Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Forces Desktop Search On Windows Update
An anonymous reader writes "The Register is reporting that the blogosphere is alight with accusations of Microsoft forcing Windows Desktop Search on networks via the 'automatic install' feature of Windows Update — even if they had configured their systems not to use the program. Once installed, the search program began diligently indexing C drives and entire networks slowed to a crawl."
Is it still isn't very good compared to Google desktop indexing.
This sounds like a dumb mistake. While they might have meant to install it on all computers, I doubt they meant to turn it on if it had previously been turned off. Microsoft does not benefit by deliberately pissing off its users in this way.
Using openSUSE instead of Windows since 9th of October, 2007 and liking it.
This is getting ludicrous already.
It's not even a friggin' security update either.
Desktop search is NOT required on the desktop. It's a gimmick application (albeit a useful one for some people).
Microsoft is abusing it's position as the sole control point of Windows Update to push more of their crap into the market.
Additionally, Google may have a legit antitrust complaint here, as Microsoft looks to be trying to "IE vs Netscape" them on the desktop search. Unlike browsers, which can be opted not to be used, this desktop search is being auto-pushed, can't be refused, and it's detrimental to system performance to run two desktop search apps in parallel.
Fuck the Storm botnet. We have bigger problems with a piece of malware called "Windows Update".
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
This only happens on Windows XP, when you have either Office 2007 or Windows Live Photo gallery installed.
Not saying it's OK, just mentioning the facts.
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
The real effect of this event? Maybe admins will realize that it doesn't make sense to allow an OS vendor to automatically update your clients without some sort of testing in your environment before the change is made.
Critics cried foul on the principle that users should have absolute control over their machines.... The revelation that Microsoft is pushing yet more installations not explicitly agreed to by administrators is not likely to sit well with this same vocal contingent.
It makes me ask: What kind of administrator is using automatic updates on their machines anyway?
Let's face facts, while Microsoft should take much of the blame on this any admin should know at this point that automatic updates is opening yourself up to all types of undesirable installs.
This is nothing new and it's sad to see "professionals" in the field are still leaving security updates and other installs to go through without even sending a glance it's way first.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
However to say that by default it was indexing the entire C: drive is erroneous. The default behavior is to index user files in "doc and settings" and then your outlook files after you open that program.
Yes, this has happened to one of my colleagues where I work. All his workstations are under control of a WSUS server and so should not install any MS updates that he doesn't approve. Yet his workstations all installed the latest Windows Desktop Search client.
But they said 2008 would be the year of Linux! Surely if they say that everything else they say must be true!
Using openSUSE instead of Windows since 9th of October, 2007 and liking it.
Welcome to Live Search, NSA Edition
[_______________] [search]
( ) the web
(o) all computers running Windows
[X] force update
[X] slow down computers
[ ] obey law / constitution
[X] forward trade secrets to us corps
Windows Update, you're the whore
Who makes my computing such a chore
I can't take this shit anymore
Woo woo be doo
Windows Update, you make me sore,
When I disable you, you ignore!
Windows Update, you're the bane of my existence, it's true!
Doo doo doo doo, doo doo
Every day when I
Make my way to the workstation
I find a little fella who's
downloaded some new MS aberration
Chunk-a-lunk-a-bluescreen!
Windows Update, you're a cunt
And I'm not sure I could be more blunt
Windows Update, I'm awfully cross at you.
Every day when I
Make my way to the workstation
I find a little fella who's
downloaded some new MS aberration
Windows Update, you're a cunt
And I'm not sure I could be more blunt
Windows Update, I'm awfully sick of -
Windows Update, I'd like stick a brick in -
Windows Update, I'm gonna download Ubuntu!
Doo doo, be doo
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Microsoft is simply representing the interests of the United Union of Networks (UUN). How would you like to run at full speed 24/7?
I'd remain anonymous if I used that awful offal word "blogosphere" too. Blagh!
-Ralph Blog
(Ok, not really, that was a pseudonym, I'm joking. OW! STOP IT!)
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
I think in the next update, the search index will become remotely searchable... and in the update after that, the access priviledges will be extended to the Microsoft IP range.
Just to verify without taking the 30 seconds to actually google an answer, but if Windows Update turns it back on, the standard turn off methods still work, correct? (assuming it doesn't get 'updated' back to on again later).
FYI, these are the instructions I've followed in the past to turn this off (home user, not a sysadmin):
http://lifehacker.com/software/optimization/turn-off-indexing-and-speed-up-windows-xp-031440.php
I just checked Windows Update. This 'Desktop Search' update is listed under 'Optional Software'.
It will not be automatically pushed to your desktops
Unless someone is doing a lost of posting, it seems real enough alright.
Also, lets face it. It smells true. MS ain't that smart, it truly seems like they would think it a good idea to install indexing software on every desktop in a network and have it index all the shares.
Because slashdot ain't what it used to be, I shall now explain why this is bad. It would be like EVERY computer, trying to be its own internet search engine and spidering the net for itself.
You don't do that. You index your own files, and use a central index for everything else.
However MS ain't that smart and thinks that you should index locally everything on the network. This is really a fundemental flaw in their design of this tool. It really shouldn't be allowed to index the network without explicit permission.
So why the forced update? It seems to have given itself extra permission so that it was installed without admins having thecapacity to block it. Well, remember who we are dealing with. This is MS. The company that knows best. Their may be an evil plot, or it may simply be that the Desktop Search constained a serious security hole that needed to be patched, so they even installed it on non-desktop machines.
Frankly trying to explain MS is like explaing the actions of a mad man.
We will never know why MS truly did this, stupid blunder, evil plot, insanity?
And no, it won't drive people to linux. This is just another anecdote in the long miserable live of a windows admin. I suppose, I don't do windows, and gladly take a lesser paycheck for that (although oddly enough I get payed more then all the windows admins I know, but hey, life ain't fair). Linux, for the money and the babes. Oh okay, not the babes, but the free beer is nice.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
there are a few misleading points in the article.
1. it doesnt AUTOMATICALY install with auto updates, or windows updates, it is in the optional software section of windows updates, thus does not come via automatic updates at all, and in windows updates you have to manualy select it.
2. you are prompted before install
3. once installed, it does not automaticaly start indexing everything in C, it promts you and asks what you would like to be indexed, and when/how.
portfolio
It came up with the desktop search under the OPTIONAL software updates.
Naturally, it got unchecked and blocked. My poor Inspiron 1100 has enough trouble as it is running XP along with all the necessary stuff that makes my world go 'round.
I also noted that IE 7 is back in the high priority list again, and again, it got blocked.
First rule of holes; When in one, stop digging.
QA of patches is very difficult. Lots of time pressure. Lots of things to check. Easy to overlook things. It's not like Windows and other modern Megasoftware have any coherent set of specifications that can be tested against. Or that test procedures would be perfect if there were specificiations. Or that a thorough test could be run in a realistic amount of time. This looks like yet another QA screwup.
Better to defer installing updates for a few days I think and let others Beta test the fixes. There's some risk to that also of course. But not as much. At least not in my estimation.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
It's okay, it's just Microsoft trying to compete with Ubunutu 7.10's inclusion of trackerd.
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
M$ has always been know to be a one trick pony, so considering their current push is in advertising I would guess that this was not an "error" as they would lead you to believe. I wonder if what they are trying to do is to do what Google Desktop was/is tryin to do, which is to do some data mining work for targeted advertising...
Gees, we have better quality control where I work. and we don't have any.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Here they go and make linux MORE secure by adding code to it, opensource code so it is known to be safe, while spying on windows users.
This proofs it, Linux users are true patriots who love their country and will defend it with their lives and therefore can be trusted with their freedoms, while windows users are all terrorists who hate our freedom and way of live and need to be spyed upon.
Makes sense. If you see someone using windows, report them to the proper authorities, the freedom of the world depends on it.
Friends do not let friends use Windows.
This is a message will auto-destroy a windows box in 10 seconds.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
The article refers to windows update services and not windows update.
Thanks for playing though
I can't even see it in the Optional Updates on Vista, at home or at work - The organization I work for consists of 18,000+ employees at various sites world-wide, and I've yet to see or here anything about this from anyone at the various sites I deal with.
I hate that crap, as someone said in a review of some Linux distro, I do not know why people *need* a file indexing service like Beagle, personally I have all my documents pretty well ordered, and preffer to use the filesystem structure facilities to order my data (directories, subdirectories, etc) and for me Beagle and the like are just resource and TIME (they interact with the slowest component in the PC in very heavily) wasters. WHY IS IT TURNED ON BY DEFAULT??? WHY ISNT IT POSSIBLE TO TURN IT ON EASLY??? WHY CANT I TURN IT OFF IF I DO NOT HAVE ROOT ACCESS??
The only time I kind of liked such programs (and the only program I liked) was when I used Coopernic Pro agent, which indexed PDFs and CHM books (I have a *huge* 30GB PDF/CHM library), but you could indicate (graphically, not via some obscure config file editing) which folders you wanted to check. Of course, Beagle does not index CHM.
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
Ya, I'm gonna go ahead and call bullshit. Our company has a WSUS server that I manage, and the update came in as Not Approved. So either he approved it, or set the server to auto-approve anything, which would be his doing as well. Or maybe he doesn't realize that its not an Installed % that it shows, its an Installed / NOT APPLICABLE % that the column indicates. In other words, I have 39% in that column, because the update doesn't apply at all to 39% of computers in our company. No computers to which the update applies have it installed.
After reading the article I was struck by how it all sounds like a botnet being assembled. How ironic is that?
Those who can do. Those who can't sue.
I bet that guy is MS certified too. You're correct. In WSUS, it appears as an available update, but does not install unless you approve it. This guy probably had approve/install everything by default.
Self awareness - try it!
This applies to WSUS only, not the consumer Windows Update as everyone has mistaken it for. WSUS is the corporate, large-network version of managing and deploying product patches & upgrades to Windows machines (even if it's useful networks of any size really).
What I find bizarre is that this system, not Windows Update (which I stress again, is different) has been subjected to a patch that seems to auto-approve itself!
Under normal circumstances, each patch has to be approved (if set this way) by a network-admin before it will trickle out to workstations. This is the first time it would appear an update has approved itself.
throw new NoSignatureException();
For many of us, it died long LONG ago. For many, there's still a great deal of blind trust in Microsoft. Many people are losing trust in Microsoft yet at the same time cannot see an alternative. (For example, at an architectural firm... there's just NOT a Linux desktop alternative ... there's AutoCAD and Revit and that's pretty much *it*. I know there are Macintosh CAD packages, but they are not AutoCAD and/or Revit.)
:) Sure, Microsoft, go ahead and force your updates. Some people can roll them back because they don't trust your software any longer... even if they still use it.
So for those who don't trust Microsoft and use it anyway, there's stuff like Deep Freeze.
This is almost as bad as receiving a Dell computer with the same kind of google search shit on it.
The problem here is in fact that the search has come as an update for Windows, rather than a separate product. Looks like the people that are affected are auto-approving updates as they come, which more or less half the reason you'd use WSUS in the first place - to test patch deployments before releasing onto the network at large.
http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=2315860&SiteID=1
throw new NoSignatureException();
I am going to have to concur with my colleague here. We use WSUS here and after a quick test across my test vmware farm (We VM test boxes so we can rebuild a test unit quickly), I see the update did not deploy when Not Approved. Lets use scientific principles of testing here folks. It is not repeatable with the information given.
In God we trust, all others require data.
If MS keeps up these auto updates without user consent they very well may find themselves back in court. I'm not the litigious type but plenty of people are and this is just more fuel for the fire.
WTF?
Heh, reminds me of Spotlight. It indexes everything you connect to (well almost everything, OS9 files seem to be invisible to it) and slows the computer especially if you connect to a foriegn network or disc, which initiates it to index that too.
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
What is important is that it is there forcefully
For business users, it's one more unacceptable risk. Now that M$ has a means to carry out the more obnoxious clauses in their EULA, you can no longer ignore those clauses as ineffective. Even if you do trust M$ to respect your secrets, others can and will take advantage of this mechanism to root them out. Universal indexing is more than a business risk to Mozilla and friends, it's a business risk to everyone. Business users should be headed for the exits.
People who value their privacy should have left long ago.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
Not sure how you got an optional update, but for the past few days every morning when I come in and login at work I get the "Your computer needs to restart" dialog popping up every 10 minutes. Yesterday I finally did restart only to find Windows search in my taskbar. I immediately uninstalled it, only to find this morning it was there again. It may be optional for you, but then again your network might not have automatic network-wide updates configured.
brandelf: invalid ELF type 'KEEBLER'
...and I also manage our WSUS server.. This one came in as "Install" here.. I know that I do *NOT* have my server set up to auto-approve everything - it's only set to auto-approve revisions to already approved updates..
So YMMV, but it came in that way here..
One of the nice things about this update is that you *CANNOT* change it to "Remove" after it's already gone out - WSUS errors out and tells you that remove isn't supported for this update.. How nice of them..
Read radical news here
See my reply to myself; I can't understand why you'd want to auto-approve updates, but then again desktop search should probably be listed as a separate product, seeing as Vista Ultimate add-ons are too for example?
throw new NoSignatureException();
Take a look - Windows Desktop Search is *different* from the Windows Search index already in Vista. Different products, and Desktop Search is still something that can be installed.
Also, upon closer inspection, none of the XP boxes seem to have it, either.
The default behavior is to index user files in "doc and settings" and then your outlook files after you open that program.
Gee, thanks. I'll rest assured that it will be efficient at indexing people's 2GB binary Outlook file and personal life. It's so much less evil than indexing calc.exe. Give it time, though, the next update might demand an full index to come into compliance with the Windoze EULA.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
Years from now we're going to find out Gates and Ballmer secretly shorted their Microsoft stock and bought Apple. We'll find out the day we wake up to discover they now own the entire planet.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Well on my computer the update downloaded and installed itself - even though I made a point NOT to click on the install updates button. The good news is that all you need to do is go to Add/Remove programs to get rid of the thing: http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=301681&SiteID=1
I think they mean that their WSUS downloaded and installed it without any prior notice, which is the way any MS shop should have it set up. This is exactly what happened in my office. It's a petty they couldn't notify everyone as they did with the IE 7 update, so we could have had a chance to unapprove it. I mean, Desktop search??? Who the hell needs it?
And it's still optional. Just because a tard accepted the incoming update and pushed it out, doesn't make it Microsoft's fault.
http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/6018/peddoqc7.jpg
- you don't want to use because it's inferior to another software product
- you don't want to have installed on your PC
- can't be uninstalled once installed (like WMP, MSIE, etc.)
- uses a lot of harddisk space
- uses a lot of RAM
- makes you're computer 'run' more slowly - i.e. after install stalls your machine
- requires monthly high-priority security patches in order to stay moderately secure
?As an OSS advocate I like this MS action. It will convert even more people to start using free software (without licence keys, erroneous deactivations after driver updates, unwanted and unasked installs of unwanted extra software, expensive 'support' contracts, etc.).
I've already had 30 users call this morning already. How annoying! We already packaged up our uninstall and declined it in wsus. Thanks for making my morning exciting M$, jerks!
By your logic, spammers don't benefit from getting spam into the mailbox of anyone who has opted out or is running anti-spam filtering software. (quick side note -- both w.r.t. spammer behavior and Microsoft's behavior here we are talking about whether they perceive there will be a benefit and not about whether there actually will be a benefit)
Yet marketplace actions have clearly shown that spammers not only perceive that they will benefit from pitching their product to users who have taken prior, and specific, actions rejecting their communications but indeed perceive the benefit to be so great that they continually expend effort to invent new ways to get around advancements in anti-spam technology and anti-spam legislation.
Its no different for Microsoft -- even if you've already said you don't want the product they're pushing, if they can convince a subset of additional users to change their mind by ignoring those users stated requests then they'll perceive the benefit of increased marketshare.
I declined this for my network via WSUS. It never set itself to "auto-install" as some of the comments I'm reading say it did, at least not in my network environment.
Saw it in WSUS, declined it, end of issue.
End of lesson. You may press the button.
"How to fix the cable"
"How to clean a pool"
"How to deliver pizza"
I happened to be in the lab at 3AM (working on my Master's thesis, sadly I'm still here...) and my workstation popped up a message that updates had been applied and that it would be rebooting in 5. So I saved all my work (thank God I wasn't at the vending machine or in the restroom!) and rebooted the system. When it came back up, Windows Desktop Search was enabled. I right clicked Exit on the little icon and it's still there. I don't have Office (any version) on this workstation and I certainly don't have Windows Live Photo Gallery. On top of that, I don't see any way for an unprivileged user to disable the damn service and that's INFURIATING, as this machine is used to drive a head mounted display for our VR lab and we go out of our way to keep the number of background services running on the machine to a minimum. Microsoft deciding on its own that it knows better than I do what I want to use this machine for is really starting to try my patience...
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
Windows Desktop Search *was* so nice with Outlook 2007 for searching, especially my archive of 20,000 messages. However it increased my startup time dramatically, which is unacceptable on my laptop that I'm constantly starting-up/shutting-down. I this is a big mistake on Microsoft's part.
-Tim
Isn't this ironic that this happens right after Ubuntu 7.10 launch that one of its biggest features was the search tool (And became it's most hated) but now M$ has come up with yet another reason not to use Windows and worse, its not uninstallable unlike the search tool in 7.10. I can see this being a Big Problem on the ancient computers that are somehow running XP like the 800 MHZ Celerons with 256 MB of RAM making their (normally already slowed experience due to spyware/adware/viruses) crawl to a halt. If MS wants to stay ahead, they need to stop installing major "updates" and start coming out with a new operating system that looks like XP, feels like XP, drops the DRM of Vista, lets you use the same hardware as XP but has all the security of Vista (not that Vista is that secure) because Vista is dead. Vista has been the number 1 thing that has pushed users to OS-X or Linux lately. So how does MS intend to get market share from this move?
There is no "disagree" moderation, and troll, flamebait and overrated are not valid substitutes
I'm sorry, I have to agree with the others and call this FUD. I have automatic updates running on all my computers and it STILL required me to have to actually go in and select it to install it (which, of course, I did not).
"Oh My God, they killed init! You bastards!"
Class action lawsuit anyone? I didn't agree to this... the TOS/EULA probably has not been updated to include this and if it was I was not notified of the new agreement and given a chance to deny it.... To bad I'm to poor to hire a good lawyer :-(
I checked Windows Update to see what the fuss is about; I wasn't notified of any pending updates.
"Windows Desktop Search 3.01 for Windows XP (KB917013)" is listed as a Software, Optional update. I just ticked the "f*ck off" box - problem solved.
If you let Microsoft automatically install updates on your computer without vetting them, don't complain about it installing cruft - and worse.
At what point will MS be directly responsible for the $$ associated with loss of productivity on a slip-up like this one.
Get your tagline off my lawn.
If you have your PC set to notify before downloading updates, you can simply uncheck it when the yellow shield pops up. When you close the window a box will pop up asking if you want to install it later. Just uncheck the box again and it will never ask again.. Worked for me!
once i saw that indexing on my work machine i immediately declined it on my WSUS 3.0 server, i was like WTF i thought only critical updates were configured to automatically approve, how is this critical.. blah
That's my point, and probably why I got modded troll. The basis of the article is that MS is forcing this, and used to indicate further evil on Microsoft's part. No, the problem is the sysadmin who has their WSUS and user profiles set to blindly accept and push the updates, or the users who have thier home systems to blindly accept and install updates. Just because MS put it in up for update doesn't mean you have to use.
But, pardon me for pointing out that this isn't an MS issue, its a USER issue and points out the knee-jerk anti-MS bashing that goes on here. Sure, there are things to bash MS about, but this isn't one of them.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
The desktop search automatically approved itself in spite of the settings at our company. I manage the WSUS environment in our corporation (about 2500 machines get updates from the WSUS servers). I'm looking at the WSUS management console right now, and the only updates that are set to approve installation automatically are "Windows Server Update Services Updates." We do automatic detection of critical and security updates, but the desktop search thing wasn't even in those categories. The first I heard of this update was a frantic IM from a client support person who told me to remove the new update from the WSUS server because it was creating havoc for the help desk.
Stop using the term "blogosphere," or any other vomit-inducing "blog-" based word.
"The 'blogosphere' is the new buzz word that has replaced 'information super highway.' It's what idiots like to call a collection of 'blogs,' otherwise known as a tragedy."
-- http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=banish
My grandmother used anecdotal evidence all the time, and she lived to be 120 years old.
No, the real issue is that you shouldn't be forced to get an update you didn't consent to.
And I have to wonder what problem everyone else is having, because my PC duly popped up an automatic update notification for this earlier today, and I told it to go away and not come back, with no trouble and no observable adverse consequences.
Why do I get the feeling that this story is caused by a lot of people who don't know how to configure automatic updates properly, and a lot of FUD because of the PR cock-up a few weeks ago? You can argue about how they classified the update, but certainly nothing has been "forced" onto my PC today as a result of the update going out.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I don't get it. I am sure millions of slashdotters are scratching their head too. If you have porn, why do you need a wife?
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
In Tech News today, Google announced a critical update to their Desktop Search program. Google recommends that all people download this patch (and insists that people who were affected by the Microsoft forced Windows Desktop Search bug do it). This critical patch does only two things : 1)Forcibly disables (probably through the registry) the windows desktop search and 2) Forces the default search application to Google search. That is all.
If you were offended by anything I said... No, I'm not sorry. Please lighten up.
What is important is that it is there forcefully bundled regardless do you want it or not
It's no more 'forecfully' bundled than any other update. You should be checking what updates are being installed as a matter of course anyway. I had this update yesterday, here's what happened:
1) Windows Update informed me it had updates to install
2) Lazily I clicked on the popup and choose 'express install'
3) After a few minutes the new search bar popped up, with a "welcome to windows search" balloon.
4) "bugger that" I thought, remembering the impact google desktop has had on my machine in the past. So I went to Control Panel, Add/Remove programs and removed it
5) A few moments later Windows Update informed me of the update again, this time I chose 'custom install'
6) It gave me a list (of one) of the updates and I unchecked the search bar.
7) I was asked whether I wanted to ignore this update in future and I choose yes
So really, how forceful is that? OK I had to uninstall it but that was my own laziness and not properly checking what was being installed in the first place. If I'd been more careful (as I usually am) The process would have been 1), 5), 6) 7).
I run a network of over 250 machines and their has been no sign of this update, or the other WPA update. None of my users are admin, so is that stopping it in its tracks?
and, given the fact that I've got a Windows box down right now (unit cost: >$400) because of a faulty CPU fan (component cost: $20), I'm quite happy to pay Apple for quality hardware and get OS X as a bonus.
The opportunity to install Windows on any piece of unreliable crap is hardly what I'd call a WISE choice.
At least, with Apple, the installer will refuse to install on inadequate hardware (I own a lot of Macs and some of it is ancient, unlike my Windows boxes, where I can't seem to hang onto a box past the MTBF of the crappiest component.) That's the difference.
I've got old boxes of both kinds under my office desks.
The Macs are just turned off.
The Windows are unplugged because of the fire hazard.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Who has wsus configured to install every microsoft update? Have the wsus thing download the updates but not push them to clients until someone approves them. Yes it means that some admin will have to actually click on the update and approve it but shouldn't that be part of their job?
I thought the desktop search used a service called "search". Disable that service and the desktop search doesn't run.
Did you really say...
I think they mean that their WSUS downloaded and installed it without any prior notice, which is the way any MS shop should have it set up.Wrong, wrong, WRONG, wrong, wrooooOOONNNNGGG!
We review every patch and update that comes in. Any sysadmin who blindly accepts and pushes deserves what they get.
But, don't blame that on MS.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
Apparently you didn't RTFA.
Except that it's installing itself even when WSUS is configured not to auto-accept any updates. Not that you'd bother to read the article or the 200 comments saying as much...
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
This is more of a case of poor server administration than a "snafu" on the part of Microsoft. Windows Server Update Services can be configured so that it does NOT automatically approve ANY update for install. It requires an admin to go in and approve each individual update for install.
I am guessing that these sys admins were just lazy and turned automatic "install" approval on. My WSUS server hasn't even downloaded the update because I have configured it to only get updates classified as "security" or "critical" updates. And being a regular WSUS Admin myself, the statement "even though administrators configured systems not to use the program" doesn't even make any sense.
All you have to do is configure WSUS to either:
In fact I believe 2) is the default option anyway, which lends support to the "lazy sys admin" theory.
If they weren't using WSUS, and instead have their clients pointed to M$ for Automatic Updates... we'll they deserve whatever happens to them at that point. If you want control over what gets installed on your clients, don't give up control of what gets installed on your clients.
1) This isn't about Windows Update, this is about WSUS. They're seperate things.
2) Admins are claiming even with WSUS configured to not auto-accept ANY updates, it's still getting downloaded and applied.
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
I hope this doesn't mean it will be bundled into XP SP3, although it probably does. I was hoping for IE7, WMP11 and .NET 3.0 to be bundled into this long-awaited update to XP but now desktop search.... I have to admit, I'm not a big fan of constant indexing of my files and email just to make a search go faster.
Spotlight being installed and ON by default with OSX?
> I think you'll find that the Desktop Search is completely inseparable from the desktop and that the latter would be rendered completely useless if it is uninstalled. Just like IE is.
You could use another desktop manager for windows, like e.g. bblean.
Hey, Sparky, I just went through this at work. It was O P T I O N A L. Yes, it was presented, but no, we didn't install.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
When you run WSUS, you can set a rule to auto-approve certain kinds of updates. That's what I had WSUS set for.
BUT, all that does is says that the update is approved for installing, AFTER YOU TELL IT WHICH COMPUTERS TO INSTALL ON.
So, I auto-approved critical updates, but that means the update isn't installed ANYWHERE until I give it the Install permission.
The Windows Search Tool bypassed the process, auto-approved ITSELF for install, and bang, here we are.
In the Article, they talk specificially about Windows server update services (WSUS).
About a year ago, MS sent windows desktop search through WSUS. All you had to do was decline the update and done. Apparently on 10/23/2007 They updated the install files and on my WSUS 3.0 server they are still declined without any user interaction on my part.
For whatever reason, MS considers WDS a Windows XP Feature Pack instead of a Windows Live technology. If WSUS Admins were telling them to approve everything automaticially and not checking their updates and approving them manually, like they should be doing IMHO, then they probably got it.
The best part about this, you cannot tell WSUS to uninstall it. it's a good thing MS has that option in WSUS, even though 1 of the 300 updates actually uses thisw feature.
Also for a heads up, Outlook 2007 constantly askes users to install WDS unless they tell it not to, and even then it keeps a bar on the screen to "Enable Instant search".
In Soviet Russia, Trojan exploits YOU!
WSUS, perhaps?
The other bit most people aren't reading is the bit about automatic updates. If this is enabled, you're getting anything MS sends your way, because you've given them permission. Simply set it to download but not install, or just to notify when new downloads are available. This will allow you to deselect desktop search quite easily.
Doesn't having WSUS download and automatically install every update kind of make WSUS pointless to begin with?
WSUS exists so admins can pick and choose which updates go out. Just having it let everything go through with out testing it is, well... I cannot come up with a single reason as to why anyone would want to configure it that way.
This "WAS" a security update yesterday. I saw it on the Windows Update Website. Today it's marked as optional. MS seems to have changed their mind on the priority.
Too bad it was already pushed out to at least 1,000 PC's in my company.
I manage my companies WSUS server and this update also came in as Not Approved. Except when I looked at the details in the status report it is approved for a fuckload of computers. It doesn't show up as being approved when you look anywhere except in the detailed report. The weirdest thing is that it isn't approved for all computers, if you sort by approval status there are still a few hundred computers which have it marked as Not Approved. It seems like it just randomly chose a bunch of groups or something, no way to really tell though since it doesn't show up as being approved for any groups. It really makes no sense, I've been running WSUS3 since the beta and I have never seen anything like this. At this point it is really too late, especially since this stupid update doesn't support removal. Microsoft has fucked us good and they still haven't even said anything public, it's absurd.
Leopard is out later today. Might be a good time to check it out, if this sort of shenanigans has pissed you off (which it should - whose computer is it, fer fuck's sake?)
Business users should be headed for the exits.
Or, they can centrally manage what updates are sent to their machines like many businesses do today with WSUS.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/22/1243202
We knew it was a lie...
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
Pretty sad when you have to protect yourself from your vendor. Microsoft is not an appealing career choice considering the stress it adds lowers your life expectancy.
See ZDNET for a story: http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=877
The responders are correct. It is "OPTIONAL". I checked as well.
Looks like the admins in question are at fault here.
Link, please.
;-)
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
...but I don't have to deal with any of this M$ bullshit by sticking with Windows 2000. Frankly, they hobbled it enough as it is, now it appears that it's XP's turn...
Windows 3.1x calc: 3.11 - 3.10 = 0.00
The entire process is fubared. After it auto-installed on all our desktops despite our WSUS server, we went in and specifically set it to declined. It is still reinstalling itself on some (but not all) of our user desktops. This is an incredible nightmare.
We have WSUS 2.0 running on Win 2000 Server. We have WSUS set to auto-approve critical/security updates and hold everything else for manual approval/decline. I find "Windows Desktop Search 3.01 for Windows XP (KB917013)" listed, released two days ago (23 Oct), and set to "Declined". I don't remember manually declining it (but I may have manually declined a prior release of WDS). No reports of it being installed on our 70 or so computers.
All Win XP/2000, no Vista, so Vista stuff is not set to even synchronize. Maybe that's the difference? Since WDS comes with Vista, maybe the Vista update is triggering an install for every platform?
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
I'd like to share a thought with you guys. Perhaps it might help someone who's doubting on switching to Linux (it might be a bit off-topic, but I don't think so - everytime Microsoft plays dirty on you is a reason to switch).
Yesterday I switched to Linux from Windows. My Linux of choice was PCLinuxOS, which I find powerful and yet guiding (read my journal for my review). Anyway, what I wanted to share is that when I used to be a prisoner - or slave - of Windows, everytime I read these news ("Microsoft forces this update on you!", "Windows calls home", "Windows antipiracy measures screw up your install!"), I used to get irritated and mad at Microsoft.
But today, I felt different when reading these news. I felt like a spectator watching the tragedy from a tower far away, and giving thanks for not having been there. Or, as mexicans say, i felt like if I was watching the bullfight from behind the barrier. I was no longer angry, nor desperate. I was safe.
Being a V for Vendetta fan, I can compare with the feeling Evey had when she was under the rain, with her thoughts and actions free from the government. It was a feeling of power. A feeling of freedom. I wasn't part of the system anymore. I felt like Neo after going in the matrix and realizing I *CAN* change things.
I no longer need to hack my way through Microsoft's limitations. I no longer need to download a crack to bypass the stupid region encoding imposed by Windows. I no longer need to fear the dreaded Windows update screwing up my system. I am beyond Windows now. I have trascended, and I'm immune.
This power, this freedom, this liberty, is a feeling that can't really be explained. You NEED to experience it. After you do, you will never go back.
For ages, I had complained about our slavery to Windows and the lack of Linux user-friendliness that kept us in that slavery. And now I feel that PCLinuxOS had build the bridge that I needed to do the switch. To put it in biblical terms, PCLinuxOS was, at least for me, the Moses we needed to get away from the evil Pharaoh.
So, if you decide switch, and if Ubuntu doesn't meet your expectations, try PCLinuxOS. Just remember to backup your data. You need to do it, anyway.
Lets narrow this down. I'm using WSUS 3.0, as are others reporting that the update DOES NOT autoinstall despite settings. What version are you using? You're aware that there's an option that will automatically approve updates to installed versions of software.. so if you're users installed the last version and you have this option set, it WILL send the update out. But that's how its supposed to work.
For the record: I don't give any credience to ACs here, which is why I don't respond to them and they all start with a -1 penalty.
It's called msconfig. Run it from commandline...go through the startup items in the dialogue that pops up and uncheck anything that you don't want to run by default. It'll prompt for restart (optional), and will prompt again after reboot (just tell it to go away). After that, all the junk that likes to make itself run on startup will no longer run unless you ask it to. I ran an update on one of my machines yesterday, saw this desktop search and immediately disabled it. Such a tool is only for losers anyway...file losers specifically.
First "ACs"? Second: I'm using WSUS 3.0 also and do not have the option set to install updates to already installed programs. On top of that, we do not have any previously installed M$ desktop search installs. We have our desktops locked down pretty hard and approve only security and critical updates as a general rule.
I am even happier now for doing this: http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=299057&cid=20619703
I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem
And ILL call fucking bullshit on your ass. IT AUTO APPROVED ITSELF. In the middle of the night. IT DID NOT COME IN AS NOT APPROVED OR ELSE IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ROLLED OUT TO 500+ WORKSTATIONS NOW WOULD IT HAVE>?
fucking microsoft apologists. I came in, users complained PC's were slow, I assumed that they had installed it themselves. Then I looked at wsus and hmm thats strange.. SEEMS AS THROUGH WINDOWS DESKTOP SEARCH IS MARKED AS INSTALL. WHY THE FUCK WOULD I DO THAT???!?!?
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
On the tens of XP systems I have looked at beginning early yesterday with vastly differing kinds of software installed on them ranging from Solidworks to Barbie Fashion Show manned by operators with measured computer idiocy rates ranging from .082% to a staggering 99.891%, this update came up on WAU as optional and not as an obfuscated antichrist necropedophile trojan horse from M$ hell this article claims. But I can sympathize with those who want to hate Microsoft anyway, I applaud the malice even though it's misdirected in this rare case.
Fact. I have WDS 2.x installed. It works with Kerio. 3.x doesn.t
/q /norestart
Fact. Months ago I approved WDS 3.01 update in Automatic Updates WSUS (install.) For months, this update has only updated WDS 3.x to 3.01 update. It has not updated 2.x nor has it installed on machines without WDS.
Fact. Microsoft re-released this same update to WSUS. Re-released meaning it is the same patch in WSUS. Meaning that because I have WSUS set to retain approve/disapproved settings when patches are re-released, the new WDS 3.01 retained it's approved status. They also re-released Windows 2003 SP3, for example. Same patch, just a few minor changes.
Fact. When I came in yesterday, WDS 3.01 was automatically installed on 50+ of my machines, and I didn't want that. It was slated to install on all 500+.
This update to existing WDS 3.01 patch should have been released as a new patch in WSUS so that it adopted my default approval settings, not as a minor change & re-release to adopt existing approval settings.
To uninstall WDS you run
C:\WINNT\$NtUninstallKB917013$\spuninst\spuninst.exe
This may be true for home users, I don't know. But for us IT Depts. that use WSUS, it pushed out to ALL our computers - quietly - and started indexing away. We had JUST finished uninstalling the previous version and restarted each of our 300 computers like, 2 days prior. When it came back yesterday, I wanted to kill things. I then suggested we just switch over to Linux or Mac. :P
If anyone has a better method let me know.
There are three parts of Windows Desktop search that I can see
To disable #1 you can create a software restriction policy. Follow the instructions for creating a Hash Rule here. Using a hash is best because it will work no matter where the application is launched from though you may have to update the policy if someone installs a newer version. More info on Software policies can be found here
You might not actually want to disable #2 because I'm not sure yet if it was installed by Desktop search 3.01 or if it was originally part of XP. XP has an indexing service that's turned on by default and is used by the normal search box. I've never had much problems with it before but I also never use it so I turn it off. You'll have to decide for yourself.
For #3 I'm not sure yet how to disable it but I'm pretty sure the most it would take is a custom ADM file with the proper registry edits. Not sure what those would be yet but shouldn't be too hard. It also might just go away when you disable #1.
I can see so many college WoW players crying out in pain as their campus Internet connections go haywire, and their precious link to Azeroth/Outlands is severed (or has a 2+ second delay tacked on)!
Rawr
The update is "supposed" to ship with an uninstaller. I say supposed to, because it has failed in all instances that I have tried it. There's also supposed to be a directory which contains an installer, but just as conveniently this hasn't been present on any of our workstations.
As usual, the resolution I found came from a random user on a message board: http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PageIndex=3&SiteID=1&PageID=3&PostID=301681
Download and extract this file: http://www.2daytech.com/$NtUninstallKB917013$.rar
Run the file spuninst\spuninst.exe with Administrative privileges. Let it do its thing and you'll be prompted to restart. It should be gone at this point.
Same thing on my WSUS server. In addition, I ran a Windows Update, it this particular update came across as an optional update.
~Mike (Titan_X)
FYI. If you want to uninstall it using a silent script, then this might be for you.
/passive /s /q SoftwareDistribution
%systemroot%\$NtUninstallKB917013$\spuninst\spuninst.exe
net stop wuauserv
cd %systemroot%
del
net start wuauserv
Copied from http://reddit.com/info/5z0yp/comments/
I turned off Windows automatic update a long time ago. I now selectively pick security updates that I think are relevant. The reason for this is that I have had various occasions where my PC started to play up after an update. When I rolled back the update things were fine again.
.net stuff. They tend to use MS SQL Server and of course use any other quick solution Microsoft throws at them.
.net framework, DirectX and MSIE and I am sure this list is really much longer. As much as I have not cared for alternative OS'es, Now I am losing my market value with Borland Delphi I think I rather re-educate myself to work with an alternate OS instead of becoming a Microsoft lapdog.
Yes, IT is forced the Microsoft way. There used to me several powerful producers of programming languages. Most notably Borland. Borland shot itself in the foot by neglecting Delphi and Microsoft took the small remainder of that market. Now almost all of the windows software houses use Microsoft products. They are Microsoft Certified, member of MSDN use almost exclusively MS visual Studio either for the old C++ or more often now the
Gradually the IT world as been super glued to the Microsoft way. Financial incentives are offered for those companies that have their software Microsoft Certified and on it goes. As a result software houses I work for have been changed from independent IT company to an exclusive Microsoft House and don't you dare to question the technology because most developers like the juicy bones thrown at them by Microsoft at regular intervals.
And of course as a result software users can not do anything else but go along with it. Your average software package today will require you already have MSI 3 windows installer,
It broke my IFNS! And WDS cannot search network drives and is therefore useless.
-
Go Get ZTREE.
.dll's, http, ftp etc. | (d)elete the files and block the IP's | ALT-(g)raft, ALT-(p)rune, (d)elete, or (m)ove the crap for analysis
http://ztree.com/
No need for searching with bloated crap.
Turn off and remove your *indexing* services
Turn off and remove your *windows update* *wsus* services
net (service) stop
sc (delete) service (EXTREMELY DRASTIC, but effective)
I'd even argue that ztree can be used as anti-virus by the adept.
example: taskmanager | find high cpu service or unknown process | track down (search/google) the filename | fire up ztree | (v)iew the filename | (F9) search for other filenames,
Of course you could just have terabytes of data indexed by allowing annoying services run instead.
Or you could have blazing fast control of your file system.
You could automatically update windows, and get unscheduled problems.
Or you could manually update windows at technet.
It takes some getting used to ztree, but xtree users are at home.
Also please support Kim (a really nice guy), and actually buy the program.
It kicks ass and pays for him to keep pumping out betas!
I ain't going to tell you what to do with your microsoft boxes. Your an adult. Run your box like a tard if you want.
If you can use linux (midnight commander is similar to ztree), use it, but if you have to use windows (and there ARE reasons), analyze, learn, and protect it.
This will probably teach you to better manage your data anyway.
MyDocuments folder (What a joke), look at an ftp site and see how they create directories and classify things. It will save you time with GIGS of data for backup if you managed your data properly in the first place. Why would you need to search for? Everything is listed alpha-numerically. Why does explorer need to load every damn file for?
Now you have no more excuses, and no more hidden files.
Just a giant pile of firefox/SCRAPBOOK pages, and the tools to fix any problem yourself.
One guess: Microsoft is forcing programs that slow down XP so that Vista will look better.
There is also a financial incentive for Microsoft to want all its operating systems to be slow. When people buy new computers to get faster operation, Microsoft gets paid for a new operating system.
People think that Microsoft is a software company that is routinely abusive. But maybe it isn't. Maybe Microsoft is an abuse company that uses software as a means of delivering abuse. If you look at it that way, Microsoft is excellent at what it does.
We seem to live in a society dominated by abusers. The dollar is being inflated so that oil and weapons investors will have enough money to fight a war for oil.
Not sure why you were modded 'funny' - after testing, both for myself and others, I think that what you said is (partially) true.
I've had some *interesting* experiences wih strange M$ 'imcompatibilities' with GDS - see below.
My experience with both GDS and M$ so far:
GDS
1. Need to turn off 'advanced' features in Google, plus do not let it search your web cache, your web mail and deleted items, for obvious (security & usability) reasons.
2. If you let it index Thunderbird mail, it sometimes deletes / lost / corrupted the Thunderbird mailbox if you de-installed.
Clearly, not a trivial problem.
3. Integration with M$ products - notably Outlook - quite good.
4. Can have problems 'losing' files from index - don't get reindexed, even if force-reindex (sometimes).
5. Search results interface OK, but rather sparse and configuration options limited.
6. Gadgets are a pain, for most people. Turn 'em off, (easy).
M$ search.
1. Earlier versions much poorer and slower than GDS. Later ones better.
2. You *have* to install with latest version of Outlook in order to get rid of annoying 'click here to enble instant search' bar in your toolbar. GDS does not seem to work so well with later versions of M$ Office.
3. M$ search - once installed - works OK, although user interface is more cluttered, through attempting to offer more advanced search options...
4. Yippee! GDS then is de-selected as 'default', and Google as search engine in browser, and starts to crash...
More 'cookcoo wear' from M$?
Disclaimer: I'm not in my IT dept. I first thought it was spyware (not knowing why it was suddenly there). I disabled it. It's annoying - I forever hate things changing 'for the sake of change'. I disabled it but our IT dept tells me the icon will likely reappear periodically (they sort of throw up their arms at this stuff). I have 8 little icons on the bottom right of my machine - most of them aren't intrusive. I'm sure this little MS one will be more annoying than most (dog... paperclip). Stupid idiots.
rlocate FTW! You don't even notice it's there. Also, I assume Desktop Search and Google Desktop work well together to provide a responsive, yet searchable environment. In related news, AMD and Intel see an unexpected growth in their consumer-oriented departments.
what about updates for pirated windows?? honestly...i use pirated windows...and everytime windows have a new update, it will prompt me... but the thing is, the moment i start updating my windows..the os seem cant accept the updates.. and 'luckily' i need to format back my comp after that...for a typical user like me who could not effort to buy the original windows..its sure give a lot of problem to me..and im sure theres a lot more user facing the same problem as mine..
"Skynet has become self-aware..." anyone?
There really needs to be a class action suit created over this sort of activity. Each time they get caught doing this sort of thing, it seems to be a bit worse.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
According to WSUS, there have been 3 revisions of this "update"... 101 on 2/27, 102 on 3/27, and 105 on 10/23. 102 claims to be a "change in title or description". 105 lists "Detection or applicability rules have changed" and "Installation behavior has changed". /me clicks the "Decline Update" button.
ACs = Anonymous Cowards.
Your experience is odd indeed then, because other's like me have the exact opposite experience.
slightly off topic. But does anyone have any benchmark data to show whether Google Desktop is faster than Microsoft Desktop search? My personal experience is that GDS slowed my system to a crawl. I uninstalled and thought about installing Microsoft's Desktop search. It is now on my system , and before i go into a ti raid and uninstall it .... is it any faster?
step 1: disconnect for internet.
step 2: install Windows.
step 3: stop and disable automatic update service.
step 4: continue with software installation.
Athiesm is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
It makes me ask: What kind of administrator is using automatic updates on their machines anyway?
In the small business world where companies don't have full-time IT, automatic updates are ubiquitous. Frankly, the risk of an unpatched machine is a whole lot higher than the risk of a bad update from Microsoft. Manually managing patches for a large base of small customers just isn't possible for a small biz consultant (like me).
Having said that, I haven't seen the behavior mentioned in the article... it appears only to impact WSUS users. The main issue I've seen is that Outlook 2007 continuously prompts users to install Desktop Search, without explaining what it really is.
-R
Why!! OOOhhhh why... people always want to use the latest version?!
you could keep using the old light and good winamp, no need to upgrade...
if you upgraded and didnt like it, downgrade the tool, you can still find the old winamp in the net, much more a few years ago.
oohh why people follow what companies want, instead of what is good for then!?!
higuita
Higuita
The Windows Update will do so.
Why is this news again?
Ok I've found that those who it appeard random re-install were in that period of time between when it was explicitly denied in WSUS and when I uninstalled the app. So maybe not so different. It certainly was never approved in the first place.
Will the idiots who don't understand the difference between WSUS and Automatic Updates please stop posting!!!! You're just cluttering the place up. For those claiming that WSUS automatically approved the WDS 3.0 install - go check your settings. You may not have auto-approve turned on, but I bet you have "automatically approve revisions" turned on. Update 917013 was marked as a revision to the previous WDS 2.6 install. If you had approved the previous WDS and have this setting on, then WDS 3.0 got automatically approved.
I suspect that many of the earlier posters who claimed that their systems are OK, are still in for a surprise. Chatting to people in a large company it seems that this crap is still being rolled out. Some people got it the day before yesterday, some yesterday, some today and IT complained that email is slow this morning. So I guess MS got millions of angry phone calls already and they are in for many more.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
a) Answering questions as to "what is this?" or
b) Uninstalling it.
At what point in time did I want my company's PCs indexed!?
It's like
Alright now, none of you
Lou
Below is the MS response posted on Technet. Reading between the lines, MS is admitting that they inappropriately marked this update as a revision to the previous WDS installations. From http://blogs.technet.com/wsus/default.aspx. WDS revision update, expanded applicability rules, auto-approve revisions Posted Thursday, October 25, 2007 3:58 AM by WSUS Some customers have reported that update package for KB917013 was being deployed to WSUS clients without having approved the update for installation on their WSUS servers. The original update release, released February 2007 as an optional update, was only applicable on systems which had a version of Windows Desktop Search installed. The recent update Revision 105, had the applicability logic expanded to be applicable to all systems regardless if a prior version of Windows Desktop Search was installed, IF of course, approved in the WSUS Administrative UI or via Administrator-set auto-approval rules. The initial update would have only been installed if the update had been either auto, or manually approved, and if the applicability criteria was met on the client (that WDS was installed). For some customers, because the original update was approved for install, but because of the previous applicability rules to apply only to clients which had WDS installed, the update was not actually installed. So what happened with this revision and why did it seemingly deploy itself to all systems in my environment? WSUS by default is set to auto-approve update revisions to minimize administrative overhead and make sure distribution "just works". Keeping in mind, revisions are only titled as such, when metadata or applicability rules of an update package change, never the binaries. Revisions are also of course only auto-approved via this setting, if the original update is approved. With the expanded applicability rules, and the WSUS default setting to auto-approve new revisions, it may have appeared as if this update was deployed without approval. The initial version of the update would have had to have been approved, and the "auto-approve revisions" option on (by default) in order for this revision to have also been approved and deployed. To Recap: The initial February 2007 release had to be purposely checked/approved by WSUS admin s sfor distribution, because it was an Optional update. All subsequent metadata-only revisions to that WSUS admin approved February 2007 release would then also be automatically approved for distribution. The initial February approval is retained throughout the life of the update, regardless of revision. That said, We will be tightening the criterea for Revisions so that auto-approval of revision behaivors are more predictable and of similar scope as the originial approved update, as we appreciate the confusion this behaivor caused. Thanks as always for your feedback to make our product s and processes work for our customers. Bobbie Harder PM, WSUS
Below is the MS response posted on Technet. Reading between the lines, MS is admitting that they inappropriately marked this update as a revision to the previous WDS installations.
From http://blogs.technet.com/wsus/default.aspx. (fixed the formatting this time)
WDS revision update, expanded applicability rules, auto-approve revisions
Posted Thursday, October 25, 2007 3:58 AM by WSUS
Some customers have reported that update package for KB917013 was being deployed to WSUS clients without having approved the update for installation on their WSUS servers. The original update release, released February 2007 as an optional update, was only applicable on systems which had a version of Windows Desktop Search installed. The recent update Revision 105, had the applicability logic expanded to be applicable to all systems regardless if a prior version of Windows Desktop Search was installed, IF of course, approved in the WSUS Administrative UI or via Administrator-set auto-approval rules.
The initial update would have only been installed if the update had been either auto, or manually approved, and if the applicability criteria was met on the client (that WDS was installed). For some customers, because the original update was approved for install, but because of the previous applicability rules to apply only to clients which had WDS installed, the update was not actually installed.
So what happened with this revision and why did it seemingly deploy itself to all systems in my environment? WSUS by default is set to auto-approve update revisions to minimize administrative overhead and make sure distribution "just works". Keeping in mind, revisions are only titled as such, when metadata or applicability rules of an update package change, never the binaries. Revisions are also of course only auto-approved via this setting, if the original update is approved.
With the expanded applicability rules, and the WSUS default setting to auto-approve new revisions, it may have appeared as if this update was deployed without approval. The initial version of the update would have had to have been approved, and the "auto-approve revisions" option on (by default) in order for this revision to have also been approved and deployed.
To Recap:
- The initial February 2007 release had to be purposely checked/approved by WSUS admins for distribution, because it was an Optional update.
- All subsequent metadata-only revisions to that WSUS admin approved February 2007 release would then also be automatically approved for distribution.
- The initial February approval is retained throughout the life of the update, regardless of revision.
- That said, We will be tightening the criterea for Revisions so that auto-approval of revision behaivors are more predictable and of similar scope as the originial approved update, as we appreciate the confusion this behaivor caused.
Thanks as always for your feedback to make our product s and processes work for our customers.
Bobbie Harder
PM, WSUS
...every one of their desktop operating systems since 95 progressively slows down the longer an installation has been in place. The only exceptions have been server editions, and I'm not so sure about 2K3 server anymore.
This is nothing new.
Doesn't anyone here remember the shenanigans they were accused of back in the early days of NT4? At bootup time, with a Cyrix processor, which was slow enough already, NT4 was accused of detecting whether the processor chip was Intel, AMD or Cyrix, and if Cyrix was detected the kernel would automatically insert no-op loops to artificially slow it down further. I don't think anyone ever proved this, but after SP1 this problem went away.
I got bit with it here at work. I don't always bother to review the list of minor security patches (though I should--the people at corporate who manage our WUS server pay no attention to thing like making sure the patches they approve for us don't break things) and I just let it install the defaults. Only to find out that this wasn't any sort of "security" update at all. It's a totally new product I neither want nor need.
Mind you, on the other servers, I went around and said no to it. But it was NOT clear to me that it was going to install crap like that the first time, and several people here have already said yes to it on me. I realize they're doing it as an anti-Google move, but I still don't like having whole new applications pushed at my by what was originally supposed to be there for bugfixes and security updates.
In the future, I guess I'll just have to be even less trusting of the stupid piece of crap.
End users and IT administrators claim they didn't authorize WSUS to apply this update.
Microsoft claims this update could not have been applied unless 1) it WAS authorized as a plain update; or 2) it was authorized back in February and is thus an update to the Search previously installed.
So who's right?
Do we have an unambiguous case where the IT administrator did it RIGHT and it STILL updated, or don't we?
Without that, we don't know what happened.
Without proof that Microsoft DID screw up (which wouldn't surprise me in the least, of course), any further argument is a waste of time.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
I let my various Linux distros do their automatic updates, too. But I know when they do it, they're doing it for ME, not for THEM.
That's the only difference, and that's why I trust them.
expandfairuse.org
Quite yelling, you sound retarded. Do you have the "automatically approve revisions" checked? I bet you do. What version of WSUS, btw? Normally revisions are changes to the metadata and not a change to the binary patch itself, so this option is on by default and usually considered safe. The problem here is that MS incorrectly marked this update as a revision to the previous Desktop Serach version 2.6 install. I leave it to the viewer to decide if that error was intentional (a trust issue) or a genuine screwup (confidence issue).
> "Internet Exploder" doesn't come with Windows. "Internet Explorer" does. Not the difference in spelling.
Every time I hear about some abuse of the Windows Update system I can't help but think of I, Robot "The NS5s are guaranteed to stay new by receiving daily updates from US Robotics's master AI system".
You want fun, go home and buy a monkey!
Read all about it on the WSUS Product Team Blog: http://blogs.technet.com/wsus/archive/2007/10/25/wds-update-revision-follow-up.aspx
...how this piece of shit showed up on the school computers.
I agree with the Anonymous Coward... too bad he didn't have a login, or I'd be chanting "Mod Parent UP" like a mad dog.
If you create a de facto industry standard, it's not ethical to lock down control to a single entity. It's kinda like BetaMax vs. VHS, but backwards. BetaMax went bonkers over anyone "stealing their technology" to release a competing product. VHS didn't. When's the last time you saw a BetaMax machine? (Come to think of it, how many of us own VCR's?)
The MP3 standard is public domain, regardless of any legal mumbo-jumbo. Everyone who wants to can download, install, and use an mp3 ripper/player/converter, for FREE, from any number of sources online. When a 7-year-old can copy her favorite song onto a thumb drive so she can share it with her best friend, the technology is ubiquitous, and copyrights/patents become moot.
Sorry, Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft et al.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Thanks for sharing your elitist opinion with us. Now have the decency to listen to my view, if you would. Then, have the decency to realize that you're just showing how backwards and non-productive you can be when you promote distro wars, or any of that other kids' stuff that most of us grew out of a long time ago.
I happen to *like* Ubuntu. It's Q&E to install, and tends to work without much, if any, "fiddling" or "console work". "Fisher-price Linux system" or not, it's my opinion that Ubuntu is the best distro out there for Linux newbies. If every distro is ridiculously complex, requires 15 hours of console time to configure properly, and won't run without at least 4 hours of install and 6 hours of tweaking, then we fail to conquer the desktop. Ubuntu takes 20 minutes to install, typically with a minimum of user intervention required.
The general public wants a cheap media center/email/web browser machine, no hassle, no fight.
Ubuntu delivers that, and brings the DVD fight to the front lines, as well. Joe Sixpack pops in a DVD he picked up at Blockbuster, and his machine says "You might be doing something illegal, but if you want me to, I'll go get the stuff for you to play this DVD." Think Joe Sixpack gives a rat's posterior about laws? He wants to watch the movie he just paid for. Get enough of them doing that, and we win the DVD fight through sheer ubiquity.
Now, if only we could get wine/winedoors/gaming perfected, we'd take over so fast it would make Microsoft's head spin.
"Lessee... it does everything that the $400 OS does, without costing $400... which means I can get the LightScribe DVDRW, the big-bad video card, and 3 games with my new computer, and still spend less money overall than on that Vista crap that all my techie friends are saying is garbage?"
Hmm. Which would *you* choose?
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.