On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 19:38:17 -0700, Bruce Chambers
<bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> wrote:

>John Waller wrote:
>>>The only way to minimize your risk is to run the patch.
>
>> What guarantees come with a non-Microsoft patch?
>
> It's almost guaranteed to be a straight-forward malware installation.

Two thoughts:

1) One could also ask what guarantees come with an official Microsoft
patch. I have never seen a guarantee associated with any Microsoft
patch.

2) Care to make a wager on your "malware" theory? I have no
affiliation with whoever made the patch or anything like that, I just
think you are a bit to paranoid on this one. Tell you what, let's
make it interesting. If it is malware I will make a $100 donation to
the charity of your choice and if it is not malware then you make a
$100 donation to the charity of my choice. Whaddya think, do we have
a wager?

>> Won't crash my system or affect anything etc
>
> I wouldn't count on it.

Frankly, in my experience, Microsoft patches are the source of a good
portion of system instability. You are a witness to this with all
the various problems which SP2 update has caused for numerous folks.

>> Or is it caveat emptor?
>
> Yes, it is. Although, "There's a sucker born every minute" would
>probably be a more accurate assessment.

Yes. Quite. However, as I said above I think you are being a bit
dramatic about this "unofficial" patch and am willing to make it
interesting if you want to give it a go.

By the way, it is nothing personal here, I in fact have deep respect
for the work all you MVP's do and have been on the receiving end of
valuable help at times but on this particular issue I think a little
balance is missing.

Oh yes, I have not decided if I am going to install the patch or not.
I have it downloaded and need only "run" it but I wanted to send this
note before I decide.

--
Ciao,
Falcon