Re: [9fans] Help for home user discovering Plan 9

["J.R. Mauro" <jrm8005@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Eris Discordia
<eris.discordia@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"
> <jrm8005@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 2:08 AM, Eris Discordia
>> <eris.discordia@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 lucio@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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>