> this would seem like expected behavior
I've got a few comemnts about that:
1. Any server "appliance" that assumes it has internet access and attempts to contact the outside world without the explicit permission of the sysadmin suffers from a design flaw that makes it inherently insecure. In a secure environment the sysadmin must have the ability to limit access to a server from the external world, and to the external world from the server, in order to ensure that data remains secure. Maybe home users will think that auto-check for updates is a good idea, but nobody who is security conscious would consent to operate a server under this paradigm.
2. Any "phone-home" feature needs to have a toggle selector on it so that it can be turned on/off at the will of the sysadmin. Any system lacking such a feature is poorly designed.
3. People with valuable data lock it down. If modern "accepted practice" principles of firewall design are followed, then in a production environment any server that is not functiong as a bastion host is going to be locked-down by two firewalls operating in series -- an exernal/screening "access" firewall on the perimeter network, and an internal "choke" firewall on the internal network.
4. It's important to understand the bug that I reported, and why it's really a bug and not the feature that it has been suggested to be. Consider Paradigm A, in which the appliance is intended to go out to the internet, search for updates, and apply them. Consider Paradigm B, where the appliance is denied self-authorized internet access -- the appliance is intended not to contact the internet, updates are obtained manually in a secure fashion, and the securely-obtained updates are installed by a sysadmin as a separate operation.
It's one thing for the appliance to function properly under Paradigm A (as was suggested above), but it's something entirely different for a program to explicitly fail when operating under Paradigm B. (that's the problem I was reporting).
Getting back to my firt point and refining it a little: An appliance that can be configured to function under either Paradigm A or B is well-conceived. If it can only function under Paradigm A then it is poorly-conceived. If it is designed to function under Paradigm A or Paradigm B at the sysadmin's direction, but fails under Paradigm B, then it suffers from a bug.
5. The developers have decided that the appliance fails to function as intended when operating under Paradigm B, because the execution of updates is dependent upon internet access. The bug report (already resolved) states that the behavior that I have observed is ineed a bug. The good news is that this bug has been fixed in the past few days. If there are any doubts, check the bug reports and the nightly builds.