From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 20:34:18 +0100 From: Eris Discordia To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <3aaafc130904181243xa0e269n52379085af1b741@mail.gmail.com> References: <87DD0DBADB1647F789D9EB63@192.168.1.2> <3aaafc130904180919j20a5bf12q817439d39db79390@mail.gmail.com> <0AE52A74098A8B999540233C@192.168.1.2> <3aaafc130904181243xa0e269n52379085af1b741@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Subject: Re: [9fans] Help for home user discovering Plan 9 Topicbox-Message-UUID: e73f9ef8-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > 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=20 record?--how to turn off your Windows XP installation's automatic update=20 service: get into Control Panel, run the System applet, turn to Automatic=20 Updates page tab, set the radio button to your desired option. If you want=20 Windows to never download anything of its own accord, even when instructed=20 by applications (such as InstallShield) that use Windows Update=20 infrastructure for their purposes, go to Control Panel, go to=20 Administrative Tools, run the Services MMC snap-in, find Background=20 Intelligent Transfer Service, stop the service, set the service's startup=20 mode to 'Disabled.' Very easy, very logical, very intuitive, clearly documented, and even=20 self-documented. Windows has lots of disadvantages but UI, configuration,=20 and representation of the local system is where there's the smallest=20 concentration of them. If you want to blame it get under the hood, find=20 actual OS design flaws, and then laugh to your heart's content. In conclusion, I apologize to 9fans for polluting their list with Windows=20 nonsense. This will end right here even if J. R. Mauro goes on to say=20 her/his Windows system won't boot after a clean successful installation. --On Saturday, April 18, 2009 3:43 PM -0400 "J.R. Mauro"=20 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 = 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" >> 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 = 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. =C2=A0The 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >