On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Eris Discordia <eris.discor...@gmail.com> wrote: >> 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.
Actually, I used Windows for years before discovering something better. I explicitly disabled updates in XP, and it would insist on looking for them and bothering me about them, anyway. Now maybe I missed some other option or the option I chose was misleadingly labeled, or something was biffed in my registry. I just googled for "can't turn off Automatic update" and found a bunch of similar stories, though. In any event, it was so long ago I can't remember what the circumstances exactly were. > > --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 >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > >
