From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <87DD0DBADB1647F789D9EB63@192.168.1.2> <3aaafc130904180919j20a5bf12q817439d39db79390@mail.gmail.com> <0AE52A74098A8B999540233C@192.168.1.2> <3aaafc130904181243xa0e269n52379085af1b741@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 16:44:58 -0400 Message-ID: <3aaafc130904181344s191c703dsf23a51fdd49ef14b@mail.gmail.com> From: "J.R. Mauro" To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [9fans] Help for home user discovering Plan 9 Topicbox-Message-UUID: e74ad336-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Eris Discordia 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... historica= l > 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 wan= t > Windows to never download anything of its own accord, even when instructe= d > by applications (such as InstallShield) that use Windows Update > infrastructure for their purposes, go to Control Panel, go to Administrat= ive > 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" > wrote: > >> On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Eris Discordia >> 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 wh= en >>> 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 acquaintanc= e >>> with that OS. Not even as much acquaintance as a normal user should hav= e. >> >> 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" >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 2:08 AM, Eris Discordia >>>> 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 whi= ch >>>>> 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 th= e >>>>> 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-prof= it >>>>> 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 garbag= e. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> P.S. On open/free software mailing lists and forums justice is often >>>>> not done to Windows, et al. Particularly, no meaningful alternative i= s >>>>> 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 kill= er >>>>> 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 wrot= e: >>>>> >>>>>>> The update/installation process in Ubuntu sucks. If you try somethi= ng >>>>>>> using BSD ports or Gentoo portage, you can fine tune things and hav= e >>>>>>> explicit control over the update process. >>>>>> >>>>>> I was specifically omitting BSD ports, as they are in a different >>>>>> league. =A0The point I _was_ making is that one readily sacrifices >>>>>> control for convenience and that Linux and Windows users and those w= ho >>>>>> 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 i= ts >>>>>> updating :-( >>>>>> >>>>>> Enough reason for me to prefer Plan 9 (and NetBSD, but I can only ge= t >>>>>> my teeth into so many apples), if there weren't many more reasons. >>>>>> >>>>>> ++L >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > >