[KLUG Advocacy] XP SP1

[Robert G. Brown]

>I hate to be the one to defend Redmond on this but you don't have to run 
>the auto update "feature". 
IMO you're not defending Redmond here by pointing this out. The point is
that they have the right to do this, which may, by definition, violate
the controls that are required by the application.

Remember, I said that this applys to *ALL* platforms where this technology 
is deployed. I suspect that it is more easily disabled on some platforms
than others.

>The network administrator has the ability to turn that off and can push 
>whatever updates they want down to the workstation.
To what extent does this conflict with the EULA, then?

>> Signing this into a licence is... I can't think of the words... perhaps 
>> criminal negligence covers it, but I'm not certain.
>Morally, maybe. Legally? I doubt it.
It appears that a conflict exists between this EULA and something more 
fundamental. If I am maintaining a system that whose configuration must 
be kept static to comply with a regulatory requirement, it will not be 
possible to comply with the EULA.

I'm not interested in doubts, I'm interested in *knowing*. When someone 
dies and the EULA was honored but not the regulations, no one is going
to admire how up-to-date the system is.

I think what we need is someone on this list who knows more about these
things have been worked out.... at least, I hope they've been worked out.

						Regards,
						---> RGB <---