Silly questions and trenchant observations (or vice versa)
"What sort of Idiot would be so dumb as not to use AU on Windows and not be informed of what updates are available for your system?"
Anyone smart enough to follow computer news affecting their job, and therefore usually knowing of the problems BEFORE MS releases the fixes? And doesn't trust MS's fixes to always work right the first time? i.e. a substantial portion of the Register's users?
"...anyone whining about their code "breaking" when rendered in a standard-compliant way just needs to have it explained to them that their mess has ALWAYS been broken"
YES!!!!! America HATES being told this, but it's kind of a universal American principle. I mean, we got away with it, so it must have been right.
"It is MUCH easier to roll back a bad update than to clean up after a virus or worm."
"Reinstall from current backups" seems to work the same to me in either case. A "bad" update is one that, by definition, both fails and refuses to be rolled back. Hosing one's system with a defective update and getting infected with malware are BOTH undesirable outcomes, not mututally exclusive necessities.
"As for detecting browsers, that's exactly what I've done for my latest project. "
"Isn't this something that should be prevented upstream?? Why for the love of all that is good and proper would you install anything client-side, executable code no less!"
It seems to me that MS is quite regularly looking for ways to justify downloading executable code of uncertain purpose to user's machines. What's surprising about it? It doesn't imply any particular piece of code is malicious, just that they want you to get used to the idea that it isn't your choice.
And anyone who mentions Paris Hilton at this point deserves children who become nostalgic Paris Hilton fanatics.
And no, I don't use Linux - I just though this discussion went on too long without penguins.