What's Really Broken with Windows Update - Trust

Be Cool writes "According to ZDNet, Microsoft has steered itself into a real trust tarpit with Windows Update: 'See, here's the problem. To feel comfortable with having an open channel that allows your OS to be updated at the whim of a third party (even/especially* Microsoft ... * delete as applicable) requires that the user trusts the third party not to screw around with the system in question. This means no fiddling on the sly, being clear about what the updates do and trying not to release updates that hose systems. While any and all updates have the potential to hose a system, there's no excuse for hiding the true nature of updates and absolutely no excuse for pushing sneaky updates down the tubes. Over the months vigilant Windows users have caught Microsoft betraying user trust on several separate occasions and this behavior is eroding customer confidence in the entire update mechanism.'"

Comments

Re:Release Too Soon...

[houstonbofh]

Or, to put it differently, there already is very little trust in Windows Update anyway (even though, from a technical perspective, their track record is nothing but spectacular).

Let's go with this a minute. To have a comparison, I will use Synaptic on Ubuntu. Both are consumer oriented. Both allow you to do unattended. Both allow you to get user aproval before patching. (Other then the WGA update, point to Ubuntu)
Ubuntu has had several spectacular failures that have resulted in a system that will not boot to the desktop. Microsoft has had a few good ones that call you a pirate and shut off functionality. The Ubuntu fix was within hours. The Microsoft fix was within days. On paper they are quite close, but in the real world MS is hated. Why this is should be the first priority at MS before more people realize just how viable Ubuntu is for many people.

Re:What?!?

[WinterSolstice]

Wait - I don't understand... you have linux machines, you use linux machines, and you think PuTTY and WinSCP are great tools keeping you from using linux?

I assume you mean that there is a lack of graphical utilities under Linux for SCP/SSH? Konquerer has an scp agent built in (fish://user@host/path/to/dir), Gnome allows you to mount a server via ssh/scp, OSX has Fugu, and if you want a graphical SSH then kssh is pretty much identical to PuTTY (though personally, I like my shells to be simpler).

Now, the other arguments (number of sales/downloads etc) I can't argue. I have to admit in my own development I see far more OSX downloads than Windows, and more Linux than OSX. Of course, what I write is primarily server monitoring apps and dashboard/konfabulator stuff so that would be logical.