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

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

On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Eris Discordia
<eris.discordia@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I put it here for I don't know what to call it--shall we say... historical
> record?--how to turn off your Windows XP installation's automatic update
> service: get into Control Panel, run the System applet, turn to Automatic
> Updates page tab, set the radio button to your desired option. If you want
> Windows to never download anything of its own accord, even when instructed
> by applications (such as InstallShield) that use Windows Update
> infrastructure for their purposes, go to Control Panel, go to Administrative
> Tools, run the Services MMC snap-in, find Background Intelligent Transfer
> Service, stop the service, set the service's startup mode to 'Disabled.'

Yes, simple as 1,2,3... 4,5,6,7,8,9. What a snap!

>
> Very easy, very logical, very intuitive, clearly documented, and even
> self-documented. Windows has lots of disadvantages but UI, configuration,
> and representation of the local system is where there's the smallest
> concentration of them. If you want to blame it get under the hood, find
> actual OS design flaws, and then laugh to your heart's content.
>
> In conclusion, I apologize to 9fans for polluting their list with Windows
> nonsense. This will end right here even if J. R. Mauro goes on to say
> her/his Windows system won't boot after a clean successful installation.

No one asked you to pollute the list the first time around, and I
haven't run Windows on anything in years. I'm glad it works for you.
Wish I could say the same.

>
> --On Saturday, April 18, 2009 3:43 PM -0400 "J.R. Mauro" <jrm8005@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>