That is a lie. There are updates which (at least on XP) you could
never refuse. Nevermind the fact that Windows would have to restart
more than once on a typical series of updates.
Windows isn't really the subject on this thread or this list. Except when
someone goes out of their way to nonsensically blame it. I don't think
that's really meaningful or productive in any imaginable way. As it
happens, no one here is really a Windows user (or some are and they're
laughing in the hiding bush). You are no better. Please do substantiate
what you claim or stop trolling. There are absolutely no mandatory Windows
updates; you can run a Windows system intact, with zero modification, for
as long as you want or as long as it holds up given its shortcomings. So,
my educated guess goes: you have zero acquaintance with that OS. Not even
as much acquaintance as a normal user should have.
--On Saturday, April 18, 2009 12:19 PM -0400 "J.R. Mauro"
<jrm8...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 2:08 AM, Eris Discordia
<eris.discor...@gmail.com> wrote:
This thing about Windows updates, I think it's a non-issue. It's not like
updates are mandatory and, as a matter of fact, there's rather
fine-grained classification of them on Microsoft's knowledge base which
can be used by any more or less experienced user to identify exactly
what they need for addressing a specific glitch and to download and
install that and only that. Periodic updates of Windows are really
unnecessary and can be easily turned off. Cumulative updates (like the
service packs), on the other hand, are often the best way to go.
That is a lie. There are updates which (at least on XP) you could
never refuse. Nevermind the fact that Windows would have to restart
more than once on a typical series of updates.
What seems to actually be the problem for you is that you don't like
being told there's a closed modification to your existing closed
software. Well, that's the nature of binary-only proprietary for-profit
software. The only way to get you to pay out of anything other than good
will, which is a rare bird.
No, I think he's saying that Windows Update is a piece of fetid garbage.
P.S. On open/free software mailing lists and forums justice is often not
done to Windows, et al. Particularly, no meaningful alternative is
presented for carrying out the important duties Windows currently
performs for general computing, i.e. non-technical home and office
applications which combined together were and continue to be the killer
application of microcomputers.
Mac's updater is miles ahead of Windows Update, but both are still
crappy. I've given Linux to several "computer illiterates" and they
were immediately relieved that they could open up a single application
and search for any kind of software they needed, and updating it all
was done by that simple application. How simple is that!
The rate of failure of updates (compared to Windows update, which
would leave you with a completely unusable system every once in a
while) was also much lower.
--On Saturday, April 18, 2009 8:11 AM +0200 lu...@proxima.alt.za wrote:
The update/installation process in Ubuntu sucks. If you try something
using BSD ports or Gentoo portage, you can fine tune things and have
explicit control over the update process.
I was specifically omitting BSD ports, as they are in a different
league. The point I _was_ making is that one readily sacrifices
control for convenience and that Linux and Windows users and those who
assist them have to accept second-rate management and pay for it (I
should know, I can see it when XP decides to use the GPRS link for its
updating :-(
Enough reason for me to prefer Plan 9 (and NetBSD, but I can only get
my teeth into so many apples), if there weren't many more reasons.
++L
