If 100 million people can do it just because they're too lazy to
>>download updates, then one person can do it for the sake of testing.
>
>
> And don't overlook the extremely paranoid users that will not update because
> "I don't want MS poking around in my PC". I find it funny that they think MS
> isn't already poking around in their PC. Or the fact that it doesn't bother
> them in the least when you find a dozen keyloggers and trojans on their box,
> and they still refuse to update. As long as they think that MS isn't looking
> at their files, they feel safe. I have never understood why these people will
> continually buy (or pirate) MS products if they distrust MS so much.
>
Downloading patches from MS doesn't make your computer secure, and
downloading them without knowing what you're downloading doesn't even
make it MORE secure than it would otherwise be. In fact, in using
Windows, I have refused about as many patches as I've accepted. Real
security (or as close to it as you can get with Windows) involves
installing and using third-party solutions that cover over Microsoft's
more egregious flaws. I sympathize with the people that "don't want
Microsoft poking around" in their PCs. Their failing is not in the fact
that they refuse to trust Microsoft, but in the fact that they don't use
non-Microsoft security measures.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked
Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages
posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the
official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 17:42:52 EDT