Scott said:
Thanks Mike for your suggestions.
I think the main reason they want this because of Visual Studio 2008
Framework 3.5.
Some of the codes are written in Visual Studio 2008. Our clients cannot run
those program until they have framework 3.5.
So they want Windows Update to update their Framework.
Also they want clients to have updated framework.
Now I am little curious why 'Windows Update' should not be enabled.
Thanks, Scott
In the beginning, it was a engineering taboo to invade or do things on
user's private property. In fact, in the USA it use to be illegal,
and when push comes to shove, it is still illegal. If they is money in
volved, someone is harm, rest assured someone can get sued. The US
EPCA has many provisions addressing this.
The history is long, but there is a reason why took many years for MS
to slowly change the mindset of consumers to the point where people
eventually evolved to asking:
Why 'Windows Update' should not be enabled?
At this point, MS has won and what happens is that every vendor gets
into to market of auto updates and say:
Why can I have my update service always ENABLED!
Once that pandora box is open (and unfortunately, it it almost too
late), then ONE day, you won't have that option and it already
happening now starting with:
APPLE
GOOGLE
They have already started on that path. In the end, the pot of gold
at the end of the rainbow is complete unrestricted access to your
private property.
It is a HUGE MARKET!
In fact, MS has spent billions to lobbying the US congress to change
the laws to give them the same rights Banks have with Car Repossession
- the right for the bank repo-man to enter to your private property to
take the car. MS wants the same right to enter into your computer to
ZAP a MS application.
They say its for address Software Piracy. But the real purpose is
unpaid or expired MS application - the pot of gold - subscription web
based or off-loaded Office Components. This is what all the big boys
are shooting for. Even the router people are looking towards this
market and the TV/VIDEO/INTERNET convergence with the Telco or Cable
companies are evidence of this.
Its been a slow evolution since the 80s to change the mindset of the
market to OPEN the box up to outside access. MS is loving it that
APPLE and GOOGLE has open wider Pandora's box because by themselves
they will face federal anti-trust and UCITA (provisions for Federal
Inter-State Commerce Laws dealing with software and computers) issues.
But as others do it, MS will too. They are licking their chops that
APPLE and GOOGLE (more so Apple) are getting away with this.
Sounds like a touchy thing for me? Yup, yes, spent many years on the
subject and in the area of development and we don't do it for ethical
reasons. We always had a server application since the 80s so software
licensing and auto-monitoring concepts was always a consideration. But
I thought it was not a good idea to do it. I hate to see that others
are doing and worst, users allowing it because unfortunately today
they think, well, thats just the way it is. Nope it is not. But they
don't know any better.
Whats different of course, is that we are world wide now. Different
mindsets, different country laws, etc. The younger generation are
completely open to this constant peer to peer communications and its
fast moving back to a centralization framework again.
But overall, it is protecting user privacy and property.
Of course, its my opinion.
