Windows updates self...again.

[mjc]

It seems that MS is having some growing pains with updates, again. For the second time in about a month, computers are disobeying their owners/admins wishes and updating themselves...


In a post published late Friday to a company blog, Nate Clinton, program manager for Microsoft Update, denied that Windows' update mechanism was to blame for reports of settings being changed without user interaction, updates downloading and installing, and systems rebooting.

"We have received some logs from customers and have so far been able to determine that their AU [Automatic Update] settings were not changed by any changes to the AU client itself and also not changed by any updates installed by AU," Clinton said.

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9042759&pageNumber=1

There is one very interesting observation...no where does Nate Clinton state that it didn't happen...just that AU weren't the cause.

[PrntRhd]

Gee, then how did it happen if Microsoft's Windows Update did not update itself? Also the spontaneous reboot at 3 AM reported by many users, despite users having the WU settings changed to "notify before installation".

Sorry Microsoft, that latest explanation does not wash, this has been reported by numerous expert users.

[mjc]

Seems to be LiveCare is the guilty party...maybe...sorta...we hope?

[PrntRhd]

The prior incident was an update of the WU version itself.

[Sylvander]

"no where does Nate Clinton state that it didn't happen"
I believe it's impossible to prove a NEGATIVE.
e.g. You cannot prove that something DOESN'T exist or DIDN'T happen.
So he's quite right not to say it didn't happen; it would be impossible to prove that, even if true.

It's up to the other side to prove it DID happen. That can be proved.

That's why it's up to the prosecution to prove that the accused IS guilty; not up to the the accused to prove he is NOT guilty.

Microsoft is the accused, and it's up to the accusers to prove guilt.

[mjc]

Since you are a big legal kick lately...

Typical M$ m.o. is to deny it, until overwhelmed by evidence to the contrary. This time, though, the sacrificial spokesman, did not deny the event occurred.