Quoting Jim Popovitch <jimpop@xxxxxxxxx>: > system. What benefit do I gain by waiting on an email then manually > downloading an update vs having the system automatically download and > apply the update? The benefit that the e-mail might just tell you something important, like: * Install order of updates * Known problems or issues with the updates * Whether you need to update or not * How important the update is, so you can decide if you need it or not * Special installation instructions * Additional steps to take to complete the update process > Would you prefer Microsoft to automatically update end user systems > (even small business Exchange systems hanging off a T1s everywhere), or > do you think that it's best to wait on those people to get around to > finally updating their virus ridden systems? It is best for them to do it, so they don't have the problem that many of them had recently of installing the latest Server 2003 update on the Small Business Edition OS and hosing their entire system, hence shutting down their business, in the process. It was their own fault for automatically updating their SBE with Server 2003, when if they had read the announcement they would have seen that it was not supposed to be installed on SBE, though the automatic tools didn't enforce that. > I personally think a valid > case can be made for vendors forcibly updating neglected systems. ;-) Nope, sorry, legally they can't, unless you sign a contract with them to do so (see definition of "turn key system" for more information). Besides, this discussion is about users updating their own systems, not vendors updating their clients systems. > -Jim P. -- Eric Rostetter -- fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
