re: re:oh lord...
Wow, looks like I set off a bit of a firestorm and a flurry of thumbs down... So much for sharing an opinion.
OK, after I've had a chance to read some of the rebukes, let me respond with this: I can accept it as a way for people to upgrade small infrastructures, if they don't have an admin or the knowledge to accomplish this. I can can even accept the use of p2p to deliver updates to third world countries, or regions that have extremely limited bandwidth. I openly concede those two points.
I do have to pose a question to all of the folks who felt it necessary to rip me up one side and down the other... Remember little things like imesh and kazaa, and how rampant malware became with that software? Sure, on paper it sounds like fantastic idea, but apparently there are a number of us who've completely forgotten how many times a microsoft platform has gotten shredded or spoofed. That being said, it's next to impossible to poison Microsoft at the source, but tack on a little something to updates sitting in the p2p staging area and you have an even more efficient vector for delivery.
The *nix folks have always had their shit together, which is why a distributed upgrade methodology works.
Microsoft, not so much. Unless it's in a managed environment, most machines under patched, most have antivirus sigs that are expired, so any person who develops a convincing enough piece of scare-ware it's quite possible that could be used that could be used to get the bad guys foot in the door, to deliver more malicious garbage.
Just my opinion.