...

the whole end-to-end argument depends on uniform clue distribution for scale. ... Getting vendors to supply more appropriate defaults offers better scaling possibilities. Your complaint might fix one user's computer, Microsoft updating the default behaivor would fix tens of millions of users' computers. Which scales better?

you've got a real mad on about software monopolies, and i guess i ought to join you since on any other day i'm just as worried. (the fact that dan geer lost his job over this issue makes it even more painful.) but in this case microsoft's culpability is toward their user, whereas the isp's culpability is toward me, so there are two "culpability segments" in the path, and i can't really complain to microsoft about these updates even if, as you point out, they are the ones who would find fixing it easiest, among all involved parties.

How can a Windows system have a fatal error every hour for days and months, and the user not be aware of it until someone else calls them?

from microsoft's point of view, the failure in that case is that they are not monetizing a condition which is very common amongst their users. MSN has the ability to sell domain names. windows has the ability to tell that a microsoft customer does not have a domain name, or does not own the one they are pretending to be in, or whatever. microsoft should not be waiting on complaints, nor should they have to feel any remorse before they fix this. the verb they should be considering is "monetize".

If Dynamic DNS Update is so critical that Microsoft feels the need to enable it by default, why doesn't Microsoft pop an error dialog window on the user's machine every time it fails? Then the user could decide to fix the problem, or stop doing it. If the user doesn't know there is a problem, why should he fix it?

that's an excellent question, especially since it could have a "click here to send microsoft more of your money" button. but no matter how good an idea it is, my complaint is still that sending e-mail toward the whois contact for a network or AS# should elicit a clueful reply, and if it doesn't, then the key word we're looking for is "cost shifting". (and that, in case y'all wondered, is why this is relevant to nanog@.)