Microsoft Forces Shutdown of Autopatcher

kaufmanmoore writes "Posts on Neowin and Autopatcher's site announce Microsoft has forced the closure of the Autopatcher download section. Details are scarce as to the exact reason for the take down after over 4 years of availability, but an official from Microsoft legal says that it has nothing to do with Windows Genuine Advantage. Goodbye to another useful tool that helped sysadmins apply Microsoft's numerous patches."

Comments

One down, X to go.

[c0l0]

Whilst skimming over the About-Section of the page, this tool's description reminded me of heise's "offline update" ( http://www.heise-security.co.uk/articles/80682 ). It's an alternative tool, allowing the download of selected Microsoft Windows update packs for later, offline (re-)use. Nice to have - if you're still on Windows, that is. Wonder if/when it's gonna be shot down as well.

Re:One down, X to go.

[Anonymous Coward]

There's better ways to do the job anyways (like slipstreaming updates in the install CD, since autopatcher was mainly used on new installs). Loads of similar tools (like WindizUpdate and many others) and tools like MS' WSUS (free too) to do the job anyways. I won't particularly miss it either, it was quite buggy -- you'd expect it to finish doing its job unattended, but you'd usually come back to yet another error message. Not that it was hard to put all the patches in folder along with a batch file or script that would apply them all either.

I wouldn't exactly say good riddance, but I'm not exactly sad to see it go either...

Re:One down, X to go.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's an alternative tool, allowing the download of selected Microsoft Windows update packs for later, offline

So does this have "nothing to do with" the fact that I read Vista SP1 won't allow offline updates.

Re:One down, X to go.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a bit more difficult, as the Heise tool is just a bunch of scripts that pulls the patches from the MS website (whereas Autopatcher was repackaging and redistributing the MS software).

Re:One down, X to go.

[Anonymous Coward]

since autopatcher was mainly used on new installs.

Can you please back this up? The sheer fact that they released "full releases" & patches to bring a full release back up-to-date suggests people used it PERIODICALLY (e.g. for updates, rather than new installs). Many admins I know put it on a USB stick & kept it up-to-date for BOTH new installs & updates.Loads of similar tools (like WindizUpdate and many others) and tools like MS' WSUS (free too) to do the job anyways.No--these require a stable, fast network too. AutoPatcher could be used REGARDLESS of network status, restrictions, etc.

Re:One down, X to go.

[Anonymous Coward]

Buggy?

It was a collection of MS Windows updates. You're not suggesting the updates were buggy are you?

I never had any problems with Autopatcher that I didn't have with the same "official" MS Windows update.

My experiences may be anecdotal but I doubt they are unique.

Re:One down, X to go.

[Lt.Hawkins]

offline update is terrific; its basically a script that wgets the patches directly from Microsoft, and can work incrementally after each patch tuesday. it'll create an ISO for you, or just have it store the patches in a directory with an auto-installer.

I even customized it (its source is available) to download an unlisted windows language.

Re:One down, X to go.

[Jugalator]

Nice to have - if you're still on Windows, that is.

By far most are. ;) Sometimes I wonder if some of you live in some sort of alternate universe, because you sure make it sound like it. :)

Re:One down, X to go.

[mrbcs]

This works for the last release: http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=autop atcher+mirrors&btnG=Search&meta=/

I like this one better though:CT Update http://www.vulnerabilityassessment.co.uk/ctupdate. htm/

Re:One down, X to go.

[Sfing_ter]

Autopatcher was a windowy tool in the Microsoft mold.(you can take that either way) It was very nice and if you just needed a few things you could dig through the folders and find your toys, it did do some strange registry gymnastics that had odd results at times so I stopped using it in it's full capacity. But they provided you everything, as in, they distributed MS software. The Heise CTUPDATE however, does not provide you anything but a windows version of wget and a script to a) download all the latest updates and b) create an iso of the updates that will autorun and autoinstall all the updates. Very different, as they do not distribute MS software :)

Also, when I install updates via CTUPDATE windows knows they were installed and does not re-install the software on the next update, as opposed to AutoPatcher, where most times windows update re-installed most of the updates.

The lesson here, is HOW you choose to do what you intend to do. If AutoPatcher changed only gave away a script to download and compile the data then they would not have a problem.

Re:One down, X to go.

[Master of Transhuman]

I just went to WinDizUpdate to see what that was about - morons detected my openSUSE 10.2 version of Firefox 2.0.0.5 as an "unsupported browser".

Useless site - you can't even find out much about it unless you're using a "supported browser".

Nitwits.

Re:One down, X to go.

[Master of Transhuman]

WSUS? Supported Operating Systems: Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1

Which makes it useless for those clients of mine who don't have 2003 Server on the premises.

And you think Windows Update isn't buggy? Their servers frequently slow as molasses?

You think slipstreaming patches into an install CD is easy when you have to use the install CD that came with the machine on a client site?

Get a clue. Autopatcher was valuable for support techs needing to do updates on a client site, not just admins with access to 2003 Server.

Re:One down, X to go.

[angrykeyboarder]

I just went to WinDizUpdate to see what that was about - morons detected my openSUSE 10.2 version of Firefox 2.0.0.5 as an "unsupported browser".

Useless site - you can't even find out much about it unless you're using a "supported browser".

If your're referring to Windows Update that makes perfect sense.

Re:One down, X to go.

[Master of Transhuman]

That's not what WinDizUpdate is - reread the post.

This is sad...

[CFBMoo1]

That utility has obtained patches that Windows Update indicated were already installed but wasn't. This utility has saved a lot of headaches. Really sorry to see it go like that.

Re:This is sad...

[Andy Dodd]

In my case, Windows Update (or whatever it is now called) would consistently hang on my machine, consuming 100% CPU for 30-40 minutes or more without doing anything.

It's apparently been a common problem since MS moved from Windows Update to ??? Update. (They changed the name, I forget what they changed it to, and in the process overhauled everything, which of course BROKE everything.) Autopatcher was the only way I could update that machine.

Re:This is sad...

[MCraigW]

It's apparently been a common problem since MS moved from Windows Update to ??? Update.

The new version is Microsoft Update.

Morons.

[adam.dorsey]

Do they even understand the concept of bad publicity any more, or did they just stop caring?

Fuckers hit close to home, this time; Autopatcher was great for keeping relatives on dialup up-to-date.

Re:Morons.

[jollyreaper]

Do they even understand the concept of bad publicity any more, or did they just stop caring? Maybe they're following the Hollywood publicist school of publicity: anything that doesn't involve a dead spouse or sex with children is good publicity.

Re:Morons.

[Seakip18]

awww man. I would have loved this for updates, especially when using ancient ghost images. I've been keeping a batch file that runs all the latest updates I downloaded for that image. With this, I coulda just ran it and not give a damn about any patch level.

Re:Morons.

[tftp]

They just stopped caring. And why not indeed - what is there to be afraid in squashing a little web site? The society is already in deep apathy (if not slumber,) and critical thought is about to send you to jail. Bloggers on /. will rage and fume for a few days, but nobody will notice that anyhow, and all that rage will dissipate in a week, but the good business remains.

MS is cynical and ruthless because it can and because it is profitable; and so it will stay. If you don't like that don't run Windows, it is that simple. With modern Linux distros it's not such a great loss. And if you don't want to fiddle with X settings, get a mac - Apple will charge you for that, but you get a sane system in return, not a buggy treadmill. [full disclosure: I do not own a modern Mac; all I have is an ancient PowerBook with 8.5.x MacOS, and I rarely even power it on, I keep it as a piece of history.]

Re:Morons.

[hansamurai]

They must have hired the RIAA's publicist. Not that shutting down an autopatcher is on the same level as suing a dead person, but you gotta start somewhere, right?

Re:Morons.

[hedwards]

I don't think that in this case they are being unreasonable. I do think that it is a bit odd that they waited this long to assert their rights, but they are behaving.

I don't think that it has been a secret that cracked versions of windows have the potential to contain malware embedded at the deepest levels, to suggest that patches couldn't also be infected is a bit on the dishonest side.

As to whether this is really why, I have no idea. But I personally wouldn't feel comfortable downloading a copy over the net, even without any sort of threat of lawsuit.

What I would like MS to do is make it easy for people to download their patches, and hang onto them. Especially since windows doesn't run well for extended periods without being reinstalled.

Re:Morons.

[slapout]

"We don't care. We don't have to. We're the OS company."

Re:Morons.

[William-Ely]

I used it a lot as a PC tech. Microsoft might not realize that some people use dial-up still and downloading large updates isn't really practical. With Autopatcher all I had to do was pop in a CD or a thumb drive and get down to business patching up Windows. At least then I could be sure that when I left my clients computer fully patched up no matter what their connection was like. Way to go MS.

/em Pours out a '40 for the departed Autopatcher ; ;

Re:Morons.

[rastoboy29]

No, they've just taken their cues on corporate citizenship from AT&T and other former state monopolies.

I might point out that those nasty corps are perfectly successful.

Re:Morons.

[hondo77]

Does a dead ex-spouse count?

Re:Morons.

[ConceptJunkie]

Microsoft stopped caring over a decade ago. Do you think they have any interest in what users want or need? It's all about lock-in, baby.

They don't care what's on your hardware as long as it's theirs. Actually I wish that were true, because XP is pretty decent, but they couldn't leave well enough alone and had to spend 5 years squatting on the toilet to excrete Vista, the first piece of software that doesn't even pretend to offer anything new to the customers, it's only selling points are what's good for Microsoft and their big media buddies. OK, I lied. It does offer a new feature for users: It's shiny.

Re:Morons.

[ConceptJunkie]

I don't run Windows, except for a couple games and apps, and it's great. On the other hand, it doesn't affect Microsoft one bit. I still paid the Microsoft tax on my laptop.

I know, I know, I could find a company that sells me a machine without Windows pre-installed. But you know what? All the ones I could find were much _more_ expensive than the HP lappy I ended up with, on which I run Ubuntu with Windows 2000 in a VM.

Re:Morons.

[Anonymous Coward]

You techs are so cute. Behold the power of a criminal monopoly! No individual matters, just the trust's control of the market that allows continued profit.

Re:Morons.

[pokerdad]

MS is cynical and ruthless because it can and because it is profitable;

Which is what some posters here seem to be missing. The people who are going to be mad about this, in large part, already had long lists of greivences against MS. I predict that MS will not lose a single sale from this action.

Re:Morons.

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

The society is already in deep apathy (if not slumber)

No, society isn't in "deep apathy", they are in "deep apathy" about Microsoft, and other issues that you care about. The fact that next to no-one cares that Microsoft just closed down a website is not a sad commentary on modern society, rather an eye-opening message that people don't always agree with you. Perhaps you are the one in "deep apathy", because you aren't doing anything constructive to feed the homeless, save the whales, etc, etc.

critical thought is about to send you to jail.

I call BS.

Bloggers on /. will rage and fume for a few days, but nobody will notice that anyhow, and all that rage will dissipate in a week, but the good business remains.

Microsoft has a reputation among certain circles, and this does nothing to improve it. Hell, with all the bad press on sites like /., even if they cleaned up their game tomorrow, it would take years for the hate to dissipate. If the public does forget every bit of negative press after a few days, why do we still hate Hitler?

Re:Morons.

[Anonymous Coward]

In DC it is, "never get caught with a dead girl or a live boy".

Re:Morons.

[Meneth]

Word. Remember Lik-Sang?

Re:Morons.

[Kazymyr]

Big money-grubbing corporation only cares about their profits. News at 11!

Re:Morons.

[Master of Transhuman]

This has absolutely ZERO to do with patch problems or viruses or any of that crap.

AutoPatcher was a well known group that provided the exact same stuff Microsoft does. They did what Microsoft could not or would not do - provide Microsoft patches in a form that was usable for bulk update of Windows PCs which are not or for efficiency reasons could not be updated over the Internet.

To suggest that AutoPatcher was some sort of rogue operation that could infect machines with viruses is "a bit on the dishonest side."

Re:Morons.

[Master of Transhuman]

"Microsoft stopped caring over a decade ago."

You're off by about twenty years - oh, wait, you did say "over a decade", so technically you're correct.

Read any bio of Bill Gates.

He NEVER cared about the users or the industry or advancing the use of computers - only his customers money. And he'd tell them any bullshit he could come up with to get it - "Just wait, the next version will be AWESOME! You'll see!" (Always reminds me of John Belushi in "The Blues Brothers".)

Re:Morons.

[ConceptJunkie]

I think it's fair to say that XP was an improvement over 2000, at least after a service pack or two, and you turned that stomach-churning default UI skin off. I can't see that happening with Vista though. For all the claims of the new "network stack" I've found network performance to be significantly inferior to XP, which itself isn't as good as Linux.

My kids' machine runs Windows 2000. I'd upgrade to XP but the XP installer blue screens when booting. Yes, blue screens. So I'm stuck with 2000. 2000 was pretty decent, but memory fades with time, and I'd forgotten that Explorer used to be a lot more buggy than it is now, and it's hardly solid even after 12 years. Heck, it took me about an hour to find tons of bugs in Explorer in Vista. Explorer sucked in 1995 and it sucks in 2007. Konqueror improves more in one release than Explorer has in 12 years. Dolphin looks pretty decent too.

BTW, I run Ubuntu on all my machines.

WindizUpdate next?

[Aggrajag]

So are they going to shut down WindizUpdate next as it is a lot more useful that Windowsupdate has ever been. Then again maybe the patches are downloaded from Microsoft's servers but I'm not sure.

Re:WindizUpdate next?

[tholomyes]

Shhh, don't mention any alternatives here, you'll just give them ideas!

Just go underground

[Anonymous Coward]

Get some cool handles and start disting. only on TPB or something. Autopatcher is sooooo useful for me, I typically take a new version on a USB-stick to update my fathers computer, etc. Saves years of time.

Are they making the arguement that.....

[8127972]

... this is some sort of DMCA violation? That's bizarre because Microsoft has known about them for some time and according to their site, they didn't care:

"Q: Is AutoPatcher legal?
A: Yes, Antonis Kaladis (our project manager) once spoke to a Microsoft employee and apparently they know about us but don't care what we do! The AutoPatcher project has been going strong since 2003 and never had a sniff of trouble from Microsoft."

From http://www.autopatcher.com/faq/

Re:Are they making the arguement that.....

[tftp]

Meet the new MS lawyer, not exactly the same as the old MS lawyer.

Re:Are they making the arguement that.....

[prshaw]

How does someone in your company talking to a random Microsoft employee make them legal? How does Microsoft knowing about them make them legal?

I am not a lawyer, but I think I know when one is needed. And I think if that is their claim on being legal they really need to talk to one.

I have no idea if they are legal or not. My point is just talking to someone in a company and having them say they know about you doesn't make what you are doing legal.

Re:Are they making the arguement that.....

[hal2814]

So Kaladis talked to Microsoft's best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend who heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with a girl who works somewhere in a Microsoft call center who saw Autopatcher in use at 31 Flavors last night. I guess it's pretty ironclad. It's my understanding that they can pursue legal action against Autopatcher at their leisure even if the Microsoft employee in question was accurately reflecting Microsoft-as-a-whole's knowledge of Autopatcher.

Re:Are they making the arguement that.....

[RobertM1968]

"Yeah, so I talked to the janitor at MS, and he says he doesnt care... so lets keep AutoPatcher up..."

Re:Are they making the arguement that.....

[PPH]

IANAL, but there is a legal principle called laches which allows you to defend yourself against civil proceedings if the plaintiff has sat on his rights for too long. If it can be shown that this service has existed and Microsoft was aware, they can't stop it anymore.

Re:Are they making the arguement that.....

[Reziac]

Okay, explain to me how you're supposed to get updates, say for a client whose PC is borked or unsafe, if you don't have a functional Windows machine handy, already running a version of Windows approved by M$? (Presently meaning with WGA installed, I gather.)

Re:Are they making the arguement that.....

[Trogre]

What he doesn't tell you was that the Microsoft employee in question could well have been the tea-lady.

Re:Are they making the arguement that.....

[kylemonger]

IANAL, but there is a legal principle called laches which allows you to defend yourself against civil proceedings if the plaintiff has sat on his rights for too long. If it can be shown that this service has existed and Microsoft was aware, they can't stop it anymore.

That's great. And there is also a financial procedure called bankruptcy which allows you to defend yourself against your creditors just before you've expended all your assets on legal fees. You'll need it after you've battled Microsoft in court for a few years.

Re:Are they making the arguement that.....

[NaDrew]

Thank you, Simone.

Re:Are they making the arguement that.....

[PhilHibbs]

If you can connect it to the network, you could use Proactive Security Auditor.

Re:Are they making the arguement that.....

[Reziac]

Thanks for the link! that looks like a handy tool.

Goodbye

[iminplaya]

to another useful tool that helped sysadmins apply Microsoft's numerous patches.

Hello to a useful alternative operating system. If Microsoft doesn't want our business, we shouldn't give it to them. However, the desire for control of updates is understandable from a liability point of view, although they claim they don't have any...liability that is.

Re:Goodbye

[Achromatic1978]

Haha. I know many sysadmins who needed to update sufficient systems that an automatic system was required: Number who used SMS/WSUS? Dozens. Number who relied on Autopatcher? None.

Re:Goodbye

[Vancorps]

Sounds like Autopatcher was more useful for mobile techs going to places with less than adequate Internet access. Of course such a tech could setup WSUS and just copy all the files to a thumb drive. Most people round here prolly would prefer to just complain about Microsoft. From a liability and quality control standpoint I understand Microsoft's position. Although I would have preferred Microsoft worked with the folks rather than shut them down.

Re:Goodbye

[quantum bit]

It's possible to extract the individual patches from WSUS, but it's not very easy to do so, since they're all named as some big long hash value that has nothing to do with the KB number of the patch. So it's very difficult to figure out which ones are even for your OS version / architecture, much less which ones you need.

Re:Goodbye

[deniable]

I haven't had to deal with WSUS for a year so my memory is a bit flaky. There was an article that showed you how to get the names out of the SQL server tables that WSUS uses. Google should find it.

Re:Goodbye

[Vancorps]

Naturally it's going to be harder for the small guys, never disputed that. For those of us fortunate enough to run SMS we have all the tools to do it. We have an inventory scanner which can work offline in addition to offline repositories. So yeah, it sucks for the small guy, the big guys couldn't care less. That's why I said that I understood Microsoft's reasoning but would have preferred they worked with the Autopatcher folks to keep it running instead of just shutting it down.

Are the patch installers still available?

[LordSnooty]

Autopatcher was really just a front end to all the official MS one-off hotfix exes. If those files are still available, why not adapt the frontend to grab those files from MS instead? Hell, the least MS could do is take on the tech and offer it to their customers with a free WGA check thrown in. Because it was so much easier even for home users with say two machines to update at home, plus mum & dad's, and that one they built for their pal.

Torrents for August release plz?

Re:Are the patch installers still available?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://autopatcher.m2ys4u.co.uk/mystats.php

Re:Are the patch installers still available?

[shitzu]

http://www.heise-security.co.uk/articles/80682 The script downloads the patches from MS site and you can then burn it to cd or copy to usb or network. And apply them all at once. Works like charm.

Re:Are the patch installers still available?

[Limerent Oil]

http://autopatcher.m2ys4u.co.uk/mystats.php/

Thanks, AC! Grab those torrents while you still can!

Coming tomorrow

[faloi]

Microsoft announces a new service available for $50 a seat (check with sales rep for volume licensing) that will allow administrators to do what used to be free from some web sites.

Re:Coming tomorrow

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft announces a new service available for $50 a seat (check with sales rep for volume licensing) that will allow administrators to do what used to be free from some web sites. And I for one would gladly buy it! Or donate that $50 to anyone who seems to be doing a good job of continuing this. Autopatcher was way too useful.

Re:Coming tomorrow

[deniable]

Well, if $50 is the CAL price for Server 2003 then they already have it. Look at WSUS.

Re:Coming tomorrow

[Anonymous Coward]

This really is not funny. To get a basic up-to-date Microsoft Windows XP installation disc, and thus not need to download and install 70+ updates over 4-5 restarts, you have to spend $200+ dollars. Administrating Windows is an expensive hassle now, and day by day it gets worse.

Torrent links here for August ...

[trolltalk.com]

http://autopatcher.m2ys4u.co.uk/mystats.php

http://autopatcher.m2ys4u.co.uk/torrents/AutoPatch er_DirectX_Aug07_x86_ENU_Addon.exe.torrent
http://autopatcher.m2ys4u.co.uk/torrents/AutoPatch er_Extras_Jul07_x86_ENU_Addon.exe.torrent\
http://autopatcher.m2ys4u.co.uk/torrents/AutoPatch er_Office02_Aug07_ENU_Core.exe.torrent
http://autopatcher.m2ys4u.co.uk/torrents/AutoPatch er_Office03_Aug07_ENU_Core.exe.torrent
http://autopatcher.m2ys4u.co.uk/torrents/AutoPatch er_Office07_Aug07_ENU_Core.exe.torrent
http://autopatcher.m2ys4u.co.uk/torrents/AutoPatch er_OfficePack_Aug07_ENU_Addon.exe.torrent
http://autopatcher.m2ys4u.co.uk/torrents/AutoPatch er_Win2K3_Aug07_x86_ENU_Core.exe.torrent
http://autopatcher.m2ys4u.co.uk/torrents/AutoPatch er_Win2K_Aug07_ENU_Core.exe.torrent
http://autopatcher.m2ys4u.co.uk/torrents/AutoPatch er_WinVista_Jul07_Core.exe.torrent
http://autopatcher.m2ys4u.co.uk/torrents/AutoPatch er_WinX64_Jul07_x64_ENU_Core.exe.torrent
http://autopatcher.m2ys4u.co.uk/torrents/AutoPatch er_WinXP_Aug07_x86_ENU_Core.exe.torrent
http://autopatcher.m2ys4u.co.uk/torrents/AutoPatch er_WinXP_MCE2005_May07_x86_ENU_Addon.exe.torrent
http://autopatcher.m2ys4u.co.uk/torrents/AutoPatch er_WinXP_WMP10_May07_x86_ENU_Addon.exe.torrent

Found via google cache :-)

Re:Torrent links here for August ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, those torrent look really healthy. I wonder what they looked like before the download page got taken down.

I noted this on Neowin...

[8127972]

"I asked the representative if Windows Genuine Advantage had anything to do with it and he categorically told me this was not the case, he added that Windows Update for pre-Vista versions of Windows can now be accessed using Firefox and that the concern at Microsoft had more to do with the possible malicious code that could be redistributed with certified Microsoft updates."

Sure. Whatever. We all know that there's never been a case of malicious code distributed with Autopatcher. So I'm calling it now. Watch M$ come up with their own tool that does the same thing as Autopatcher and watch them find a way to turn it into a revenue stream.

Re:I noted this on Neowin...

[nutrock69]

Watch M$ come up with their own tool that does the same thing as Autopatcher and watch them find a way to turn it into a revenue stream.

They already have that. It's called WGA.

It auto-patches your system, then claims it isn't genuine and tells you that you need to buy your operating system again. Instant revenue stream.

Re:I noted this on Neowin...

[Arterion]

"...he added that Windows Update for pre-Vista versions of Windows can now be accessed using Firefox..."

How do we do this? I just went to update.microsoft.com and it said I needed IE.

Re:I noted this on Neowin...

[ceoyoyo]

No, it's nothing to do with Genuine (dis)Advantage. It's because of... um... security! Yeah, that's it!

Re:I noted this on Neowin...

[iminplaya]

"I asked the representative if Windows Genuine Advantage had anything to do with it and he categorically told me this was not the case..."

"I am not gay; I never have been gay..."

Re:I noted this on Neowin...

[goofyspouse]

Windows Update for pre-Vista versions of Windows can now be accessed using Firefox

Wha?

Thank you for your interest in obtaining updates from our site.
To use this site, you must be running Microsoft Internet Explorer 5 or later.

Re:I noted this on Neowin...

[quantum bit]

Watch M$ come up with their own tool that does the same thing as Autopatcher and watch them find a way to turn it into a revenue stream. They have one, it's called WSUS. It's a "free" download that lets you set up your own mirror for automatic updates. The only problem is that it's so big and bloated (IIS, SQL server, AJAX-ish web page for management) that you pretty much need dedicated hardware (and Windows Server license, ca-ching!) to get any decent performance out of it.

Re:I noted this on Neowin...

[Anonymous Coward]

"...he added that Windows Update for pre-Vista versions of Windows can now be accessed using Firefox..."

How do we do this? I just went to update.microsoft.com and it said I needed IE.

AFAIK, Windows Update still requires MSIE. However, if you go directly to a patch (or other download) which requires WGA, you can use FF if you run the "Genuine Check" tool and paste the validation code into the non-MSIE WGA form as requested before downloading. You can find the list of patches, with download links, on the MS TechNet site - I don't have the URL handy.

- T

Re:I noted this on Neowin...

[Anonymous Coward]

Since WSUS3 was released it's an MMC snap-in, so no more web-based UI. It also seems like much less of a resource hog. It still sucks in many ways and crashes pretty regularly, but it sucks less and crashes less than the old version so that's sort of like progress.

Re:I noted this on Neowin...

[quantum bit]

Hmm, I'll have to take a look. It was still in "beta" status last time I checked. I wonder if they've improved the database schema any. I knew it had to be pretty badly designed when I performed a simple operation such as synchronizing with the Windows Update servers or approving a batch of updates and the sqlservr.exe process would be pegged at 100% CPU for what (in a sanely designed schema anyway) should be a simple INSERT or UPDATE statement.

Re:I noted this on Neowin...

[Knara]

This doesn't really address what I mainly used Autopatcher for, though. The best thing about it was that I could update a new SP2 install while a machine was still offline, instead of pulling everything over a wire. I don't think anything that MS makes can do that in a fashion as slick as Autopatcher.

Re:I noted this on Neowin...

[deniable]

You used to be able to download the 'Network Admin' version of SP2. It was ~300MB, but it gave you the whole thing in one file. It was easy for off-line installs.

Re:I noted this on Neowin...

[Sancho]

As slick? No, definitely not. But with a WSUS server on a private subnet, it's going to do what you want.

You can also slipstream hotfixes in to XP, then burn that as an installable ISO. Check out nLite for more information on that.

Lastly, Microsoft USED to offer CDs with the latest patches so that you could install them without connecting to the network. Not sure if they still do that, though.

Re:I noted this on Neowin...

[thejynxed]

The updating via Firefox claim is utter tripe. I've tried visiting both the normal Windows Update and Microsoft Update (and Office Update) sites via Firefox and I get redirected to an error page each and every time. The only way the site "works" is when I use IETab or otherwise mask my browser header info.

For an example:

Without IETab enabled:
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y36/thejynxed/Win dowsUpdateErrorinFirefox.jpg

(Sorry it looks kind of crappy, squashed the screencap into a small jpg with Infranview)

As you can see, Microsoft claiming you can use Firefox for WindowsUpdate is not entirely true.

Re:I noted this on Neowin...

[petermgreen]

you still can ( http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?Fa milyId=049C9DBE-3B8E-4F30-8245-9E368D3CDB5A&displa ylang=en ) and most recent XP cds have SP2 slipstreamed anyway.

the trouble is service pack 2 is getting pretty old and there have been many security fixes since its release. You could use a firewall to protect the machine while getting them but while MS turned on the firewall by default in SP2 they also watered down its security level (i'm not sure if this can be changed but by default the SP2 firewall trusts everything on the local subnet)

It was good, but

[Toreo asesino]

Patches can be slipstreamed anyway, and for the mother of all 'off-line patching systems' there's Windows Server Update Services.

That said, the overall rhetoric of this move still isn't nice. AutoPatcher was at the very least, a handy tool for people that didn't know about the above methods, and to leave it 4 years in the game before sending in the lawyers isn't a nice way of treating the user community. A shame if you ask me.

Re:It was good, but

[MightyMartian]

Microsoft has a long history of fucking over the community. Just remember this the next time one of the whores from Redmond comes around pretending to be our friend.

Re:It was good, but

[DRAGONWEEZEL]

Hey! I am one of the whores from redmond. And M$ clients pay me well you insensitive CLOD! As for pretending to be your freind, that's what you all pay me to do!

Re:It was good, but

[zippthorne]

There have been a number of patches since SP2 came out, and SP2 is a 1-reboot patch anyway, so why would you bother?

Re:It was good, but

[NMerriam]

Patches can be slipstreamed anyway [winsupersite.com], and for the mother of all 'off-line patching systems' there's Windows Server Update Services [microsoft.com].

Yeah, except that neither of those things does what autopatcher does. I don't want to have to reinstall the whole OS just to keep patches up to date, and I don't want to have to lay ethernet cable several hundred miles to my relatives' homes in order to patch them quickly from a server I control.

Re:It was good, but

[loraksus]

Next time I go to a small company to do updates, I'll be sure to bring along a windows server to do updates.

Re:It was good, but

[Knara]

Patches can be slipstreamed anyway, and for the mother of all 'off-line patching systems' there's Windows Server Update Services.
Yeah, but WSUS still requires pulling across a wire, and who wants to re-slipstream an install CD once a month?

Re:It was good, but

[Anonymous Coward]

AutoPatcher has NOTHING to do with slipstreaming. Slipstreaming only adds SP2 to a pre-SP2 CD.

Re:It was good, but

[Sancho]

You can automate the slipstream process fairly easily. The worst bit is getting the URLs to the new updates, but there are sites which provide that information if you look around for a bit.

The donkey of the comuting industry...

[Aaron5367]

Well this is just retarded... Once again a corporate donkey just uses their money and power to shutdown a project that is very helpful, again... Can't wait to see what they start shutting down next... I can see something stupid like alternative search engines coming up.

Re:The donkey of the comuting industry...

[Anonymous Coward]

When was money used to complete this action? They had legal grounds to do it - even the folks at neowin said so. Any "power" they used was _well_ within their rights to use.

Microsoft

[Archangel Michael]

There is no reasonable alternative to the AutoPatcher from Microsoft, and Microsoft is threatened by revelation of hundred patches for a clean/new install of XP (wSP2).

Apple and Linux, he we come!

Re:Microsoft

[Achromatic1978]

There's not? You've not heard of WSUS, apparently. Oh, and why would they be threatened? How many patches exist for clean RHEL systems?

Re:Microsoft

[Twanfox]

As someone else said, WSUS is really not useful for when you go visit a relative and all they have is dialup. Where's the WSUS server in that setup? Oh ya.

Re:Microsoft

[Archangel Michael]

See my post above.

I use WSUS and WDS(RIS) all the time. WSUS isn't the panacea it is made out to be, and WDS is a god send, when deploying fully patched Windows, but that requires slipstreaming the install, something WSUS doesn't do.

Windizupdate

[witte]

You can find windows updates thru http://windizupdate.62nds.com/
I hardly use IE, and this updates through Firefox.
Which is of course very neat. *cough*firefox fan*cough*

Re:Windizupdate

[Bob The Cowboy]

I'm sure Windiz a great tool, but AutoPatcher is useful especially in cases where the net connection is "sneakernet" or dialup. Download it, burn it to a CD, and you can take it with you anywhere. We use it at my work to be able to patch systems before they go online. Also good for taking to relative who lives out in the middle of nowhere. Windiz doesn't help in those situations.

Re:Windizupdate

[HyperQuantum]

You can find windows updates thru http://windizupdate.62nds.com/ I hardly use IE, and this updates through Firefox.

I just tried it here (on Linux) and I get the following message:

Unsupported Browser

Thank you for your interest in WindizUpdate

This free website allows users of Mozilla Firefox 0.9.3, Netscape 4.0, Mozilla Firebird 0.7, Opera 5, or K-Meleon 0.9, to keep their copy of Windows up-to-date. Newer releases of these browsers are also suitable.

Are they doing an OS check or something? My browser is FF 2.0.0 so it fullfills the requirements they list.

Re:Windizupdate

[Anonymous Coward]

Are they doing an OS check or something?

If you click on 'known issues' it looks like it relies on a windows specific plugin (and only supports 32 bit windows as well)

Re:Windizupdate

[StikyPad]

You mean I can download all my OS updates through an unknown, untrusted intermediary with a questionable URL? Sign me up!

Re:Windizupdate

[Reziac]

And that requires javascript to access any content. When I saw that, I turned around and left. NO update is better than an untrustable update.

Not so

[Toreo asesino]

*shameless copy & paste*

"Patches can be slipstreamed anyway, and for the mother of all 'off-line patching systems' there's Windows Server Update Services."

Re:Not so

[baboonlogic]

*shameless copy & paste*

"Patches can be slipstreamed anyway, and for the mother of all 'off-line patching systems' there's Windows Server Update Services." Does Windows Server Update Services help me download the updates at my college and apply them at home?

As for slipstreaming, the link you copy-pasted allows you to slipstream sp2 not patches after that. Autopatcher used to give you only the post-sp2 updates anyway. Wanna re-install? Pop in the sp2 slipstreamed cd, do an unattended install, throw in the latest autopatcher and thats it... you are through.

By the way, does anyone know a convenient way to slipstream anything more than sp2 *reliably* onto a bootable disc?

Re:Not so

[Anonymous Coward]

Slipstreaming is great...if you plan on reinstalling your OS. Not for updating an already-installed OS.

WSUS is also great...if you have a large number of machines and are willing to install a DMZ so that your server can connect to Windows Update to download patches. Oh yes...and if you have a Win2k3 Server lying around.

Both of these fail in the following circumstances:
(A) Home users with intermittent or poor network connections. Not all Windows Updates are related to security.
(B) Small corporate networks that don't have a 2k3 server to dedicate to this purpose, or just a few machines.
(C) Administrators that have a completely offline network. Again, there are Windows Updates that are not solely security-related. Autopatcher meant you could download a full set of updates that could be installed in one internal location and then used from the network (or on discs). WSUS *could* be used this way, but it involves either downloading and propagating your WSUS database manually on another machine, or connecting the WSUS machine to the internet, then disconnecting it and moving it back other. The latter is an unacceptable hack, and the former is doing the same thing as Autopatcher with the additional annoyance of trying to get the patches from all over MS and then having to move them to WSUS.

My bet is that, yes, MS will start sending out some sort of "Monthly Update Rollup" packages soon. Probably for a subscription fee. The human tongue is not capable of uttering the complex profanities this has inspired.

Re:Not so

[Archangel Michael]

Running WSUS isn't a solution to deploying fully patched computers. WSUS keeps them patched, but is still sucks at initial patching.

What I'm talking about is WinXP clean install that is fully patched. I used NON-MICROSOFT products to keep my installers fully patched, because Microsoft STILL doesn't provide a tool to do that for me.

I use WDS (RIS) to deploy WinXP over the wire, but I sill have to MANUALLY patch (slipstream) the install. To maintain that, I used NLITE and Autopatcher combination to keep my installer upto date.

With patches coming on a regular schedule, why can't microsoft provide a tool that does what I do, that automatically slipstreams a WDS XP deployment, using WSUS even?

Re:Not so

[davester666]

"Patches can be slipstreamed anyway, and for the mother of all 'off-line patching systems' there's Windows Server Update Services."

I can't believe you think these two things could possibly replace AutoPatcher. The linked article on slipstreaming just applies SP2 to a non-SP2 CD, so there are only a few thousand updates that I'd have to download/apply afterwards [or manually jury-rig some setup to slipstream MS's patches onto a CD every month, assuming there is some way to do this, as the article only describes getting SP2 slipstreamed]. And like 99.999% of home users, I don't run Windows Server, so it's still individual downloads for each computer. Autopatcher is a simple, one-stop solution to updating multiple XP installs with the latest patches, with a single download and running a single application once per month on each of my machines. It's saved me literally days waiting to download and apply patches for reinstalls.

I refuse to consider using MS's auto-updating mechanism because it refuses to follow my directions [and not just because each machine has to individually download each patch separately]. It still will secretly install/update software without permission and annoy me with reboot requirements randomly.

From Neowin

[Anonymous Coward]

I had a call from Microsoft Legal this morning and they have told me that we are no longer allowed to endorse AutoPatcher on Neowin.

Microsoft will only allow updates to be downloaded from its own servers.

AutoPatcher started in 2003 and has been redistributed in some of the worlds best computer magazine cover CD/DVD's. I have no explanation for why Microsoft allowed it to continue unchecked for 4 years before making this decision.

I asked the representative if Windows Genuine Advantage had anything to do with it and he categorically told me this was not the case, he added that Windows Update for pre-Vista versions of Windows can now be accessed using Firefox and that the concern at Microsoft had more to do with the possible malicious code that could be redistributed with certified Microsoft updates.

We have no grounds to challenge the decision by Microsoft.

I'd like to thank the whole AutoPatcher team for their continued work, unfortunately none of the team is online, but they have been contacted via the AutoPatcher.com website by Microsoft Legal.

The AutoPatcher forums on Neowin have been disabled for guests and members.

Update: A Microsoft representative has told Neowin that he is looking into the matter and will try to get some answers. More to follow.

It seems like a reasonable request.

Re:From Neowin

[opieum]

"I asked the representative if Windows Genuine Advantage had anything to do with it and he categorically told me this was not the case, he added that Windows Update for pre-Vista versions of Windows can now be accessed using Firefox and that the concern at Microsoft had more to do with the possible malicious code that could be redistributed with certified Microsoft updates."

That in and of itself is HUGE news. But alas, total BS. I still get the wonderful W.U message that tells me to go fuck myself for using Firefox. (not exactly in those words but I know that is what they mean)

Re:From Neowin

[Tatsh]

he added that Windows Update for pre-Vista versions of Windows can now be accessed using Firefox

I just browsed to Windows Update in Firefox on Windows and it still says that it requires Internet Explorer 5, which is not even true because on a clean install of Windows 2000, it refuses to work without first updating IE to 6.

Microsoft should send a correction statement, stating that the updates are downloadable using Firefox, even WGA ones, but Windows Update itself does not work in Firefox. I sure would enjoy the day that Windows Update does work on Firefox, but we all know that will never happen. Microsoft is too happy with their own proprietary methods of running scripts.

And I agree with everyone on WindizUpdate; I would much prefer to be forced to use IE to get updates off the official Windows Update than use some 3rd-party site with a browser plugin in Firefox.

I know AutoPatcher is a 3rd-party, but at least with that you can see the files and verify the source (by checksumming the download and the one off the MS downloads site).

Malicious code slipstreamed

[mazanoid]

By malicious, they steer the conversation away from Vista and say "hey you can download xp updates with firefox now" -- so obviously the malicious code would be vista patches to fix the network mp3 problems and the bluray on 32 bit vista I bet.

=P

Autopatcher FAQ's now out of date

[Mr. BS]

'Tis a sad sad day! Thanks for everyone's work on the project!

But... you might want to update the FAQ's on the website. Looks a little funny now!

Q: Is AutoPatcher legal?
A: Yes, Antonis Kaladis (our project manager) once spoke to a Microsoft employee and apparently they know about us but don't care what we do! The AutoPatcher project has been going strong since 2003 and never had a sniff of trouble from Microsoft.

AutoPatcher needs to think "business" instead

[SplatMan_DK]

They could have avoided a lot of trouble, if they had just signed up as a Microsoft Partner. It costs nothing and would have made them "a co-player" rather than a "security risk".

- Jesper

Missing the obvious

[Sefert]

You are all missing the obvious reason for the shutdown. Microsoft has finally fixed all the bugs! Celebrate!

How 'bout getting that in writing next time?

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

"Q: Is AutoPatcher legal?
A: Yes, Antonis Kaladis (our project manager) once spoke to a Microsoft employee and apparently they know about us but don't care what we do! The AutoPatcher project has been going strong since 2003 and never had a sniff of trouble from Microsoft."

How 'bout getting that in writing next time? Welcome to the real world, folks.

On the other hand, the only thing I can think of that they're doing wrong might be to redistribute Microsoft patches from their own servers or media. (Not familiar enough with AutoPatcher to know that for sure.) In my own experience as a Windows developer, I've tangled with Microsoft a number of times about being able to redistribute a particular hotfix, etc. - the answer's basically, "no, patches need to come directly from Microsoft."

Re:How 'bout getting that in writing next time?

[quantum bit]

I have noticed at least one hotfix that's not normally publicly available, but was included with autopatcher. You know, the ones where you go to the KB article and it describes the exact symptoms you're seeing, and when you scroll down to download the patch it says something like:

"We don't think this is a major problem, and people who are having it are obviously too dumb to realize that it's somehow their own fault. Therefore, in order to get this patch, you'll have to call our support line where we will bill you outrageous fees in order to tell you whether you really need the patch or not."

Fortunately, the one I was looking for just happened to be included with autopatcher somehow, so I extracted the file and sure enough it fixed the problem.

Re:How 'bout getting that in writing next time?

[ScrewMaster]

Yeah, well probably somebody at Microsoft noticed that Autopatcher was including hotfixes that would otherwise bring in more revenue for Microsoft. Wouldn't take much more than that to get the Legal Department involved.

Re:How 'bout getting that in writing next time?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well at the time it would've made sense, given that it was an M$ hotfix for something recent, and otherwise people would be pushing around all these weird hotfix files with the right numbers, but maybe that certificate, file size, and checksum don't match up?

Also I think if microsoft stops distributing/support autoupdates, then when they go and try and sue anyone else for offering functionality they no longer deemed financially viable, they'd at least have a short leg to stand on.

(Whatever you want to say about microsoft, it's decisions are calculated.)

Re:How 'bout getting that in writing next time?

[dknj]

"We don't think this is a major problem, and people who are having it are obviously too dumb to realize that it's somehow their own fault. Therefore, in order to get this patch, you'll have to call our support line where we will bill you outrageous fees in order to tell you whether you really need the patch or not."

Obviously you have never taken the 5 minutes of time to call them. If they determine you need the patch they give it, and the call , to you free of charge. How do they determine you need the patch? You tell them. Seriously, just call them and say "hey i'm affected by KB so and so, please send me the patch". The tech will get your contact information for an optional survey, you get the patch. You can download the patch, burn it to cd, give it to your grandmother, whatever. The downside is that the patch has not been thoroughly tested (hence why you have to call them).

Microsoft isn't as horrible as everyone makes them out to be. Just like how java isn't slow.

Re:How 'bout getting that in writing next time?

[afidel]

You don't even need to call anymore, just go to this form and you can get the non regression tested hotfixes by email! Include platform because they will want it even if there is only one applicable fix in the KB article.

But you don't understand what it was good for

[spun]

Patches can be slipstreamed anyway, and for the mother of all 'off-line patching systems' there's Windows Server Update Services. Slipstreaming? WSUS? Those are useful in entirely different situations. Autopatcher is for when you are visiting your aunt Tilly and don't want to spend four hours downloading all the latest patches for her over her dialup. Please explain how either of your proposed solutions would be even remotely useful in the very common situation of patching a relative's computer.

Re:But you don't understand what it was good for

[HoosierPeschke]

I do an update via VMware. I wrote a script for apache that displays all hits (through squid) to Windows Update. I then download the files manually. I use the via a perl logon script I have for my Samba domain (which is easily portable to a flash drive) which does silent updates with logging, so if something doesn't take, I can just install manually. With the consideration of autopatcher going down, I may release said scripts so other geeks can still have a useful way to help non-geeks. Did I mention this is the easiest way to get the notorious rootsupd.exe and any Windows Update updates? Which in turn can be used for slipstreaming.

If anyone wants it, e-mail me and I'll bzip it up for ya with some instructions (uses squid and perl enabled apache, which if I get enough requests I'll convert to php).

Re:But you don't understand what it was good for

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. You're doing too much work. Just grab one of the .ulz files, unzip it, and get a simple XML file that has the download URL of every update available. Or just run the download program.

Re:But you don't understand what it was good for

[HoosierPeschke]

Not really, every few months I'll use hfslip to slipstream the updates and nLite to customize an install so I'll have an up to date disc. Besides, I wanted to learn perl and this project really helped. Besides, at least my way I can get updated drivers for my hardware.

Why does Microsoft hate their users?

[Snowtide]

We give them the vast majority of our IT budgets, we try to keep believeing in them and still they hate us......

Re:Why does Microsoft hate their users?

[kimvette]

They turned on their customers because they've peaked and know it. They're desperate to maintain their monopoly and in their desperation are making mistakes which are resulting in PR blunders.

Shenanigans

[krgallagher]

"Microsoft legal says that it has nothing to do with Windows Genuine Advantage. "

I call Shenanigans!

Re:Shenanigans

[quantum bit]

Captain O'Hagan: I swear to God I'm going to pistol whip the next guy who says, "Shenanigans."

Mac: (yells) Hey Farva, what's the name of that restaurant you like with all the goofy shit on the walls and the mozzarella sticks?

Farva: (pokes head in) You mean Shenanigans?

Re:Shenanigans

[Buelldozer]

Shenanigans!

Shenanigans has been called! Is there a second?!

Can we get an auto downloader for these updates?

[Noksagt]

The reason for the ban:

Microsoft will only allow updates to be downloaded from its own servers.

That's certainly MS's right. A technical objection is that one could use cryptographic hashes/signing so that the download source wouldn't matter (and wouldn't it be caveat emptor if users didn't go to MS for updates?), but c'est la vie.

But why can't we make this even vaguely win-win? Provide a utility that will download ALL of these updates (whether the machine thought they were applied or not) directly from MS for use on removable media.

What alternatives are there for those on dial up (or other cases of no or intermittent network connection)? For those who have had malware make edits to their hosts file and/or browser security settings that make obtaining updates directly from MS on the computer they're updating difficult?

Oh Yeah?

[kc2keo]

So how does this affect the state of Linux... :P --Mod--Offtopic!

Should have bought and funded it instead

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Instead of shutting it down, Microsoft should have bought Autopatcher and funded it.

This service added a lot of value to MS customers. Tearing it down because they were better than their equivalent is destructive.

Doing things that make your products harder to use is bad business sense. It really shows how badly out of touch MS is with the industry.

Re:Should have bought and funded it instead

[TechForensics]

What on Earth could Microsoft be thinking making Windows XP harder to use? Would kind of tend to make Vista look good by comparison..

Oh wait....

Re:Should have bought and funded it instead

[binarybum]

"Doing things that make your products harder to use is bad business sense. It really shows how badly out of touch MS is with the industry."

Nah, it shows what a powerful monopoly they have developed. They can make using their products downright miserable (they practically have already) and people will continue to curse that evil ol' bill gates as they IM each-other on MS messenger in MS vista on their laptops with the "built for windows!" sticker still attached. Plenty of other companies would like to implement the kind of security lockdowns MS has, and are capable of doing so. However, market pressures force them to realize that excessive measures create a barrier to use and sway customers towards friendlier products. Microsoft is not out of touch with the industry. Microsoft is the industry.

Re:Should have bought and funded it instead

[ACDChook]

Just wait. I can almost guarantee that they've done this now to clear the way for something new of theirs. Something which will allow you to download updates for use and installation on multiple PC's at a later day. Yep, yet another MS 'innovation'.

Re:Should have bought and funded it instead

[LurkerXXX]

Why fund it? They already make and give out WSUS for free.

Re:Should have bought and funded it instead

[canuck57]

Nah, it shows what a powerful monopoly they have developed.

Microsoft aught to remember how fast Netscape, Visicalc, WordPerfect, ccMail, and a long road kill list lost to monopolistic competition. For functional competition, it will be worse once people overcome unfounded fear of change.

Apple knows this first hand, remember Apple IIe and MS-DOS? I just hope Apple knows revenge is best served cold.

And more and more are turning Linux, Dell isn't selling them because people are 100% happy with Vista. This market can turn on a dime once people realize FUD is FUD. My company just had a fall out with M$, is now considering Linux... go figure. Some fought for years to keep it out (they didn't succeed) and are now gone.

-------

X-Windows for men, MS-Windows for boys.

Re:Should have bought and funded it instead

[westyx]

Which requires a server platform (2k server, 2k3 server, etc). Not many of those lying around most people's houses.

Re:Should have bought and funded it instead

[secolactico]

Can you stick wsus on a dvd/cd and take it to your relative's XP PC that's still on dialup?

Microsoft should release roll-up updates every month or every patch day. That way, new install can simply apply the service pack and then apply the roll-up and be up to date.

While I regret seeing autopatcher go, I understand what I believe are Microsoft's reasons: autopatcher is distributing MS's patches without permission. Besides intellectual properties issues there's the question of integrity. Who vouches for these patches or the autopatcher software?

Re:Should have bought and funded it instead

[howlingmadhowie]

about dell and ubuntu, the happiness rating of mr. public with vista is totally unimportant to dell. people will still buy computers and as long as top tier vendors only offer windows that's what people will be buying.

ubuntu results from dell being caught with its pants down on the dellideastorm webpage, and dell used the opportunity to dump old non-vista-capable stock for increased prices. now that their reserves of old hardware are getting low, dell's trying to get out of the deal. they have already reduced the extent of ubuntu computers. dell is very careful to not sell that many ubuntu pcs anyway. they are difficult to find on the webpage and available only for home users.

sorry to sound so negative, but it is quite disillusioning to see how a company can throw away the most important resource it can have: goodwill from the customers. by offering ubuntu dell acquired a huge amount of goodwill from geeks worldwide. now dell is kicking them in the teeth. goodwill is what makes people buy your product rather than the competitor's product. other ideas like "offer pcs without an os" have just been ignored, despite being the second highest rated idea on the website.

what annoys me is the transparency of the catamite/sodomite relationship between dell and microsoft. it's like the utter transparency of the ineptitude of the bush administration--they can at least pretend to be competent, can't they?

Re:Should have bought and funded it instead

[Technician]

They can make using their products downright miserable

Tell me about it.

My wife bought a new Vista laptop for her Masters classes. A simple request was to transfer some files and documents to and from our network SMB fileserver (A stand alone product).

They changed the default authentication protocol. It can't log in to any server using a password unless you either upgrade the server or downgrade Vists (not recommended by Microsoft) The server is an embedded Linux appliance (SimpleTech SimpleShare NAS).

The next simple task was to connect to my LAN printers. They hang on the LAN using the well established IPP interface with an address of IPP://192.168.1.101/lp1 and IPP://192.168.1.102/lp1. It took 4 hours and lots of Google searches to find out how to enter a non-IIS printserver address into Vista.

To make it easy, you leave off the IPP:// and put in the IP address and leave off the /lp1. On another page, you change from raw to LPT and put in the port name of lp1. Simple but not intuitive. To make matters even easier, noplace in Vista does it refer to it as Internet Printing Protocol. They just call it Network Printing. Very intuitive and user friendly.

Ubunto was much simpler to connect to these Windows printers. (an HP laserjet and HP inkjet) on garden variety stand alone hardware Print servers using IPP. (Hawking Technology Print servers)

Why would Microsoft make it much harder on Vista Home to connect to a home network and printers? It makes no sense to me.

It's almost like they designed it to be easier to use Ubuntu at home. It is much easier to use Ubuntu at home than Vista. Vista kept interrupting for a Java Update, Sound system Update, AV update and reregistration, and a few other things got in the way of setting up LAN settings and configuring 2 printers. Ubuntu was much better in that also. A single small notification popped up letting me know there were updates available. The small notification did not cover my applications in Ubuntu or force a reboot to close the notification.

Re:Should have bought and funded it instead

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't call it IPP because it isn't. Judging from your description, you've switched back to the old LPD-style printing, a protocol common in the unix world (cf. LPR, LPRng on google).

Re:Should have bought and funded it instead

[mtmra70]

Did you try \\192.168.1.101\lp1

Re:Should have bought and funded it instead

[azenpunk]

doing things that make old products that no longer generate revenue harder to use is good business, if the result is to cause your new product to start generating revenue.

Re:Should have bought and funded it instead

[mrchaotica]

Microsoft aught to remember how fast Netscape, Visicalc, WordPerfect, ccMail, and a long road kill list lost to monopolistic competition.

What are you talking about? In most of those cases (and maybe all; I don't know what ccMail is), Microsoft did the killing! Of course Microsoft remembers it!

Besides, none of those things were operating systems. The ecosystem that's grown up around Windows makes it much harder to dislodge.

Re:Should have bought and funded it instead

[canuck57]

What are you talking about?

I think the idea is that what Microsoft did to others, could happen to them. ;)

Slipstreaming & WSUS are not equivalent

[Noksagt]

Slipstreaming, so far as I understand, solves only installation (or, at the least, would not be as space-efficient as a tool that was only for updates).

WSUS still requires a network.

There are non-networked PCs or PCs with slow/intermittent network connections that must be kept updated too. AutoPatcher addressed this niche quite well. So what to use instead?

Re:Slipstreaming & WSUS are not equivalent

[tepples]

There are non-networked PCs or PCs with slow/intermittent network connections that must be kept updated too. AutoPatcher addressed this niche quite well. So what to use instead? Official solution: Make the non-networked PC networked with a Microsoft service called MSN.

Understatement of the Month.

[twitter]

... don't run Windows, it is that simple. With modern Linux distros it's not such a great loss.

It's more like a tremendous savings in time and trouble.

Re:Understatement of the Month.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not even close. I hate Windows as much as the next guy, but the simple fact is that Linux is not appropriate to 80+% of people's usage. Most people simply can't deal with Linux at all (my parents and in-laws both struggle with Windows and would struggle with MacOS as well, let alone Linux). Even as a techhead myself, I realise that many of the programs I use regularly would be awkward or impossible to find substitutes for. Windows is still far too well entrenched for Linux to be a savings in time or trouble so far - rather, Linux itself would prove (for most people) an even greater investment of time and effort in learning the OS and finding ways to replace or run all their favorite programs. Linux may eventually reach the mainstream in another 5-10 years, but it's nowhere near so far - despite what the fanboys would have you believe on Slashdot.

Re:Understatement of the Month.

[tftp]

Well, you do lose PC games, since rare a game works under WINE. But I personally fixed this issue by just getting a console, and I am not sorry that I did - the thing just works, and I don't need to throw kilobucks at video cards. And in any case, games are first released for consoles, and only much later - maybe - rereleased for a PC.

Re:Understatement of the Month.

[Anonymous Coward]

...And virtually every other commercial app.

Re:Understatement of the Month.

[tftp]

It is true that one has to weigh the availability of apps. For home use, though, a Mac is probably just fine, and for many people Linux is fine also. I can imagine if you depend on MS Money, for example, then you'd be in trouble, but Quicken for Mac is readily available for mere $70. What else would a typical home user need?

But at work, that's another story. Unless you are working in a Mac shop, or unless your duties are mere wordprocessing and email, you'd be often unable to fit a Mac into the process, and Linux would be similarly "against the grain." If your work depends on a Windows app then forget it; always use the right tool for the job.

Nevertheless what I meant is still true, and who cares what your employer wants you to run - it's not your personal computer, and not your worry. What you buy for your own use is your worry, and that's where you can vote with your money.

Re:Understatement of the Month.

[pallmall1]

Not even close. I hate Windows as much as the next guy, but the simple fact is that Linux is not appropriate to 80+% of people's usage.

The modern distributions of linux beat windows (any flavor) hands-down. It's easier to install a kubuntu system from a DVD/CD than it is to install any version of windows. Kubuntu is also easier to update, more secure, and more reliable than windows. It also works better with most users existing peripherals (cellphones/PDAs, printers, etc) than Vista does. It's also easier to switch from XP to a kde-based linux distribution than it is to switch from XP to Vista.

Things have changed, and you should really get updated yourself.

Re:Understatement of the Month.

[andy_t_roo]

That's not completely true, there are a few (minor) areas where the windows kernel has features that linux doesn't.
An objective (feature by feature) comparison can be found at http://widefox.pbwiki.com/Kernel%20Comparison%20Li nux%20vs%20Windows.
The current comparison is Vista vs 2.6.22 (features that can be patched in are noted), and it looks like the next update will be Linux 2.6.23 kernel versus Windows Server 2008 kernel.

Re:Understatement of the Month.

[Master of Transhuman]

Swap prefetch
SMB2
flash drive as disk cache
hard drive with flash cache (Hybrid Hard Drive)
preload application (based on time usage heuristics)

Yeah, the average user really needs all that wonderful Windows kernel goodness...

Sure.

In six months all that will probably be in the next Linux kernel.

Pretty much everything on that comparison site is in the latest kernel.

Nice site - pretty much proves that Linux is nearly 100% totally equivalent to Windows Server - except for the "oh so critical" stuff listed above and a couple equally minor items I didn't bother to post.

Re:Understatement of the Month.

[Journeyman 7]

I seem to live in a strange world of enlightened /.ers continually advancing the Gnu Linux cause in every other comment (which I absolutely approve of by the way) and a real world which doesn't even appear to be aware of any of it! Yesterday I had two reps from Virgin Media who had come to try and sell me on changing my existing 4Meg Cable badwidth for a much broader 20Meg and some other phone and TV package enhancements, my Machine was on and currently displaying one of the really stunning Linux Screen Savers (Fedora 7). The two reps decided they wanted me to test my current speed, and first asked me to Open Explorer? "Can't" I replied smugly "I don't use Windoze". Oh we get it they replied "It's a Mac","No" I replied "This is Fedora Linux, you know a Free Open Source OS". They glanced at each other, shrugged and said "Never heard of it and we don't support it at all, "YOU must have put that on, because none of our operatives would have installed our broadband on something like that" and the conversation was toned down dramatically and they both left a short time later in a cloud of puzzlement and suspicious backward glances. I would love to see everyone come to their senses and shred their M$ disks but if I am honest with myself I can't see it happening in the near future.

Re:Understatement of the Month.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's fine if you enjoy simple games created for 6-button controllers.

For those who prefer complex, intelligent, thoughtful games, a console is not an adequate replacement for a PC.

Re:Understatement of the Month.

[tftp]

You do know, of course, that the Sixaxis controller has two (2) three-axis analog sticks (3rd axis is on-off), and two analog triggers (R2 and L2) ? This amounts to exactly six independent analog channels, as the name of the controller suggests. Aside from that it has twelve more on-off buttons. Also it has a built-in accelerometer to detect when you move the controller itself, this is used in Resistance, for example, to perform a specific defense move.

I do not want to say here that a controller is better (or worse) than a keyboard + mouse, I saw the flame wars on the subject and I myself was raised on the PC hardware. However it is clearly unfair to claim lack of control when the mouse has only two axes and keyboard has no analog channels at all. You do have a sea of keys, and I can imagine that some games may need them (to operate giant robots, for example.) That is all fine. But as you also probably know that the Unreal Tournament for PS3 will support the mouse and keyboard as well, so all camps should be perfectly happy, and I personally will try all the input devices, why not?

With regard to "complex, intelligent, thoughtful games" I have no comments because I am unsure what exactly you mean. Chess, for example, is all that but it is not demanding on input, and you can play chess with any input device and it won't affect your results. Thief, as another game, runs on PC and X-box, and I would call it complex and thoughtful, but I played it on a PC with one-axis mouse and WASD keys; the few inputs beyond that are to crouch, select weapons and throw bombs, that is easy to support with any console controller in existence.

Do what Microsoft do

[Anonymous Coward]

Just move actual distribution to TPB and use the autopatcher site to hand out free vouchers for direct download links and 'support'.

Still many useful tools

[ThanatosMinor]

I have found that a combination of Heise Security's ctupdate and nLite can be used to create a very nice custom Windows installation CD that not only includes any updates you choose to include, but you can also specify a large number of custom registry settings that will be set when you install.
Is very nice

Re:Still many useful tools

[Tatsh]

Yeah, I do the same for my Windows, about once a year. I slipstream all updates post SP2 and a ton of customisations both in nLite and in the $OEM$ folder. This seems to work perfect, except that I cannot get .NET 2.0 or 3.0 to install during the Windows installation, both give strange errors. I use nLite Add-on Maker to add all other silent installs that install during the "Registering components" and in $OEM$ I add a few reg files not in nLite and I make it copy the I386 folder to C: and change the registry to reference that location instead of the CD for files.

The thing about AutoPatcher is that I think it was a great source for getting updates and a lot of registry patches you may not have known about. I would just take out the slipstreamable updates and then slipstream with nLite. Very helpful to have a website where at least a majority of updates can be downloaded. Plus, their custom installer of .NET 1.1 actually works during setup (I made a custom add-on for nLite with it).

I see no reason now why anyone should use AutoPatcher though now. I got what I needed out of it, integrated with nLite and I really do not need it anymore. Nor do I even care to get every update so much anymore. I do not plan on making another slipstreamed disc until service pack 3 of XP, which M$ stated they plan for next year.

It is absolute crap that M$ does not just make SP3 when there are 50 security updates or more. Last time I did a clean install of SP2 it was 93 security updates. The computer shop I work at does not have a very fast connection, and I did use AutoPatcher for a while to help, but now when I do clean installs it is usually 3 optional updates and 1 or 2 security updates, so no big deal. I also think it is crap that M$ refuses to make something similar to AutoPatcher for users, for those who do not want/have Windows Server 2003 just to install updates. I could easily install 2K3 on some PC at work and set it up, but I really do not want to have to go through all that (it would probably take hours).

Contact MS here

[Darthmalt]

Via the Autopatcher torrent page Be polite

Captcha = Bypass
thought it appropriate

Microsoft is immune to bad press

[rbanzai]

Microsoft is so large and its userbase so enormous that no amount of bad press can affect them. Anything short of eating live babies would not impact them in the slightest.

Shutting down Autopatcher is nothing to them and will not affect their business in even a negligible fashion.

I would like to think otherwise but I can't. They are unstoppable.

Re:Microsoft is immune to bad press

[Anonymous Coward]

What about throwing chairs at live babies? That's still acceptable, correct?

Steve Ballmer

Re:Microsoft is immune to bad press

[Anonymous Coward]

Angry user: Microsoft is eating babies now! Shouldn't we start looking elsewhere for software?

Boss: What, and lose our paid support? Over my dead VBScript!

Re:Microsoft is immune to bad press

[RAMMS EIN]

``Microsoft is so large and its userbase so enormous that no amount of bad press can affect them. Anything short of eating live babies would not impact them in the slightest.''

It's not only that what the press writes doesn't affect them very much, it's also that the press doesn't write about them that much...other than giving pages and pages of features (and, of course, equivalent exposure in different media) when MS announces or releases a new product. The raving about Vista was massive. Where are the scandals about the many scandalous shortfalls? Where is the coverage of alternatives? Where is the writing about the exciting and increasingly open computing (it's not just source, it's also specs, standards, etc.)? Sure, the release of Vista was a major event, but what about the REVOLUTIONS that are being unchained by the likes of Ubuntu, RSS, Wikipedia, Firefox, ...?

``Shutting down Autopatcher is nothing to them and will not affect their business in even a negligible fashion.''

I think so, too.

``I would like to think otherwise but I can't. They are unstoppable.''

That, however, is not true. You _can_ stop them. Microsoft is not inescapable. You can, and people do, operate computers completely without any reliance on Microsoft. This is what will eventually coerce Microsoft into improving. Just look at Internet Explorer. It has gotten much better with IE7. Would that have happened if it wasn't for Firefox? How about Microsoft giving access to their source code to selected customers. Would that have happened without the rise of open source?

I don't believe in driving Microsoft out of the market. I do believe competition is good for consumers. Microsoft has long operated without significant competition in its home markets. This is changing, and innovation and progress accelerates as a result (not just on Microsoft's side...it's competitors also benefit from the good ideas that Microsoft brings to the world).

I just used this to fix a xp media center system

[Joe The Dragon]

That I did a repair install on and was not able to install windows updates after running auto patcher windows update now works.

Well yes BUT

[Skiron]

... would have to vote YES for ooxml at a cost of $25,000 to join up.

I would rather shut down.

Re:Well yes BUT

[SplatMan_DK]

I think your statement is just a bit troll-ish and unfair (not enough to be moderated down though).

While I agree that the OOXML approval process in certain countries sucks ass, that is not in itself a proof that *ALL* Microsoft Partners are dishonorable.

Re:Well yes BUT

[Skiron]

I don't think Microsoft Partners have a say to be honest - they either have to adhere to MS [un]ethical way of working or they become ex-Microsoft Partners.

Re:Well yes BUT

[SplatMan_DK]

Untrue. And I could give you many examples. For now I will just stick with one: DotNetNuke, an OpenSource and free CMS of quite good quality for the .NET platform. They make a great product, have a good community, give their product away for free (free as in "beer), and supply the sourcecode along with it with a semi-free (as in "freedom") license which compares somewhat to an LGPL.

Can you please describe to me, in what way you think they are evil?
(because I surely can't see it).

Now THAT'S customer service!

[kimvette]

So much for small business and residential users in rural areas. You know, this will hurt ONLY paying customers; not the "pirates" downloading slipstreamed ISOs off of IRC and torrent networks (or buying "pirated" CDs in the streets, etc). This also hurts small businesses on cable and DSL connections where there are "unspecified" download caps to their "unlimited" internet services.

  Congratulations, Microsoft. You've shut down yet another tool useful for installing and deploying legitimate Windows, thereby increasing the value of "pirated" Windows offerings AND provided more reasons for users to choose alternatives such as Linux, OS X, and BSD. Good move there.

Why not actually, oh, I don't know, innovate some new features for Windows rather than harassing small third-party developers who offer FREE utilities to make YOUR piece of crap offering easier to manage? Like, say, I dunno, work on a better filesystem or something.

Re:Now THAT'S customer service!

[Ablakmaniac]

(or buying "pirated" CDs in the streets, etc). Do people really buy pirated software CDs in the streets? I've bought a couple of movie DVDs that way but the quality was atrocious, they looked like webcam videos from the theater.

Re:Now THAT'S customer service!

[kimvette]

I have a CD of SoftICE from a friend who bought it in China in his home town - it's on a pressed CD, but handwritten label. I didn't ask him if he literally bought it off a street vendor, or from an established store, but does it matter?

The CD's contents is presumably identical to the retail release (if it were still able to be purchased legitimately that is). I keep it around just because it's an interesting conversation piece about what passes for legitimate product in China.

Re:Now THAT'S customer service!

[Ablakmaniac]

I didn't ask him if he literally bought it off a street vendor, or from an established store, but does it matter? I was just curious. Mine I bought from a guy on the street selling out of a shopping cart and a blanket.

This is a perfect example...

[Anonymous Coward]

...of what happens when you use non-free software. No matter what you do: if you use non-free software, it'll bite you in the ass one day. Maybe not today, and maybe not tomorrow, but the day will come.

I can't believe no one's mentioned this yet...

[Eddy Da KillaBee]

They might not listen, or they might -- who knows? <a href="https://support.microsoft.com/common/survey<nobr>.<wbr></wbr></nobr> aspx?scid=sw;en-gb;1348&showpage=1&WS=mscomukform<nobr>1<wbr></wbr></nobr> ">Let Microsoft know about the mistake they're making by writing to them!</a> (I found the link at the torrent site for AutoPatcher.)

Re:I can't believe no one's mentioned this yet...

[stinerman]

Part of being a monopoly means not having to give a shit about what your customers think. I don't think they've cared since W2K was released and even with Vista tanking, I don't see this changing anytime soon.

What about the DVD ISO on MS's download page?

[Arctech]

I haven't heard of this before, (just found it, actually), but would this be a reasonable facsimile?
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=913086&SD=tech

Re:What about the DVD ISO on MS's download page?

[planckscale]

It looks like, for example, the latest August 2007 2GB .iso release contains 10 updates with support for XP (x64), Server 2003 (x64/Itanium), windows 2000 and Vista (x64) in all languages. It would take a lot of downloading of every .iso release to get every patch released since SP2...

Re:What about the DVD ISO on MS's download page?

[aafuss]

I agree. They redistributed copyrighted updates from Microsoft-without any permission. Could Apple shut down my Babya Logic, because it uses one of their names? No-as I have the source code.

Re:What about the DVD ISO on MS's download page?

[Digital G]

No This is only the listed KB's. Its used for Wsus admins to DL all Lanuages the update is in.

You're missing the point!

[WarwickRyan]

It's about security: if you're not downloading the patches direct from Microsoft, there's more of a chance of them being compromised. Sure, it may not have happened yet but that's not to say it won't happen in the future.

Now what would be useful, is for Microsoft themselves to make it very easy for you to download and burn an 'windows update' DVD that'll take each version of XP up to date. Downloadable direct from Microsoft.

Alternatively, they could offer hashes for the downloads on Microsoft's servers, which Autopatcher can be pointed at in order to verify the downloads.

Had they done that, then they'd avoid all the negative PR!

Re:You're missing the point!

[otomo_1001]

A better alternative would be for them to digitally sign their patches. Then it doesn't matter who gives you the file, as long as the decrypted file matches you know you have what you want.

Isn't this why we have things like ssl certs? Even Solaris does this, although the tool is pretty annoying.

Re:You're missing the point!

[Anonymous Coward]

ask and ye shall receive

http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=913086&SD=tech

Re:You're missing the point!

[Spy der Mann]

It's about security: if you're not downloading the patches direct from Microsoft, there's more of a chance of them being compromised.

As opposed to not downloading the patches at all because you don't meet WGA requirements?

Re:You're missing the point!

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop for a second, and think - if you use Autopatcher, you need no Windows Genuine Advantage check. Microsoft has fastidiously tried to get each and every Windows installation to get WGA installed, and having alternative methods to get updates bypasses the WGA apparatus.

From a strategic point of view, this may be part of Microsoft's desire to try to eliminate piracy, and all of their arguments of "unsafe patches" would just be a side issue presented to obfuscate.

Microsoft still wants each and every install of Windows to be paid for, and if I theoretically have a box with a non-WGA approved serial, but can still get patches, I don't need WGA blessing to be up-to-date. If I must undergo a WGA check to get patches, I can either pay for a valid serial number or live without non-critical updates. Someday, things may change and I may have to live without ANY updates.

Food for thought.

Re:You're missing the point!

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Yes, if it is not directly from MSFT it could be compromised. So dont go about hiring sys admins yourself. Even if they have some paper saying they are MSFT certified. You should only hire Genuine Microsoft Employee to come to your site and do site maintenance. And also you should not plug into any generic Internet. Only Genuine Microsoft Internet is really really secure. And dont even think of using a Non Microsoft Keyboard or mouse or anything. If it is not Microsoft, it is not secure. Keep repeating that mantra for 48 days. You will attain salvation.

Re:You're missing the point!

[WarwickRyan]

That's not really the point - what's happening here is you're downloading patches from someone who's a compete stranger and not associated with Microsoft.

So yeah, the chances of compromises are much higher than distribution from a fixed point controlled by Microsoft themselves.

You'd most likely be one of the first to crucify Microsoft if a similar system results in large numbers of PCs being controlled by some Russian ID-theft or botnet criminals..

Re:You're missing the point!

[homer_ca]

Security patches don't need WGA. The security bulletins all have download links. The software that needs WGA are things like DirectX runtimes and free (beer) addons like Media Player 11. Also, the Microsoft Update webpage (formerly Windowsupdate) has a WGA check, although the Automatic Updates service doesn't. However, Automatic Updates probably still sends your install key when it phones home.

Re:You're missing the point!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not really the point - what's happening here is you're downloading patches from someone who's a compete stranger and not associated with Microsoft.

So yeah, the chances of compromises are much higher than distribution from a fixed point controlled by Microsoft themselves. Yes, but as you yourself said, that could be solved by simply providing a hash. It's no reason at all to take down Autopatcher.

Re:You're missing the point!

[Doc Daneeka]

So, if the patch I downloaded from a site I trust that happens to not be a MS certified download source, how is this going to hurt the company that I already patronized?

All economic questions aside, why shut down a site that may be compromised at some point in the future? Will it ruin your day when you realize that the compromised custom install of Windows is maxing out your 56k modem (because you live in a rural area not serviced by anything faster), forcing you to reinstall via the original source? It may do just that; however, to take away freedom from a customer that already bought your product to do as they wish, with their copy, is just wrong.

Re:You're missing the point!

[code65536]

Um... They DO digitally sign every one of their patches!

Re:You're missing the point!

[Sancho]

I don't think digitally signing their packages would help. You're still running an executable from some random people on the Internet. Of course, people do that every day....

Re:Can we get an auto downloader for these updates

[Xybre]

I was under the impression that all the updates are still contain their digital signatures, so anyone can verify their veracity.

Total cost of ownership

[Anonymous Coward]

So I guess now that they have retired the "Get the facts" campaign, Microsoft is actively increasing the total cost of ownership of Windows? After all, they are shutting down a free tool that presumably saved their clients thousands of man-hours.

They may claim that the shutdown is not about WGA, but I can't see what other reason they would have, other than that AutoPatcher competes with some as-yet-unreleased Microsoft product.

Re: Business Sense

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Show Bad Business Sense.
2. Retreat from the pulse of the industry.
3. Shutdown superior alternatives.
4. Make your products hard to use.
5. ???
6. Profit!

Re:Can we get an auto downloader for these updates

[Noksagt]

I was under the impression that all the updates are still contain their digital signatures, so anyone can verify their veracity.

I believe that you're right. My real point was that those signatures should obviate any concerns about the patches being distributed by third parties.

Quick, to the mirrors!

[Anonymous Coward]

Google for 'autopatcher mirror' and grab what you can, while you can.

I'm downloading the core file for August '07 right now. At least I'll be able to get a fresh XPSP2 install pretty well updated with what I've got.

Microsoft, you are truly a bunch of stupid assholes. You actively seek out ways to create ill will among the people who have to support your shitty software.

Terrific. How long before they break even that?

[Erris]

offline update is terrific; its basically a script that wgets the patches directly from Microsoft,

The geinous of M$ can not be understated. Rather than let people share the burden of distributing their "patches" (efficiently)they will make everyone go to them. We have just seen how well they do at an easier task.

It won't be long before they only allow "authenticated" clients to download.

The contrast between this and the free software world could not be greater. Every gnu/linux distro has been easy to keep up today for the last ten years and there are verified mirrors everywhere. When you download a package from a mirror, you can md5 sum check it against the original source and most package managers do this automatically. M$ on the other hand, won't even let you distribute what they consider "free". Be wary when someone from M$ advocates BSD, love of your freedom is not the reason for their advice.

Re:Get it done in 15 minutes.

[spun]

Oh twitter, you are so predictable. But to be fair, the aunt Tillys of the world could be just as happy with Linux as they are with Windows if it does what they want to do. What do they do with computers? They write email, chat, write and print out letters, view and print pictures... hey wait a minute, how easy is that last one? A quick visit to MEPIS help shows the camera part of it shouldn't be a problem. What about printers? Looks like MEPIS has a nice guide for that, too.

Things are looking good so far.

But what else do the aunt Tillys of the world like to do? Browse the web. Preferably any part of the web that requires a bazillion plugins like flash. And here MEPIS falls flat. Getting all the required add ons into any Linux based browser has always been a total pain in the ass, and quite frankly is one of the biggest barriers to Linux adoption by all the 'little users' of the world. These are the people who don't want to do much with their computers, and they have no particular loyalty towards nor skill with Microsoft's products. If only they could do all of the few things they actually want to do with computers on Linux, we'd have twenty million converts in a day. But multimedia playback and browser plug-in support have always been a nightmare under Linux, and those are two of the most important issues to the vast majority of potential adoptees.

Re: Business Sense

[Grishnakh]

I'll fill in #5 for you:

5. Maintain a monopoly in operating systems and office software, and sit back and laugh as people continue to buy and use your products despite superior (but not fully compatible) alternatives because they're either afraid or apathetic, no matter how inconvenient you make your products.

People want to stick with the market leader, no matter how much better any alternative is. They also especially want to be "compatible" with everyone else, which is one of their reasons for sticking with the market leader. So the market leader has no incentive to improve; customers won't abandon them, no matter what.

So why do people here keep saying things like "Microsoft should ..."? No, Microsoft should do whatever they can to make more money, and if that means screwing over all their customers, so be it. If the customers don't like that, they should find a new vendor or alternative. But customers haven't been doing that, and have shown that they're willing to put up with whatever Microsoft does.

I for one applaud this move by MS. Anything they do to screw over their customers is a good thing in my book. I like to laugh as people complain about these actions, about how it just makes their jobs harder, etc. If someone keeps coming back for more abuse, they deserve that abuse.

Guess the employee wasn't a lawyer

[laoseth]

From the autopatcher FAQ: http://www.autopatcher.com/faq/
Q: Is AutoPatcher legal?
A: Yes, Antonis Kaladis (our project manager) once spoke to a Microsoft employee and apparently they know about us but don't care what we do! The AutoPatcher project has been going strong since 2003 and never had a sniff of trouble from Microsoft.

Stop caring?

[mac1235]

I slept throught the bit where they used to care...

That's what companies do, make money.

[Anonymous Coward]

Does it really surprise you that the ruthless and richest company wants some more greenbacks?

God you people are silly.

What's the deal with Neowin?

[belmolis]

Microsoft is within its rights, though obnoxious, with regard to Autopatcher, but since when is it their business what Neowin says about Autopatcher? Where does MS get off telling Neowin to take down their forums? Is MS just being a bully or is there some relationship between MS and Neowin that I don't know about?

Re:What's the deal with Neowin?

[Tatsh]

Who cares. I hope Neowin dies. I hate that pro-Microsoft fanboy site; they even embrace Vista stating it is immature software and we should just deal with the way it is for now. It is worse than reading "PC" Magazine, which IMO should be called Windows Magazine.

There is another website out there I hate that is so pro-Microsoft it even says R.I.P Linux on their logo.

These people are not paid or anything to promote M$ crapware (especially as to place the words "R.I.P Linux" in their logo), yet they do. I really wonder why. Apparently there are people who want everything to be proprietary; idiots. I bet these people go to church too every Sunday and think they are going to go to some "heaven" just because of it. And they undermine science I bet too.

What about PatchLink?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is autopatcher being shutdown when companies that are basically selling microsoft content are allowed to continue to exist such as PatchLink (http://www.patchlink.com) and BigFix (http://www.bigfix.com)

Can anybody explain?

I want to see the scumbags at PatchLink shut down if autopatcher is shut down for essentially the same thing.

Hmm Wonder if Australia can pick it up

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm Australians should pickup Autopatcher. WindizUpdate cannot be stopped unless Windows Update Supports other browers. Breach of Australia's fair trade laws.

Re:Hmm Wonder if Australia can pick it up

[drsmithy]

Hmm Australians should pickup Autopatcher. WindizUpdate cannot be stopped unless Windows Update Supports other browers. Breach of Australia's fair trade laws.

How do you figure that ?

How much money did this program save?

[r_jensen11]

I mean, neither Microsoft nor any large companies have "unlimited" internet usage. Once you scale your infrastructure up large enough, you have to pay for all of the data transferred in and out. So how much money could this program save not only Microsoft (which has enough money as it is), but all of the companies that used this? Or are there "official" ways of storing updates on your own computers to distribute amongst others on your network?

Do Apple allow 3rd party patch download?

[Anonymous Coward]

curious, not trolling. I remember the heated discussion here about MS allowing virtualization only on the more expensive Vista version. While Apple not allowing it at all was somewhat not an issue. Is some of the same the case here? Does anyone else, except Linux obviously, allow third party patch downloads like this?

Slipstream the updates into that SP2 CD and be

[Anonymous Coward]

done with it.

What about the other fish?

[lantastik]

What does this mean for the other vendors, namely the larger ones? Companies like PatchLink, Shavlik, BigFix? Do they all pay licensing fees to Microsoft to redistribute their content? ...or does Microsoft leave them alone because they have large customers with deep pockets?

Re:What about the other fish?

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to work for patchlink and can state for a fact that they pay absolutly no money to Microsoft to carry their content. There was always the feeling in the company that if Microsoft wanted to, they could tell us to stop carrying their patches and the company would basically be toast.

I hope that PatchLink gets an email similar to Autopatcher, that would make me smile to see them close their doors.

Re:What about the other fish?

[lantastik]

lmao! I used to work for PatchLink as well which is why I asked the question. I am a pretty recent PatchLink alum actually. You and I probably know each other. This is pretty much one of the reasons I left the company. :-)

Re:What about the other fish?

[crimperman]

You and I probably know each other. This is pretty much one of the reasons I left the company. :-)

I'm not sure that came out how you intended ;o)

Been there myself, Kim Vette... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

"Why not actually, oh, I don't know, innovate some new features for Windows rather than harassing small third-party developers who offer FREE utilities to make YOUR piece of crap offering easier to manage?" - by kimvette (919543) on Wednesday August 29, @05:20PM (#20404521) On THAT note, I'll agree with you, 110%, because I had them bother me directly before (Microsoft Legal did), writing me to change the name of a utilities package for Windows called "APK Windows System Tools" to "APK System Tools for Windows":

http://www.techpowerup.com/downloads/389/foowhatev ermakesgooglehappy.html

(Note, the 'for Windows' part, the ONLY difference, but that name cascaded ALL OVER inside my programs in that suite of tools, one example of which is above from a site that hosts it)

That meant quite a few hours in time poring thru the sourcecode & recompiling it (to set the toolset's internal resource strings to what MS accepts).

Now, I KNOW the word "WINDOWS" has been around much longer than Microsoft has been, but they would outlast me in courts by MILES, as far as being able to finance some protracted battle with them in the courts of law. I'd lose, because they could just "lean on me", until I broke, pretty much.

Me... the guy that gets into 'fights' with folks online over "linux vs. Windows" type stuff, like this one recently about Windows Security vs. Linux:

http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=279871&thr eshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=20379941

& I champion their wares quite a lot (most of the time, but lately, not as much (I do NOT like VISTA's DRM, OpenGL ruination, & most of all, the advertising foundation Mr. Ballmer intends to create inside of Windows, & VERY SOON!)...

They did that to me... the guy who Microsoft approached for an interview to be on their "Crash Dump Analysis Team" back in 2003:

http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=155 172&cid=13007974

Me... the guy who's ideas took a certified partner of theirs in EEC Systems (now SuperSpeed.com) to a finalist position 2x in a row @ Microsoft Tech Ed 2000/2001 in the hardest category there is there, in SQLServer Performance Enhancement, via ideas on SolidState & Software mirroring back to backing HDD usage with higher end DB engines on higher end systems...

http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=27828 3&cid=20356905

Hey - still, overall? Well, I like MS!

(& that really 'bugged me' some on the recompiling though, for a word MS really does NOT "own", in the word WINDOWS... not tons, but some)

Why?

Well, that they'd bother me like that (about having to remove Windows in my apps & replace them with "for Windows" in most of them!) because I am basically a "nobody" really, when you come down to it... just another geeky guy is all, trying to eke out a living in this field, & that's it!

APK

P.S.=> HOWEVER, on this issue? I do actually agree with MS, & here is why - the files, if sent from MS servers ONLY, means less chance (especially for security related updates) of them being "bushwhacked/hijacked" etc., so it does make some sense... too bad for the site doing it though, they probably actually MEANT WELL! apk

Re:Terrific. How long before they break even that?

[fermion]

In this case MS is correct. Most MS users are unsophisticated, which is one reason why MS products are so prone to bugs. At is heart, MS is a company that assumes a specialized user base but in fact sell to masses. I am frankly surprised they let this go on so long. Clearly, they have left themselves open to potential hijacking by fake updates. MS has the funds to host and deliver updates itself, and any third party hosting should be completely unnecessary. While it is true that many updates are provided in this fashion, any sane security model would forbid OS level updates delived in this way, especially to the common user.

Re:Get it done in 15 minutes.

[Anonymous Coward]

What happens when Aunt Tilly then complains: "My Mahjong game that I've been playing for years won't work now. My tax software is missing. I bought a Learn French CD, and I put it in the drive and it doesn't start. I went to access my online banking and it says something about a missing Active X. Help!"?

The only reason they did this...

[Poromenos1]

...was so that you can't easily update new XP installations and therefore makes more sense to install Vista.

AWFUL

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. This sucks. Glad I'm moving into nix/bsd admin and security, career wise. I'm currently a field service technician/computer consultant... our company provides it support for small to medium businesses... and even a few large ones that don't want an in house IT dept...

We use Autopatcher ALL the time for in house clean up work... ie... who wants 6+ boxes trying to download patches and clog up your bandwidth?

Slipstream? Don't make me laugh. Who doesn't already have an SP2 XP disc? If you're setting up a new box... activate, drop autopatcher on it, and you're done. WSUS? Why waste time adding another person's box to our domain, update, and then remove?

MS's own update ISO's? You really think I want to stick like 9 different discs... in several machines? And still not get like 1/2 the updates out there?

And of course... it has saved our bacon times when our net access was down(usually a backhoe hitting the fiber), or when Windows update simply wouldn't work(dreaded Win 2000 windowsupdate issues, even on a clean install).

Honestly, I don't think we can go back to downloading the same damn crap 5 at a time again. Just ridiculous.

So...

[Anonymous Coward]

The malware bit is BS, I think. But why can't AutoPatcher just code in URLs for the patches and pull them from Microsoft's site?

Unless they're making illegal copies of the hotfixes, I don't see what grounds Microsoft has for doing this.

A solution

[Anonymous Coward]

There is always rsync and rdist

http://samba.anu.edu.au/ftp/rsync/rsync.html

Works with OpenBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, Linux (all varieties), Solaris, HP-UX, AIX and probably many I didn't mention. Heck, you can even use rsync from a Solaris server to a Linux client. Built in compression too. No extra charge on most platforms. In fact, cheaper than beer.

Oh my god, they even have a Windows version! But does work best for xNIX.

http://optics.ph.unimelb.edu.au/help/rsync/rsync _user.html

Patch a system from a checkpoint, diff the registry and file system, create a package and have the critters apply the patches.

Well shit...M$ fucks me over

[Ka D'Argo]

Autopatcher was basically the "only way" I could patch Windows up to date. Owning a rather used SP1 XP cd, getting all the critical updates and SP2 could be a bitch. Especially when it came to stuff that was vitally important to the system.

Now it's just a matter of time before another huge flaw is founded which malware/spyware & virus makers exploit to shit. With WGA and all, patching my system against these hazards will basically be impossible. Just a matter of time before it succumbs to one of these :(

I Don't Do Windows

[Blackknight]

Seriously, MS pulls crap like this all the time, not to mention Windows is a buggy piece of crap that's a real pain to use.

This is just one of the reasons I refuse to run Windows and I refuse to support it. If somebody is having problems with their Windows stuff I tell them to call Microsoft or buy a Mac.

You've got shill

[dedazo]

Is there a particular reason why you started posting to this article as twitter and then switched to another sockpuppet account?

Why do you feel it's necessary to use more than one account to post to Slashdot?

Re:Get it done in 15 minutes.

[nhaines]

Actually, I agree with you on that last point, and Ubuntu works pretty well in this regard--especially since 7.04.

Going to Add/Remove... and adding "Ubuntu restricted extras" gets you a bunch of codecs, the Microsoft TTF "core Web fonts", Adobe Flash 9, and Sun Java 6. In my experience, this takes care of most things right off the bat.

Encouraging vista.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well you are stupid if you think this type of attitude has other objective.

Recall what happened to many "driver" sites when M$ wanted to force the adoption of XP over win98.

Same thing. obfuscation/denyal of service (patching)/thing/drivers.

Obfuscation is done by the zillion "drivers" sites out there, and almost all doing a really really crappy work compared to the original/good ones.

Something similar will happen with XP "patchers". wait and see.

BITS broke

[chiok]

BITS (Background Intelligent Transfer Service) has never worked on my laptop, so Windows Update doesn't work (neither does Google Pack). I've had to use AutoPatcher to update. Crap.

Re:BITS broke

[SHaFT7]

google dial-a-fix and get it, use it to fix windowsupdate and bits. if it fails, go to the tools section and have it fix the registry permissions, then run the windowsupdate fix dollars to donuts it fixes your problem :)

Re:BITS broke

[chiok]

Awesome. That worked. Thanks.

wsus

[majortom1981]

Please tell me why autopatcher is better then wsus. On my network at work we use wsus. Only the one wsus connects to download the updated(when nobody is there) then all the computers automatically get there updates from that one server. What does autopatcher do that wsus cant?

Re:wsus

[Tatsh]

AutoPatcher does not require you to be running a server constantly, especially one that is running Windows Server 2003 and some other normally optional services (IIS, etc). AutoPatcher can be run from a server, if anyone wishes, but in general it is made to run off CD (it even has an Autorun.inf file included). This is much easier for those with a smaller envinronment, and especially PC shops.

I used to use AutoPatcher, but slipstreaming in the end is faster, especially if you slipstream just every few months. And as far as the registry files in AutoPatcher, I extracted them all and have them available for use separately.

I do not know, but I do not expect that WSUS has all these registry options (some of which are not accessible by GUI), the ability add installers (where you just give the installer a silent switch), and 3rd-party programs such as Flash, Java, etc. Microsoft would never package Java with anything I suppose. Also, does WSUS have the 50 (as of now) or so optional updates?

Re:wsus

[kimvette]

Is WSUS going to let you bring a CD of updates home?
Does WSUS help you if you don't run Windows 2003 Server?
Does WSUS make it easy to snail mail updates to friends who live in rural communities?
Does WSUS give you much-needed but PITA-to-get hotfixes?
Does WSUS allow you to install all updates in one fell swoop with only one or two reboots?

No? Try reading the thread. All these reasons and more are covered.

Re:Terrific. How long before they break even that?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Be wary when someone from M$ advocates BSD, love of your freedom is not the reason for their advice.

Yeah, because with the BSD license, you lose all access to the source code once someone modifies it! Doesn't it suck how that company made a modified version of Apache and then suddenly the Apache source code was also closed? Man, I hated that.

How to advocate free software

[Anonymous Coward]

twitter, please read this carefully. Following this advice will make Slashdot a better place for everyone, including yourself.

• As a representative of the Linux community, participate in mailing list and newsgroup discussions in a professional manner. Refrain from name-calling and use of vulgar language. Consider yourself a member of a virtual corporation with Mr. Torvalds as your Chief Executive Officer. Your words will either enhance or degrade the image the reader has of the Linux community.
• Avoid hyperbole and unsubstantiated claims at all costs. It's unprofessional and will result in unproductive discussions.
• A thoughtful, well-reasoned response to a posting will not only provide insight for your readers, but will also increase their respect for your knowledge and abilities.
• Always remember that if you insult or are disrespectful to someone, their negative experience may be shared with many others. If you do offend someone, please try to make amends.
• Focus on what Linux has to offer. There is no need to bash the competition. Linux is a good, solid product that stands on its own.
• Respect the use of other operating systems. While Linux is a wonderful platform, it does not meet everyone's needs.
• Refer to another product by its proper name. There's nothing to be gained by attempting to ridicule a company or its products by using "creative spelling". If we expect respect for Linux, we must respect other products.
• Give credit where credit is due. Linux is just the kernel. Without the efforts of people involved with the GNU project , MIT, Berkeley and others too numerous to mention, the Linux kernel would not be very useful to most people.
• Don't insist that Linux is the only answer for a particular application. Just as the Linux community cherishes the freedom that Linux provides them, Linux only solutions would deprive others of their freedom.
• There will be cases where Linux is not the answer. Be the first to recognize this and offer another solution.

From http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/linux/docs/HOWTO/Advoca cy

Just grab the script from MS that does it for you.

[JediJorgie]

MSDN's Version:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-US/library/aa387102. aspx

My modified version that forces cscript.exe and adds an /auto switch:
http://b0n.us/WUA_SearchDownloadInstall.vbs

It usually takes 3 times with reboots in between to get all the patches.

It will use your WSUS settings and get the patches from a local server if you have one.

Yes, they are VBS, don't run them without reading them and understanding them!

jorgie

For many, this makes Windows XP more expensive.

[Futurepower(R)]

The purpose of Autopatcher was to reduce the VERY high maintenance costs of Windows XP. Windows often becomes corrupted and must be reloaded to clear away system files that have been infected with viruses and other malware.

Notice that Microsoft has not released a Service Pack 3 for Windows XP, even though it has been years since SP2 was released. The purpose of the delay is apparently to make Windows XP more expensive, in the hope that people will begin to adopt Windows Vista.

The Windows XP updates of just last Patch Tuesday were more than 20 Megabytes.

Windows Vista is not an option for many, since because of the hassles with Windows XP, many companies have a rule never to use a Windows version before the 2nd service pack is released, and the bugs in Windows Vista are reinforcing that rule.

Also, Windows Vista requires far more resources. Each new Windows version requires more resources, apparently to try to manipulate customers to buy new computers. That serves Microsoft's biggest customers, the computer builders.

Autopatcher Source please?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, it'd be a darn shame if the source for Autopatcher were released and three similar projects rose from the ashes.

A real shame.

SP3

[Enderandrew]

I have a copy of the Windows XP SP3 pre-beta. If you really look, you can find it is as well. It is very official, and stable for a beta. However unlike SP1 and SP2 it doesn't offer anything new. It is merely a collection of 900 fixes. Oddly enough, even though IE7 is considered a critical update, it isn't in SP3. So when I made my latest slipstreamed install CD, I still had to add WMP11 and IE7 seperately to the disc. I'm wondering if SP3 will add new functionality after pre-beta status. For instance, I heard the native CD-burning in XP will be upgraded to DVD burning like Vista.

Re:SP3

[paganizer]

not having IE7 on the SP3 makes me nervous; I thought it was safe. But the WMP11 being left off makes a lot of sense as it breaks a lot of content in WinXP media Center Edition, and I'm pretty certain the new DRM system has been ID'd as the responsible party for everything from massive overheating to LAN slowdowns and security breaches.
Any chance what you have is a government contracting SP3 beta?

Re:SP3

[Enderandrew]

I'm pretty sure the only reason SP3 exists is because of pressure from a bunch of Microsoft's corporate customers. They aren't likely to use nLite, but they want an up-to-date version of XP. They aren't likely to switch to Vista anytime soon, and many of them have internal web pages and web apps that break with IE7. Having worked in IT for three major corporations, I can see why they'd push for a SP3 even if it isn't what Microsoft wants.

MOD PARENT UP!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

MOD PARENT UP!!!

This makes my job much longer...

[SHaFT7]

I run a pc repair and sales shop. We use autopatcher all the time, everyday, for updating customer machines that walk in the door un-updated, and also getting new builds patched up. This saves me not only a bunch of time as it is a start-and-forget procedure, but also saves a bunch of bandwidth, since I have to only get the updates ONE TIME PER CYCLE, not EVERY TIME I UPDATE A CLIENT! Mot to mention all the times i update our clients that we support at their businesses. Instead of popping in the autopatcher and going, I have to download the stupid updates, from each machine, therefore increasing THEIR bandwidth costs as well. I would be all for a WSUS server on my guest network that my clients connect to, if I could just make all of the clients' windowsupdates point to it easily and easily revert back when done. I run anywhere from 10 to 40 machines through my shop per day. Autopatcher was much better. Thanks Microsoft for making my life harder when I bend over backward trying to sell your server and desktop software to clients. I appreciate it. Really.

Re:This makes my job much longer...

[SHaFT7]

Another thing with slipstreaming in updates. This is all fine and good for the machines at your company, or your personal one. The problem is if you build a new machine for a customer, or do a repair install with said slipstreamed cd, and then the customer EVER needs to do a repair install again, their own cd will NOT work, as it will be looking for the one you used with the updates you have in it. We had to stop using slipstreamed discs because of this.

Re:This makes my job much longer...

[tayldavi]

Here is the solution to your problem as long as you have a spare PC laying around with a couple of nics.
Install IPCop http://ipcop.org/
Install 2 plugins off of http://www.advproxy.net/
Install advanced proxy and Update Accelerator

After you have this setup, setup a copy of Windows XP manually (from CD) and do all of the updates with Windows Update/Microsoft Update. Update Accelerator caches all of the updates locally and they seamlessly download from the local server when you use windows update. I use this and it has been a life saver for our office. We vary from running updates from between 10 and 500 PC's that may need some updates everyday.

Re:This makes my job much longer...

[SHaFT7]

this looks most sexy and i think i'm gonna have to try it out does IPCop need to sit firewall style in between the net and my routers?

Re:This makes my job much longer...

[tayldavi]

Yes it does unless you want to get creative with your setup. Basically you just need to have all computers you want to update on the network use the ipcop machine as their gateway.

Re:This makes my job much longer...

[SHaFT7]

i take it i can pass all ports thru the firewall, basically making it invisible, i run two routers that need external access. or would it be better to run it inside the network and have all internet traffice hit it, and then out to the router?

Re:This makes my job much longer...

[tayldavi]

I personally run it inside of the network and then out to the router. Essentially I have 1 private networking inside of another. I don't know if there is an option for passing all ports through. I mainly use it to separate our production network from our corporate network and also of course to cache the updates.

Re:Terrific. How long before they break even that?

[turbidostato]

"Most MS users are unsophisticated, which is one reason why MS products are so prone to bugs."

Uh!? Last I reviewed a reason for a software product to be prone to bugs were unsophisticated *developers* but... users?

Re:Terrific. How long before they break even that?

[kimvette]

Those "unsophisticated" users you are referring to are either not updating their windows boxes at ALL, or are unknowingly relying upon only what automatic updates will pull down. The "sophisticated" users who are low maintenance users (low support costs, never need to use the "free" install support incidents, etc) and their own OEMs and partners are the ones who seek out tools like Autopatcher - in fact, in many cases decision makers for small to mid size companies.

Every time Microsoft pulls shit like this, they are costing themselves customers, and pushing more future sales to Linux, OS X, and BSD. If they were smart, they would ENCOURAGE the Autopackage folks to continue what they've been doing, because it decreases the load on their servers and it makes Windows less painless for OEMs and IT departments to install.

In summary: bad move, Microsoft.

Want to support the Autopackage folks? Email Microsoft and tell them what you think. Be polite or as rude as you want, but let them know you think they are MORONS for shutting down Autopackage and that it is a disservice to paying customers (especially rural customers and commercial broadband customers dealing with "unpublished" caps) and only legitimizes slipstreamed "Pirate" versions of Windows.

loyalty test

[wardk]

I think MS just likes to stick it's finger in it's users eyes every now and again to give self assurance that their user base will literally put up with anything. like moe did with curly. curly hung around.

kind of a crude and sadistic loyalty test. ...that or MS is preparing to release a new and improved "Bug-Free Windows (TM)", making such sites as these obsolete. yeah, that's it...

Mepis comes with all that Flash. Make life easy.

[twitter]

Spun spews ignorance:

the aunt Tillys of the world like to do? Browse the web. Preferably any part of the web that requires a bazillion plugins like flash. And here MEPIS falls flat. Getting all the required add ons into any Linux based browser has always been a total pain in the ass ... multimedia playback and browser plug-in support have always been a nightmare under Linux, and those are two of the most important issues to the vast majority of potential adoptees.

Unlike most OEM versions of Windoze, Mepis comes with Adobe Flash. I agree that keeping up with non free software is a pain in the ass and that's why I recommend Mepis to people who must have Flash. When you need a newer version, it's painless to upgrade with a newer CD. Tilde gets her YouTube, the kids get most of their games and all is well. Mepis also comes with Amarok and a decent movie player. Out of the box, it just works.

From what you say above, it's been too long since you have given gnu/linux distributions like Mepis a fair chance. That's too bad because it's a much easier way to make most of your relatives happy. Things are only getting better, but you owe it to yourself to look again.

Usual Microsoft Bashing...

[trawg]

I know it's hip to hate them, but really, can you imagine the mess that would ensue if autopatcher or whoever accidentally (or intentionally) put in a bogus update and it was distributed out to people and it destroyed or compromised their PC?

Yes, they could digitally sign their updates or release md5s or something, but at the end of the day it's a third party application that they have no reason to trust giving their customers updates to their operating system - updates that could potentially cause a lot of problems.

There's no doubt who the finger would be pointed at - MS. They want their customers to update using their mechanism so if anything breaks, they can at least try to figure out why, instead of having to unravel a ball of changes made to their OS by some random third party updating system.

Re:Usual Microsoft Bashing...

[jlnca]

can you imagine the mess that would ensue if autopatcher or whoever
No I don't have to imagine MS has all too often provided examples of botched updates

Re:Usual Microsoft Bashing...

[Anonymous Coward]

Typical knee-jerk Microsoft apoligist response. Microsoft genuinely does something incredibly stupid, counter-productive and user-hostile, and still the Microsoft weenies claim the sun shines out Bill Gates' ass.

Yes, we get it. Microsoft can do no wrong. Stop picking on poor little underdog Microsoft you Lunix elitists. Your cheque is in the mail, Mr. Barkto.

Re:Usual Microsoft Bashing...

[Anonymous Coward]

That is idiotic logic. Anybody can do that, Autopatcher or otherwise. You basically just described spyware in general.

The reality: There have been no cases of such with Autopatcher.

Your logic is about as stupid as not using Firefox in case Mozilla decides to insert a virus into it. Better stick to ol IE or you'll get a rootkit from those whacky open source guys!

Most Sincerely,
A Pissed Off Autopatcher user

gnu/linux at work

[twitter]

But at work, that's another story. Unless you are working in a Mac shop, or unless your duties are mere wordprocessing and email, you'd be often unable to fit a Mac into the process, and Linux would be similarly "against the grain."

You mean like AutoDesk and other terminal M$ Partners applications? Nope, a gnu/linux is still less trouble than a Winblows box. There is nothing you can't do on a distribution like Xandros with Parallels and Crossover Office. The combination takes a little time to get up and running but is more stable and easier to keep running than Winblows on it's own. The only real barrier is how ingrained bad attitudes are at your company.

It's not worth getting fired over but you might want to look for another job if your employer has barriers like this in place. If you can't experiment to know what tool is best for the job, you are surely not using it. Companies like that defeat themselves and make life miserable for everyone in countless other ways. Top down sucks life.

Re:gnu/linux at work

[tftp]

You guessed right, I have several Autodesk products, and Autodesk completely enslaved themselves to MS. Autodesk Inventor 2008 even has all the icons and buttons redone to match Vista. Still sits in the box, it's a free upgrade and I haven't deployed it yet.

One trouble with those apps - and we have quite a few - it's that they are all expensive and many of them require extensive vendor support. Autodesk is not the worst, they are angels compared to couple of other vendors, and one of those horribly bad packages costs above $20K. It is unthinkable to run it on anything but the approved OS, or else you'd be kicked out of support in no time and with pleasure. And it's not Windows that crashes, it's the CAD software itself; it usually does not crash but just doesn't work right, and you have to open a support case and be on the remote desktop session with them until they figure out what workaround you need today. So with partners like that one has to stick to every requirement.

Re:gnu/linux at work

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, a gnu/linux is still less trouble than a Winblows box.

HAHAHAHAHAH!!!

*wipes tears*

Thanks for that. I just spent three hours fixing a Synaptic fuckup, so I can totally relate to your bullshit. I sure can.

Thanks a lot Microsoft

[BuckoA51]

Talk about kicking your most loyal users in the teeth. I'm so angry at this that I am writing a letter of complaint, stop sniggering, I know that some secretary will just file it in the cylindrical filing cabinet. For us who repair peoples PC's either part time or full time, this is devastating news. Microsoft may love to think that we live in a world where everyone is on broadband, or where everyone can obtain updates easily, or even perhaps that reinstalling Windows is never necessary but that simply isn't true. You fix someone's PC and have to reinstall Windows, they then dial up their internet connection and Windows update tries to download hundreds of megabytes of data, well, they aren't going to sit around, so the PC goes un-patched and Malware gets in easy. Thanks to Autopatcher it was easy to patch Windows PC's after a clean install, or even PC's that had never been connected to the internet. now Microsoft go and kill it... heck, I run a Windows website and even I'm thinking of dusting off my Ubuntu installation now.

This is just a predicate

[jskline]

This is just a predicate to Microsoft lining up all the ducks and get ready to induce breakage of all prior versions of Windows O/S. The setup here is to surreptitiously force you into upgrading into Vista. They don't want those updates coming from multiple locations and by locking it down to only servers they own, they control the entire deck of cards.

Just a hunch. /black helicopter

Sad

[Anonymous Coward]

Now I (and many others) will have to waste time and network bandwidth going to MS each time I want to update a machine.

I use and produce windows software and any labour saving items like autopatcher are very usefull.

This really is a f**ked up! idea from MS.

Windows Update on Firefox? BOOLSHEET!

[Chas]

http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com/

  Thank you for your interest in obtaining updates from our site.

To use this site, you must be running Microsoft Internet Explorer 5 or later.

To upgrade to the latest version of the browser, go to the Internet Explorer Downloads website.

If you prefer to use a different web browser, you can obtain updates from the Microsoft Download Center or you can stay up to date with the latest critical and security updates by using Automatic Updates. To turn on Automatic Updates:

      1. Click Start, and then click Control Panel.
      2. Depending on which Control Panel view you use, Classic or Category, do one of the following:
                    * Click System, and then click the Automatic Updates tab.
                    * Click Performance and Maintenance, click System, and then click the Automatic Updates tab.
      3. Click the option that you want. Make sure Automatic Updates is not turned off.

this is what p2p is for..

[Anonymous Coward]

So they shut the site down, big deal.

Continue to develop the project and just release it via torrent or other P2P networks.

That's the whole point of why the technology was made.

Re:Mepis comes with all that Flash. Make life easy

[spun]

Screw you twitter. I use Linux every day, at work and at home. I'm sysadmin for thirty Linux servers in a state department that is dedicated to switching to Linux, buttmunch.

I searched the MEPIS site for info on flash and found none. I gave useful info on digital photos in Linux. Why be such an ass towards me? I am now convinced you are a dirty Microsoft shill sent here to make open source look bad.

Re:Can we get an auto downloader for these updates

[Xybre]

And you'd be correct, and it shows that either Microsoft's left hand doesn't know what it's right is doing, or that they're spinning it, thinking this will somehow encourage pirates to buy their software.

Personally, if choosing between Windows Update working or doing it manually, I'd do it manually.. (and I do)

Re:Mepis comes with all that Flash. Make life easy

[twitter]

A touchy spun spins out over what should be good news to him:

Screw you twitter. I use Linux every day, at work and at home. I'm sysadmin for thirty Linux servers in a state department that is dedicated to switching to Linux, buttmunch. I searched the MEPIS site for info on flash and found none.

Next time, just download the CD and boot it like I keep telling you, or do a Google search. While flash brings up a bunch of stuff about memory, you kind of see that it's something that just comes on the CD. The Mepis site itself suffers from the same kind of astroturf that Slashdot does. M$ took early aim at one of the first really easy to use desktop distributions, especially one with a book written by a Slashdot editor. But surely a person with a four digit UID knows that.

Good luck with the migration. I look forward to hearing more about it, so don't fire yourself for browsing Slashdot at work.

Re:Mepis comes with all that Flash. Make life easy

[Anonymous Coward]

The first three words of your original reply were "Spun spews ignorance."

You are in public. Stop acting like an asshole.

RyanVM is unavailable as well

[bogie]

Not sure if it is related but RyanVM and his addons can no longer be downloaded from his site. You can find the latest pack RVMUpdatePack2.1.11.7z elsewhere though. Last packs MD5 was 2A1534598304646757CFE6D8C6F0F221

Re:Mepis comes with all that Flash. Make life easy

[spun]

Luckily for me I have my boss convinced that Slashdot is crucial reading material. The migration is going very well, we're moving everything to IBM BladeCenters running VMWare running (mostly) Linux. We never were an MS shop (aside from the desktop), we've always had a mix of Novell, HP-UX, and AIX. We have been talking about ditching MS altogether, but we're a social services agency (Child, Youth, and Family Development) and a lot of our social workers in the field have custom Access (AAAAAaaarrrrrgh!) databases for generating reports. This is so wrong on so many levels, but so hard to transition away from. Last count, there were over 2,000 custom Ughcess databases pulling info from our main database server (bad, bad, bad practice , both from a data integrity and HIPPA standpoint) We're trying to get everybody using a web based report generator but that has been an uphill battle. Also, the state handles our email and they use Exchange so everyone is using the Outlook client. Aside from those issues, there's the usual .doc hell, but that's about all that's holding us back from moving to a fully open-source system.

Read the first item in the FAQ.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ryan VM FAQ

Ryan VM Torrent Files

Re: Business Sense

[Master of Transhuman]

"If someone keeps coming back for more abuse, they deserve that abuse."

Can't disagree with that, no matter how much I hate Microsoft.

People get the government they deserve - and the products and companies they deserve.

The problem for the rest of us is that we end up getting dismembered in the process quite frequently.

Re: Business Sense

[Grishnakh]

The problem for the rest of us is that we end up getting dismembered in the process quite frequently.

Yep, that's true. It's much like the "tyranny of the majority", except here it's the "tyranny of the majority's stupidity".

Re:Internet Printing Protocol

[Technician]

Did you try \\192.168.1.101\lp1?

Yes. It does not work in Vista. On one screen in the wizard you have to put in just 192.168.1.101 and on another page you have to switch from raw to LPD using a radio button and then in the printer name box you have to enter lp1. It took me several hours to figure that out. Even if they dropped a hint such using "Port Name" instead of "Printer Name" would have gotten me there much quicker.

They don't call it IPP because it isn't.

IPP is plastered all over the print server as one of the many protocols provided. It also supports Netware and Appletalk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Printing_Pro tocol

Maybe Microsoft is just providing Network Printing and the Print Server simply accepts the job.
I do know that it does work well over the Internet for the non-Vista machines. I haven't tried it over the Internet with the Vista laptop. Maybe the next time the wife is out at at coffee shop, I'll have her send a job home. (I know I have to use the WAN address for this but I'm not posting my IP for the print server for obvious reasons. I don't need the Slashdot community trying to see if they can print to my printer.)

Re:IPP tidbit I missed

[Technician]

I posted too soon on my other post, but from the last line in the linked article,

The Internet Printing Protocol is used, among other places, in the Common Unix Printing System.
  My note CUPS for short.

Which is what my Linux machines are using to print to these printers. It just wasn't intuitive to set up Vista to print to them. Vista does not call it IPP and does not use the network address string everyone else uses.

Re:Internet Printing Protocol

[mtmra70]

It doesnt work in the run line (not the wizard)? The quickest way to link to any printer is to go to run and type in \\[server]\[printer]. same for any file share...I cant see them removing this option.

Re:IPP and LPD

[Technician]

They don't call it IPP because it isn't. Judging from your description, you've switched back to the old LPD-style printing, a protocol common in the unix world (cf. LPR, LPRng on google)

The print servers clearly indicate they do IPP. My linux machines connect to them using CUPS.

Note from linked wikipedia page regarding Linux CUPS
The Internet Printing Protocol is used, among other places, in the Common Unix Printing System.

Is IPP print servers backwards compatible with Microsoft's Network Printing? The print servers work fine on the internet when I redirect a port from the WAN to LAN on my router. I haven't tested if Vista can Internet print this way yet. Maybe it can't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Printing_Pro tocol

Re:Internet Printing Protocol

[Technician]

The quickest way to link to any printer is to go to run and type in \\[server]\[printer]. same for any file share..

That looks like a way to use a SMB link to a printer on a machine. Is that compatible with Internet Printing?

In Linux using CUPS it's IPP://(IP address)/(Port name) to separate it from simple LPD network printing.

Re:Terrific. How long before they break even that?

[Anonymous Coward]

The contrast between this and the free software world could not be greater.

Neither could the difference in quality. Windows OSes are superior in nearly every aspect for end users than the server-focused F/OSS OSes.

Say what?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Just look at Internet Explorer. It has gotten much better with IE7.

What were you smoking when you typed that? I don't know anyone who chooses to use IE7. Ever. Even IE6 was awful, but 7 is just an obvious (but failed) attempt at copying FireFox. It's laughable.

I'm wondering what took them so long.

[angrykeyboarder]

Last year they shutdown torrent trackers for the Vista beta. This site had been around much longer (obviously).