The comments here about przemoc's choice in browser are surprisingly critical and vitriolic. S/he claims to be purposely keeping that version, and so presumably has some good reason - specific plugins, specific version testing for an internal web application, etc. Even if przemoc didn't have what you would consider a good reason, it should be his or her choice to keep that browser version and the onus is on us as web developers to encourage him (in positive ways) to upgrade - through better web applications that require new features, better communicating the reasons for upgrading, etc.
Believe me when I say that I understand the frustrations that come from having to support outdated browsers - I used to develop a web application for the financial industry, where as of a year or two ago a significant portion of traffic still came from IE6-locked machines in large financial institutions - but browser choice is not the issue here.
The issue as I see it is that the software that przemoc was running did not behave as he or she wanted and expected it to behave. That means that the software had a design problem (poor or misleading auto-update setting design), a communication problem (didn't inform him or maybe mislead him about the default update behavior) or a bug (updated despite a setting telling it not to).
There isn't enough information in the original post to determine if the last one (auto-update occurring despite being turned off) is what happened here - I'd like to learn more. It would be worrying (and I'd argue an insecure design) if the software were even capable of self-updating with that setting turned off.
Believe me when I say that I understand the frustrations that come from having to support outdated browsers - I used to develop a web application for the financial industry, where as of a year or two ago a significant portion of traffic still came from IE6-locked machines in large financial institutions - but browser choice is not the issue here.
The issue as I see it is that the software that przemoc was running did not behave as he or she wanted and expected it to behave. That means that the software had a design problem (poor or misleading auto-update setting design), a communication problem (didn't inform him or maybe mislead him about the default update behavior) or a bug (updated despite a setting telling it not to).
There isn't enough information in the original post to determine if the last one (auto-update occurring despite being turned off) is what happened here - I'd like to learn more. It would be worrying (and I'd argue an insecure design) if the software were even capable of self-updating with that setting turned off.