Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft wants Automatic Update for Windows
Edward Dao writes "After the embarassment of last week's blaster worm, Microsoft is weighing the possibility of automatic update. Microsoft not only wants to upload the latest patch on to users' computer but also installing it for them." This will work out really well for everyone I'm sure. Yikes! Can I at least press 'Ok' first?
Some of us are still on dialup, and an automagic update of Windows via 56K modem would literally take HOURS if the connection even holds at all. I don't think I should be forced into high-speed access just so I can update my Windows partition periodically.
Be excellent to each other. And... PARTY ON, DUDES!
You can do this already with Windows XP if you set it up to do so. In the system properties go to the Automatic Updates tab and then click on the radio button next to the bottom option, "Automatically download the updates, and then install them on the schedule that I specify".
Of course you'd have to be out of your gourd to do this regarding MS's history of untested patches. Also I noticed that MS is including driver updates in the critical updates as well (nVidia driver). I've NEVER installed a driver from MS on my computer and every time a customer of ours does it, it seems to totally screw up everything.
Duris MUD - The best pkill MUD. Ever.
Circa Windows 2000, service pack 3.
By default, this already happens.
The story here is that Microsoft backed off when privacy groups thought this was a crummy idea (especially with the EULA of SP3 and XP SP1, big-brother visions abound).
Now they are saying they'd consider giving you more control over this, and to, by default, accept security-relevant patches in this manner by default.
Also, (big item), they'll ship the machines with the firewall enabled. That alone is probably the best idea they've adopted under recent community pressure.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
I'm not sure who these customers are that want this...but to me this amounts to saying "our customers are lazy and stupid". Maybe I'm trolling, but...the "kinds of threats" that are out there are caused by microsoft writing vulnerable code in the first place! Sure everyone has bugs, but maybe, just maybe, they'll write a buggy patch too! I don't see how anyone could even be considering this as the default. If these people want microsoft to automatically update their computer...they can turn it on right now!
I know you hear this a lot here, but people need to either
a) have a working knowledge of their computer/operating system, including how to maintain it.
b) have their computer regularly maintained by another live human being.
This isn't that hard. People have this perception of computers as the same as their television or washing machine in terms of support - don't touch it unless it's obviously unusably broken. They don't work that way, they're much closer to cars. Sure, some people don't maintain their cars either, but those people aren't in the majority.
I'm rambling at this point, but really this is a disaster waiting to happen. What, are we going to end up testing EULAS in court finally when microsoft breaks ten million computers automagically and then says "well, you clicked the agreement"? I guess that could be agreeable. Please, I know most people here know what they're doing with their computers, but this problem is not just caused by microsoft. Educate everyone you know about the needs for computer mainenence! Make them pay you, I don't care, do something. Of course, the stupid IT department here got the worm too, so maybe it's completely hopeless.
well, iirc, the 'standard' eula coming now basically allows them to change the rules of it as they see fit without you agreeing to it.
yeah it seems totally stupid and unforceable but so is most things in eulas nowadays anyways.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
So... only for home users and users can shut it off!
According to the Windows XP EULA, Microsoft has already given themselves the right to install software on users' home machines without their consent or knowledge. And there's no provision for allowing users to "opt out".
For every post, there is an equal and opposite re-post.
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb; en-us;306203
With Microsoft Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) installed and Internet Connection Firewall (ICF) or Basic Firewall enabled, the firewall filters Internet Protocol version 4 (IPv4) traffic, but the basic firewall and the ICF does not block or filter IPv6 traffic.
Note ICF is available on Microsoft Windows XP and Microsoft Windows Server 2003, Standard Edition and Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition. Basic Firewall is a component of Routing and Remote Access that you can enable for any public interface on a computer running both Routing and Remote Access and a member of the Windows Server 2003 family.
Trolling is a art!
Under known issues with SP4, I found this, which, I believe, addresses your Norton problem in item 2.
What CD burner do you have? I have found a reference to Sony burners failing with SP4 unless you install a fix from Roxio here, which may cover #3.
I have already addressed #4(or 5 :-)) when I discussed WFP.
That leaves #1 which, I too, had this problem with. However, all I did was go to add/remove programs, uninstalled the .NET framework that windowsupdate installed, then restarted VS.NET installation. Worked fine after that, and I just skipped the .NET framework recommendation on the windowsupdate site (it was not a "critical" update, anyway).
The point being that as awesome as the resources and support are for Linux and other open source OSes, there is a multitude of free support for Windows as well. I don't infer that this relates to a lack of knowledge or ability, but perhaps a lack of effort to resolve the problem?
Public use of any portable music system is a virtually guaranteed indicator of sociopathic tendencies. -- Zoso
What a *retarded* idea. Windows XP has automatic updates turned on by default, so there isnt much difference.
;)
Ok, I can see the logic in making Windows Update fully transparent (and for the majority of users, this would be a good idea).
Regardless, for users like me running on a 56k connection, downloading a couple of meg worth of useless patches, this is *not* an option. My firewall is a better preventative measure than patches upon patches, so i'd rather not bother.
And if the "functionality" is put in anyway? Well, there will be cracks - hey, my firewall will probably block it anyways
Of course, its all the more reason to convert to linux.