Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Forces Desktop Search On Windows Update

Posted by kdawson on from the what-part-of-no dept.

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."

109 of 579 comments (clear)

  1. What's worse... by RaigetheFury · · Score: 4, Funny

    Is it still isn't very good compared to Google desktop indexing.

    1. Re:What's worse... by arivanov · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Who cares. What is important is that it is there forcefully bundled regardless do you want it or not so Google Desktop search has to fight for its place in the Sun against an already installed product. As MSIE and WMP have shown this is a battle which third parties cannot win (at least in the consumer space).

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    2. Re:What's worse... by plague3106 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As MSIE and WMP have shown this is a battle which third parties cannot win (at least in the consumer space).

      Ya you're right; that's why FF isn't gaining any ground, and third party video players don't come pre-installed on dells and others!

      No, the real issue is that you shouldn't be forced to get an update you didn't consent to.

    3. Re:What's worse... by tomhudson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Another "defective by design" product. Same as "We can't take Internet Exploder out because its integrated into the OS."

      Its not loke previous versions of programs didn't have their own search capabilities ... but Microsoft just loves to force the "Microsoft Way" on people.

      B.O.G.U.S., as in "Bend Over, Grease Up, Sucker."

      Contrast that to the "Free as in freedom as well as beer" of F/LOSS.

    4. Re:What's worse... by HouseOfMisterE · · Score: 4, Informative

      If the update was mandatory, then it would be listed under "critical" updates instead of "optional" updates at the Microsoft Update site. It's not, because it isn't.

    5. Re:What's worse... by Real1tyCzech · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Third parties have an exponentially more difficult uphill battle" might be more accurate;

      True, but any product competing against an existing popular product has an uphill battle. It's the way the market works.

      and it's also enough for US anti-trust laws to apply.

      Check your facts: US antitrust laws apply to using market force to enter into other markets with an unfair advantage. Name me *one* popular OS that doesn't include the ability to watch vids and listen to music, much less browse the net and *gasp* Search.

      These are defacto "parts" of the OS now, and have been for quite some time.
    6. Re:What's worse... by NerdyLove · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Name me *one* popular OS that doesn't include the ability to watch vids and listen to music,

      (Most) free Linux distros don't include an mp3 decoder anymore. To my knowledge, you have to install it separately.

    7. Re:What's worse... by Dak+RIT · · Score: 3, Insightful
      True, but any product competing against an existing popular product has an uphill battle. It's the way the market works.

      Yes, I recall MSIE had an extremely difficult uphill battle against the heavily entrenched Netscape. Anytime you're dealing with something even remotely complex in the consumer space that requires a reasonable amount of knowledge/effort to change, the default is going to win by a large margin every time. I talked somebody through installing Firefox over instant messaging two days ago and wanted to stick a fork in my eye... and that was with somebody telling them exactly what to do.

      Likewise, Silverlight is almost guaranteed to be a massively adopted technology simply because MS can stick it in a Windows Service Pack or update and in a month get nearly as much penetration as it has taken Flash near a decade to achieve. Should this be considered a hindrance to competition? Absolutely. This is essentially the same scenario as the browser wars... Microsoft used its dominance and influence with OEMs to prevent Netscape from being the default installed browser and usurped it with IE (which I think has done an excellent job at proving its harm to consumers).

    8. Re:What's worse... by Richard+Steiner · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Name me *one* popular OS that doesn't include the ability to watch vids and listen to music, much less browse the net and *gasp* Search.


      There is only ONE popular OS. Windows. That's the problem... All other OSes have less than 10% of the market, so they're niche players at best.

      --
      Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
      The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
    9. Re:What's worse... by oatworm · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's because MP3 isn't a free codec. You're supposed to pay the patent holder for the right to use it - since most Linux distros are free-as-in-beer, you can see why this would be a problem.

    10. Re:What's worse... by StarvingSE · · Score: 2

      Even if this doesn't fall under anti-trust laws, it surely falls under privacy laws (or what's left of them in the US).

      Microsoft thinks that they own every personal desktop that has their software installed. The fact that they are forcing their crap onto my property is either trespassing or vandalism, take your pick.

      They shoved windows defender down our throats, and now they're doing the same thing with their stupid copy-cat search engine.

      If I hire a company to paint my house, do they have the right to come in at anytime and repaint it every time they come out with new and improved paint?

      --
      I got nothin'
    11. Re:What's worse... by Jahz · · Score: 2, Informative

      Another "defective by design" product. Same as "We can't take Internet Exploder out because its integrated into the OS."


      Don't be ignorant. IE is made up of many components such as HTML parsers, HTML renderers, XML parsers, network protocol handlers, GUI management. Only an absolute idiot would suggest reinventing the wheel every time that functionality was needed. It is absolutely true that "Internet Explorer" (all the code that actually implements the web browser functionality) is integrated into the OS (OS in the sense that the majority of people understand it) and there are very sound and smart reasons for it to be the way it is. From a design perspective it's pretty much in line with best practices for abstraction and code reuse. What? You are the ignorant one if you think that what you said makes any sense. There is absolutely NO reason for IE to be fully integrated into the OS. It is perfectly reasonable to have the libraries you mentioned separately bundled with the OS without the IE GUI even existing. Thats how most operating systems work: they may have a browser, but it can be removed without destroying the OS web libraries and other essential functionality.

      You spoke about code reuse, but what you say doesn't make sense. The whole point of code reuse is that you can take pieces of one app's code and use it in another potentially unrelated app. With the IE model you can only reuse everything by way of integration with IE, not just the parts you want.

      No... Contrary to what you believe, the Windows web model sure isn't an example of a good design that facilitates code reuse.
      --
      There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who do not.
    12. Re:What's worse... by Jahz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "We can't take Internet Exploder out because its integrated into the OS."
      I kinda love this line. Almost all windows help files are compressed html (chm files). The help system in windows uses the internet explorer window control to view this. Take out IE, the help system doesn't work. Does this qualify as breaking the system if you remove it? I would think so. Also, a few programs incorporate this IE control to provide text services for their program. Microstation, for example, uses this for text style and font control for cad drawings. Without IE installed, you can't use this program for text. Now whether this was intentional or not, it is what it is. Alright, you're whole argument is narrow-minded and silly. You're saying "Microsoft can't remove IE becuase its been monopolizing the browser for so long that applications now depend on it." *sigh*

      Microsoft can go ahead and write a PROPER HELP FILE VIEWER!!! I can be a mini-browser that handles cfm's and basically anything else, but customized for help files. The code can be the same IE code that exists, but reworked a bit to fit in a little help file app (i.e. tear out lots of extra functionality). /sarcasm on
      Hey, wow! The above description is starting to sound like Apple help file system. It consists of a specialized browser that display html help files. Wow... to think that they made an extensive html-based help system without using their bundled browser (Safari) is just amazing! I can't believe its possible! /sarcasm off

      Thats okay; just continue drinking the Microsoft juice and please stop commenting while you're Reality Distortion Field is active.
      --
      There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who do not.
    13. Re:What's worse... by Red,Bowers · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I believe that all of us should do what ever we can to block and or uninstall anything that is forced down our throats. Think Ubuntu. Get away from Bill Gates and his cronies. Linux is getting much easier to deal with now than it was. Much more user friendly and understandable even for the laymen. OpenSource. The only way to fly.

    14. Re:What's worse... by DECS · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Check your facts: US antitrust laws apply to using market force to enter into other markets with an unfair advantage. Name me *one* popular OS that doesn't include the ability to watch vids and listen to music, much less browse the net and *gasp* Search.

      These are defacto "parts" of the OS now, and have been for quite some time.

      Curb your Windows Enthusiasm. It doesn't matter how "defacto" a practice is when a company holds monopoly control over what should be an open market. For a number of reasons, all significant PC makers HAVE to license Windows from Microsoft in order to sell PCs. There are major barriers to Linux on the desktop for consumers (despite it's being free), and developing a business model like Apple requires the ability to coast along under constant attack from Microsoft for a decade or so while developing your own OS. IBM, the Amiga, NeXT, and Be couldn't, and it appears clear nobody else ever could in the future.

      The PC is not an open market, but only because of artificial barriers created by Microsoft to prevent competition. Unlike utility monopolies, it does not serve the public. We don't benefit from having to pay the Microsoft tax for every PC sold, and Microsoft has proven that without competition, it refuses to innovate (which is why development of IE suddenly stopped in 2001 and didn't resume until the threat posted by Firefox and Safari motivated it to poop out IE 7 five years later.)

      The PC market was also not a product of choice. People didn't decide to use Windows over other alternatives; Microsoft simple ensured there were no other alternatives. While Windows Enthusiasts like to complain that Apple has "monopolized" music with iTunes and the iPod, the situation isn't even similar: no other manufacturers have to license Apple's tech (or even can) in order to sell their products. In reality, Microsoft monopolized music, because its pretty much impossible to get any kind of DRM music or player without it being involved. Apple just beat Microsoft in the marketplace by offering a better product before Microsoft could lock it all up. Without iTunes, we'd have the "choice" of various Windows Media stores and various Windows Media players, just as PC buyers only have the "choice" of buying Windows PCs from various makers.

      In a similarly monopolized business, say the old phone market, or in the case of newspaper/broadcasting markets, there are laws that prevent companies with a certain position from acquiring other companies to extend their control over the market or leverage their control over one market to obliterate another. The fact that other smaller companies are not similarly restricted is not a defense against antitrust laws, and it makes no sense to bring up as if it were.

      Saying that Apple bundles Safari or that Nokia bundles its own browser on its phones or that Nintendo offers Opera for the Wii is completely immaterial to the fact that Microsoft used its PC monopoly position to destroy Netscape, Sun, and every other rival in the desktop/web/API space to entrench Windows and tie all web development to its own proprietary browser. It just makes you look really stupid to repeat such absurd comments. What has Microsoft done for you lately?

      How Microsoft Got Its Office Monopoly

  2. No Conspiracy Theories by speaker+of+the+truth · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:No Conspiracy Theories by mattpalmer1086 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Since when did Microsoft care about pissing off its users? What realistic alternative do they have?

    2. Re:No Conspiracy Theories by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Microsoft does not benefit by deliberately pissing off its users in this way.

      No they are merely testing, how far they can push their flock. One has periodically test these things to know how much you can get away with. Without precise knowledge of how much the users will put up with, they might be a little conservative and lose money they would have otherwise made. Further this will also raise the pain threshold of the users, once they get used to this level of pain, they will not see anything wrong with Vista.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    3. Re:No Conspiracy Theories by Yer+Mum · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But they benefit from deliberately installing stuff on the computers of users who don't get pissed off.

      Don't want people to download Firefox or Opera? Push IE7 as a critical update.

      Don't want people to download Google Desktop? Push Windows Desktop Search as a critical update.

      Probably the balance between pissed-off users and non-pissed-off users makes it worthwhile in the end.

    4. Re:No Conspiracy Theories by sm62704 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It is NEVER okay for a company to install an application on my computer without my concent.

      When you install an application (say, a smiley face cursor or a security update) and that installation installs a different application without your consent (say, a spam mailer or a desktop search), isn''t that called a trojan?

      What's next, rootkits? Oh wait, this is Microsoft, they wrote the OS. You're already rooted.

      -mcgrew

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    5. Re:No Conspiracy Theories by mattpalmer1086 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Fabulous - my first Troll mod :) I actually felt I was making a serious point, although I guess I put it rather briefly.

      People don't have a realistic alternative to Windows yet. It's not just a technology issue either. Microsoft only improve products when they face competition, and ensuring they don't have to do that is one of their principal business strategies.

      Since Microsoft is (a) in the game of making money, (b) has a monopoly position in the market place and (c) continues to shut out competitors, then I contend that Microsoft don't care whether they piss off their users or not, and never really did care, except in those areas in which they are yet to dominate.

      Pleasing users is not Microsoft's game. That's what their competitors have to do.

    6. Re:No Conspiracy Theories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Relax. We're not interested in your 1.08GB Hello Kitty porn collection.

      -- Microsoft

    7. Re:No Conspiracy Theories by myvirtualid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This sounds like a dumb mistake

      Assuming that this is just a dumb mistake, I don't know what's worse:

      • Microsoft's complete and total lack of quality control, how many years after they claimed to have made security their number one priority? If your processes are so pathetic that mistakes like this make it out the door, you don't get security and likely never will. Change management is a paramount security control.
      • Someone, anyone, offering them such a pathetic get out of jail card

      Oh, but to err is human!, I hear you saying.

      Bollocks. When it comes to the operating system that runs the vaaaaaaast majority of desktops worldwide, quality counts. Or should.

      --
      I'm here EdgeKeep Inc.
    8. Re:No Conspiracy Theories by nine-times · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I guess I would wonder how this was able to happen at all. The admins configured the service so that the update wouldn't happen, and it happened anyway. Why was the software built in such a way that an outside party could even have the option of pushing an update against the configured settings?

    9. Re:No Conspiracy Theories by jvkjvk · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Further this will also raise the pain threshold of the users, once they get used to this level of pain, they will not see anything wrong with Vista. Now, there's some forward thinking. Keep pushing out updates to XP, slowly yet continually make the user experience worse and worse. After a year, it could be worse than Vista - if they work at it. They don't need to improve Vista, they just need to hobble XP!
    10. Re:No Conspiracy Theories by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Firstly, Vista isn't painful. I've tried it, I use it, it's fine. I even have UAC on, because it isn't as annoying as everyone makes it out to be. Although I must say as a disclaimer that I, like many people, haven't tried to set up a HD home cinema setup, so perhaps I'm not experiencing the worst of it.

      Secondly, the thing that's really slowing Vista adoption is not the alleged pain, but the fact that most people don't trust Windows until at least one service pack. This is a critical time for Microsoft. If Microsoft really want to make money (and trust me, they do), they would be focussing on rushing out a service pack, and concentrate on lessening the waves of FUD that are circulating around the web.

      In short, I think the GP is right, and the theory of a demonic Microsoft playing with its market like they were pawns in a chess game is absolutely absurd.

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    11. Re:No Conspiracy Theories by C0rinthian · · Score: 2, Informative

      You know, it's a lot easier to simply turn off the tray program in the QT preferences. No need to hack your registry.

    12. Re:No Conspiracy Theories by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I think we have freeware/OSS to thank for a lot of that actually. I've used file sharing programs that had a dozen releases and every one was a beta :) Similarly with some of the programs that used to ship with KDE. I'm not sure what they are trying to get at, is it "sorry that it doesn't work, but well, it is beta?" kind of reasoning :) I think some logical structure to release numbers makes sense, like MySQL's even odd methodology, if it ends in an even digit it is general release, if odd then it is beta/pre-release.

      IMO .Net obsoleted Java at .Net 1.1. Java can be used, but from then on .Net had more features, better performance, and "language independance" is a winner. Java is useful, and there is probably a 5 year window where people coming through a CS degree, learned OOP on Java (before it switched back to C++/C#, at least that is what happened at my school, and a few others I know of), so there is a lot of developers out there more comfortable with Java. So if it suits the projects needs, go for it. However, I love being able to code in the language that the solution comes into my head, if VB then VB.net, if Cish then C# or managed C++. While Eclipse is nice, it is still behind VS as an IDE, I know it is kind of a non-technical reasoning, but VS looks better, andVS feels more "integrated" to me. Add to it a large range of 3rd party vendors that supply pluggins to VS (I use Component Softwares CVS/RCS plugin for example, it seemlessly plugs into Windows as a whole, VS recognizes it as does office and Win explorer), and I'm able to integrate my whole dev env not just the editor/designer into one app.

    13. Re:No Conspiracy Theories by Ch40sC0d3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How many dumb mistakes are the public going to take before they get to a point were they wont use windows anymore? That point for me was last week when I installed ubuntu 7.10 and guess what. I don't have this problem or any other windows related silly things. I HAVE BEEN SET FREE! THANKS UBUNTU!!!!!!!

  3. Enough with the stealth auto-"updates" dammit! by Chas · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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!!!
    1. Re:Enough with the stealth auto-"updates" dammit! by speaker+of+the+truth · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

      --
      Using openSUSE instead of Windows since 9th of October, 2007 and liking it.
    2. Re:Enough with the stealth auto-"updates" dammit! by mysticgoat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Fuck the Storm botnet. We have bigger problems with a piece of malware called "Windows Update".

      There is a fix for the "Windows Update" problem. If universally applied, it will also fix the Storm Worm.

      You know what it is.

    3. Re:Enough with the stealth auto-"updates" dammit! by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Microsoft is abusing it's position as the sole control point of Windows Update to push more of their crap into the market.

      when I first started using windows, I never used windows update. I was suspicious of it and I'd rather just manage my own security even though I would lose out on bugfixes. over time, I grew to 'accept' that MS was trustable in their updates and I started using them. I would approve each one and check to make sure nothing was getting installed that didn't seem useful or needed. but I was 'into' the MS update thing each month and updated my PCs.

      over the last year or two (give or take) I lost this trust. it also seems to be about the time that vista came into the scene. I don't run vista and I don't think I ever will, but if I was losing trust in MS's ability to force ONLY essential updates on me. it seems that if I can't even trust xp's update, why would I want to take things to the next level of non-control and give the full 'admin' switch to MS and just be at their update-stream mercy? its my understanding that vista boxes HAVE to be continually (not continuously, but mostly online) in order for them to stay (cough) 'current'. in all that that implies..

      if you are a vista user, you MUST accept and trust the update stream. but I can't even trust it as an xp admin or user; how does MS expect me to give them full control over my box by installing and using vista?

      I stopped taking the updates from the net and instead use the heisse security thing (the offline update cdrom method). I have a frozen image from when I think there were only 'good' things in that update and I guess that's pretty much the last of the updates I'm going to install (ever) on my xp boxes.

      the bond of trust is broken and so I could never accept installing or running vista. I can't examine or really approve/disapprove each update in vista and so ALL my control is essentially gone. no thanks.. really, no thanks!

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    4. Re:Enough with the stealth auto-"updates" dammit! by Aellus · · Score: 2

      Oh please, if everyone used linux then the spyware/malware/virus gremlins would simply write all their software for linux. You know it, I know it, and virus authors know it. They wouldn't sit around continuing to write windows viruses wondering why no one was getting infected.

    5. Re:Enough with the stealth auto-"updates" dammit! by Penguinisto · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh please, if everyone used linux then the spyware/malware/virus gremlins would simply write all their software for linux. You know it, I know it, and virus authors know it. They wouldn't sit around continuing to write windows viruses wondering why no one was getting infected.

      Perhaps, but it would damned sure thin the malware herd a bit. The script kiddies would quickly realize that it isn't so easy to build a botnet out of 48 different distros of Linux, each often reacting to a given flaw in different ways, and some simply ignoring the flaw altogether?

      Sure, Linux (or more accurately, its apps) has a fair share of flaws that a stupid user could help the script kiddies exploit (*cough*PHP*cough*), but they're far harder to exploit overall, are anything but homogeneous, and thus the damage would be far more contained.

      I mean, seriously - it would take a long time before the script kiddies could assemble botnets of, say, 1/2 the magnitude that they do now with Windows. It would at least give us good guys enough of a break to come up with something more effective in keeping such incidents perfectly rare.

      /P

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  4. Addition to TFA by cerberusss · · Score: 4, Informative

    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?
    1. Re:Addition to TFA by El_Muerte_TDS · · Score: 4, Informative

      I have neither Office 2007 nor Windows Live Photo gallery installed but Desktop Search was got installed anyway.

    2. Re:Addition to TFA by alexburke · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This only happens on Windows XP, when you have either Office 2007 or Windows Live Photo gallery installed. I don't think this is the case. I watched it go on at least one machine yesterday with neither of those installed; it *might* have had Office 2000 SR-1 Professional, but probably not.

      Conspiracy theory: MS is doing this to cause older or marginal boxes to become less responsive/snappy so as to further nudge the owners towards getting a new machine... and hence Vista.

    3. Re:Addition to TFA by jwegman · · Score: 2, Informative

      So glad to see this item today; I was sure I was losing it. I have an medium-sized network with a WSUS 3.0 server and the Desktop Search "update" came through a few months ago and I've purposely left it "Not Approved" in WSUS since then. I sat down at my PC yesterday morning and almost choked on my coffee when I saw that damn search box sitting on my taskbar. My PC is the only one on my network that received the update. I'm running XP and have Office 2000 and Office 2003 installed on my system, but I also have Office 2007 Compatibility Pack installed which is not on any of my other machines. This leads me to believe that it must have something to do with Office 2007.

      This is absolute crap!!! I hope this one triggers someone to do something about Microsoft's ever increasing invasiveness. Something needs to happen before their greed has truly disastrous consequences.

    4. Re:Addition to TFA by wannabegeek2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Consider this, and yes I know it's now being said a lot!

      The answer to slower than desired uptake of Vista, is to break XP. It's just that simple.

      I DON'T use Auto update, and never have. I want to KNOW what is going on to my 'puter. It is simply the ONLY way to put yourself in a position to troubleshoot problems or avoid unpleasant and productivity sucking downtime.

      I am conscientious about checking the Window Update site (home systems) and applying what I believe are relevant and useful updates. Even applying this methodology however I've been bitten.

      Relevant to the current discussion are the recent additions to Windows update of Critical and (mostly) Optional updates for "Vista compatibility". IE7, PNRP, Remote Desktop Connection, and others.

      As an example of the "hurt XP" theory, and after a reasonably careful review of the PNRP update I elected to install it across my network. WHAT A MISTAKE! Network performance plummeted, and the stability of the network went from rock solid to barely functional.

      To quote the Technet article on PNRP "PNRP is an efficient, protected, low cost, dynamic protocol that uses an iterative, serverless method for name resolution.". In my environment it was anything but any of these. My network was killed with PNRP traffic, and using Wireshark I found PNRP continually trying to get out of my LAN.

      Any of the foregoing would have been enough to drive PNRP off my systems. After thinking about the experience however, and working a short time with a Vista machine, I'm becoming suspicious that the "works with Vista" claims are in reality a will break XP warning.

      Worth considering, and passing along to your XP using friends.

      --
      Never ascribe to malice or conspiracy that which can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
  5. WTF? by east+coast · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:WTF? by makomk · · Score: 3, Informative

      Unfortunately, this one apparently affects admins who were doing what they were supposed to and using WSUS. Commenters on the Register article were complaining that they'd set up WSUS to require them to approve patches, but it had taken it upon itself to auto-approve Windows Search to be installed on all systems anyway...

    2. Re:WTF? by east+coast · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Automatic Updates is the quickest way of deploying patches to a computer, especially if an IT department has to maintain hundreds of those PCs.

      You must not be an admin.

      Fortunately, this just adds to the number of reasons to switch to Linux. :-)

      Again, you must not be an admin. It's a job, not a hobby. When the powers that be tell you that they want certain software and that software isn't available on Linux that's the only reason you need not to switch. We serve the customers needs, not our own whims.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    3. Re:WTF? by EvilNight · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Companies that can't afford to send a fleet of tech monkeys running around to all of the desktops (in other words, most of them).

      I manage the WSUS at my company. No updates are EVER to be passed through without my direct approval, even new revisions of previously approved updates. We've had far too many updates go through and break things to allow any kind of auto approval. So, imagine my surprise when I sit down to a cup of coffee and my morning log review, and the first thing I see when I log in is the Windows Update icon telling me to install Windows Desktop Search - something I never approved.

      It went straight through, completely ignoring all of our security policies in the process. I was a little irritated at the Windows Update self-update passing through but I let that one slide since it was a MUCH needed bugfix and MS got a suitable backlash from it (silly me, thinking it was a one-time thing). Now we have the same behavior again months later. This is not acceptable. Luckily I'm in a bit earlier than most people so I was able to recall it with a few ninja edits to our group policy, and a company wide email apologizing for allowing it to be published, and warning people to avoid installing it if it somehow still got through to their systems.

      I made a few changes. Our WSUS servers now no longer have internet access and are not scheduled to download. I must manually turn on their internet access in our firewall and activate the pull interactively. That way I will see the updates as they arrive, and not have to put up with this stealth update bullshit in the future. I clearly cannot trust them to just sit there and acquire updates on their own any longer.

      I'm now developing a security policy for our corporate security software that will forcibly kill any applications on a blacklist I am creating. I will be adding Google Desktop, Windows Desktop Search, Plaxo, AIM, and any other programs I find that have a habit of sending data back home to outside companies. I'll happily find people alternatives that don't phone home - it's not the apps that bother me, it's the potential for leakage of our corporate data to third parties. I don't particularly care if the feature can be turned off, since I'm not the one installing it. If a program has potential to phone home, it's banned.

      --
      Hell is being intelligent in a world full of idiots.
    4. Re:WTF? by EvilNight · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm not sure. If I had to guess, I'd guess that it has something to do with the age of our WSUS servers. We started on 1.0 early on, upgraded to 2.0, then to 3.0 recently along with SP2 for 2003. The server itself started life as a Windows 2000 system so that upgrade process was run as well. The server has also had a complete hardware change three times over the last seven years. Microsoft's products are never so buggy on a fresh build as they are when part of a lengthy upgrade tree where the potential to fall down a rabbit hole of untested codepaths is much greater. Unfortunately we can't afford to just scrub every Microsoft service when we move to a new version. I also have a script running once a week to run the recommended cleanup using wsusutil on the WSUS database (and yes I've fixed it to run with the latest version). ;)

      Other than this strange auto-approval, we've had no problems whatsoever with WSUS 3.0. It's been great actually. The improved reporting and granularity is a welcome addition that we have yet to truly take advantage of. WDS3 was successfully retracted from the approved list after I revoked it, and I've backed out the GPO changes without any trouble. It's no longer showing up on the clients. Also, BDD2007 and our repository of published software (both in a DFS root) resides on the same WSUS server. I've also grafted Linux PXE and Solaris Jumpstart into RIS/BDD2007 so it's something of a custom build. I don't really think those apps should be interacting with WSUS3 in any way though. Totally different services and disk partitions. There are some user home directories there as well.

      As to some of the other posters, I don't know that WDS phones home, yet. I haven't taken the time to do a thorough analysis, but I tend to err on the side of paranoia (after all, security is part of my job). I get very suspicious of any programs collecting data about a computer or user activities in the name of making the user experience better. I also don't see the use of an indexing system that kills the performance of one's operating system. I don't trust MS as far as I can shot-put the planet either.

      Our GPO already disables all file indexing, NTFS short filename creation, system restore, unnecessary services like UPnP and messenger, and sets sane, non-annoying defaults for apps like MSN messenger, the language toolbar, media center, etc. It even restores the XP search to the better, more basic 2000 version (it's amazing what you can do with a .reg push in a GPO). Essentially I took my 10+ years of experience un-fucking windows default configurations and turned it into a GPO so I didn't have to keep doing it the hard way. I've got custom MSI files assigned to workstations to install apps like the entire sysinternals suite, VLC media player (beats having users install real/quicktime/divx), and so forth. It's a rather mature, customized environment aimed at getting Windows out of the user's way so they can get work done. (And play - we don't ban games.)

      And yes, my users have local admin on their desktops. Windows isn't really designed to operate any other way (and I don't have a Fortune 500 budget to fix it like some others do). Our solution to the constant risk of IE was to recommend people use firefox whenever possible (with noscript, adblock, etc) and to get IE, firefox, and other internet-touching apps to run under an unprivileged, local user account that was created to share the exact same desktop/docs/favorites etc as the real user. We also took some time to educate them on safe surfing habits.

      What worries me is the trend lately for, say, apps like Sun's Java to ask (default is yes) to install apps like Google Desktop during their normal upgrade cycle. Frankly most users have better things on their minds than wondering if the apps they are clicking upgrade for are about to trojan their boxes with 3rd party bundled software. That's why I'm eyeing an app-killing security policy for the more egregious offenders.

      --
      Hell is being intelligent in a world full of idiots.
  6. Annoying? Yes. by walterwalter · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Annoying? Yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Facts are not welcome here. Please edit your post to include some anti-Microsoft comments.

  7. Re:Can someone confirm this? by pelago · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  8. little do they know... by AndyST · · Score: 4, Funny

    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

  9. Best described with song by jollyreaper · · Score: 5, Funny

    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
  10. "An anonymous reader writes" by sm62704 · · Score: 2, Funny

    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
  11. Read the blog links by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  12. misleading by Bizzeh · · Score: 3, Informative

    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
    1. Re:misleading by MikeyVB · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, TFA is not misleading at all.

      I am one of the Systems Admin for a company with 2000+ users. We use WSUS for updating our clients, and our WSUS settings are set to not install any updates of any kind what so ever unless we explicitly approved of them.

      Yesterday ALL of our users suddenly got the Windows Desktop Search app. We double checked our WSUS settings, confirmed that updates only install with approval, and also explicitly "Declined" the Windows Desktop Search. It still continued to roll out, even though we said we didn't want it!

      We use Lotus Notes for our corperate e-mail, and so Outlook is not installed on any computers, and so of course since Windows Desktop Search indexes your Outlook e-mail, and since we didn't have it, everytime a user logs on now, they get two error messages about that it can't find Outlook and can't index your e-mail. Ridiculus!!!!!

      Called Microsoft for support (we have an enterprise license) and said they would "look into it" and "get back to us". No matter that our users are calling like crazy and wondering what is going on...

      I *hate* Microsoft now.

    2. Re:misleading by R2.0 · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Ridiculus!!!!!"

      Professor Lupin, is that you?

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    3. Re:misleading by cwastell · · Score: 5, Informative

      It was released as an revision update. WSUS automatically approves those by default, even if you've got every other type of update set to manual approval. Its a separate tab (Advanced) in the Automatic Approvals dialog, so its basically a hidden setting unless you're looking for it.

  13. Like I keep Saying by vtcodger · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Automatic Updates do not seem to me to be a very good idea -- for users anyway. The big problem is that on bad days, they have the potential to shut down you or your organization with no warning. In fact, they can easily be more cataclysmic than a virus or rootkit. Malware may well try not crash your machine because killing the host is a bad strategy for a parasite. Bad updates do not have any such constraint.

    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
  14. Quality Control by oliverthered · · Score: 2, Funny

    Gees, we have better quality control where I work. and we don't have any.

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.
  15. Odd people the NSA by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  16. Re:Not False Alarm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The article refers to windows update services and not windows update.

    Thanks for playing though

  17. Similarly as Beagle.... by xtracto · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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'
    1. Re:Similarly as Beagle.... by GooberToo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My brother found his system was spiking, making some game play impossible. Turns out it was Beagle periodically running, wasting disk and CPU. He uninstalled the POS and everything was great afterwards.

      I agree, I see no point in apps like Beagle.

    2. Re:Similarly as Beagle.... by Tekzel · · Score: 5, Funny

      Gah, it will index my porn! I don't want it to do that, it will make it easier for my wife to find it. Please god, don't let it index my porn.

      Note: This post was only partially tongue in cheek. I don't really care if my wife finds my porn.

    3. Re:Similarly as Beagle.... by nschubach · · Score: 5, Funny

      Rename all your Porn to "How to build a deck." "How to fix an engine."

      That will guarantee she doesn't look at it.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    4. Re:Similarly as Beagle.... by egomaniac · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm a Mac user, so our closest equivalent is Spotlight. I don't know how Spotlight compares to Windows' built-in search or to Beagle, but I do know one reason why it's great to have.

      No matter how well-organized your file system is, and even if you know the exact path to a file already, Spotlight is still faster for accessing it. To open Photoshop Elements, I just type "ph" , and it's running. I know exactly where Photoshop is installed and I don't need to "search" for it, but typing four keystrokes to get it running is faster than any other means of accessing it (at least for stuff that I don't use frequently enough to keep on my Dock).

      Same deal with bookmarks -- I can get to Wikipedia, even if my browser isn't running, just by typing "wik" . It's not always about searching in the literal sense; sometimes it's just a super-convenient shortcut to a known location.

      (Disclaimer: This opinion is based on Spotlight in Leopard. On Tiger, I broke down and installed Quicksilver.)

      --
      ZFS: because love is never having to say fsck
    5. Re:Similarly as Beagle.... by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 2, Funny

      Why is your porn on an unencrypted, easily accessible volume that your wife has rights on? Huh? I don't get it....

      Yeah, yeah, I see it's tongue in the cheek, but my data is inaccessible for my wife. She has no business in there, and neither have I in her data.

    6. Re:Similarly as Beagle.... by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 2, Funny

      Note: This post was only partially tongue in cheek. I don't really care if my wife finds my porn.
      Perhaps you would care more if you found your wife's porn instead...
      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    7. Re:Similarly as Beagle.... by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 3, Funny

      You clearly are not married...
      *sigh*

      Q: Did you know that there is a food out there that will stop a woman from wanting sex?
      A: Its' called "Wedding Cake"

      *sigh*

  18. Re:Can someone confirm this? by plague3106 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  19. Article Incorrect by Toreo+asesino · · Score: 5, Informative

    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();
    1. Re:Article Incorrect by hb253 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Wrong. I'm administaer WSUS 3.0 in my company and the desktop search app was not auto approved or autoinstalled. As I've said in other posts, if WSUS released the patch, it's the admins fault, pure and simple.

      --
      Self awareness - try it!
    2. Re:Article Incorrect by thehermit · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Seems as though there is some varying behavior with this update - perhaps related to the time the WSUS servers synced with MS?

      Our WSUS server (version 2.0, version 3 upgrade planned for Q1-2008) has Automatic detection only turned on for critical and security updates. All other auto approval options including revisions to updates have been turned off since early 2006. All 2.6.x versions of desktop search were declined when they were released in April 2006 and January 2007 since we do not want this software for various performance, privacy and security reasons. (our systems hold public and private records) We only approve updates on the second Friday of each month, so they can be deployed over the weekend and we catch patch Tuesday.

      Yet despite these precautions, "Windows Desktop Search 3.0.1 for Windows XP (KB917013)" was downloaded with approval set to Install for all computers after the synchronization on 10/23/2007 at 3:03am. When I logged into my computer in the morning, I got the "Updates are ready..." message and thought "that's kinda weird....." then I drank some coffee and said "oh crap."

      We are not the only ones seeing this behavior. Check the newsgroup microsoft.public.windows.server.update_services . No mention has been made on the MS WSUS team blog yet.

      MS really shouldn't be using the auto-install trump card on an add-on like this. They should really be saving it for an update that prevents the spread of an exploit, worm, or virus that is quickly spreading. Anyone else remember Melissa?

      To MS - dealing with this unwanted installation is costing us time and money - this tends to piss off the Finance guys who will then cut our budgets as being wasteful and then we'll have less to spend on the software you've locked our organization into...guess where that will go...

      Allan W.

      --
      thehermit
    3. Re:Article Incorrect by ciggieposeur · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm administaer WSUS 3.0 in my company and the desktop search app was not auto approved or autoinstalled. As I've said in other posts, if WSUS released the patch, it's the admins fault, pure and simple.

      I would say that if there are a lot of admins who have been using WSUS successfully for a long time and yet saw this problem, AND if their WSUS installations would have done the right thing if configured correctly, AND if they were in fact incorrectly configured, THEN the problem might be one of faulty documentation and/or training on Microsoft's part.

      We are so quick to say that the "RTFM newb!" attitude from Unix gurus is the fault of the gurus and not the new users, shouldn't the same standard prevent us from blaming these Windows admins who got burned?

  20. How long will the blind trust last? by erroneus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.)

    So for those who don't trust Microsoft and use it anyway, there's stuff like Deep Freeze. :) 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.

  21. I tell a lie.... by Toreo+asesino · · Score: 5, Informative

    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();
  22. Bye Bye Privacy and Business Users by Erris · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  23. At least you can remove it by MjDelves · · Score: 3, Informative

    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

  24. WSUS is your friend by Verteiron · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
  25. More ideas by theantipop · · Score: 4, Funny

    "How to fix the cable"
    "How to clean a pool"
    "How to deliver pizza"

    1. Re:More ideas by red_dragon · · Score: 5, Funny

      "How to lay pipe."

      --
      In Soviet Russia, Jesus asks: "What Would You Do?"
  26. You don't have to install it... by Techogeek · · Score: 4, Informative

    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!

  27. Re:Forced? by WED+Fan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It may be optional for you, but then again your network might not have automatic network-wide updates configured.

    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.
  28. I can confirm this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  29. Who's being "forced" to do anything?! by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Who's being "forced" to do anything?! by Aczlan · · Score: 2, Informative

      Same here... last night I ran windows update (advanced mode) and did not select to download the search upgrade and guess what... it didnt install... funny thing about that.. windows isnt perfect but that does not make it ok to spread FUD about it. Aaron Z

      --
      "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote
    2. Re:Who's being "forced" to do anything?! by SomethingGeneric · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The way that you have setup Windows update is different than most large corporate environments. YOU have configured the update service to prompt you when updates are available and allow you to choose which to install. In most multi thousand PC Windows networks you do not want to give users that power, you configure the service to install patches for security issues and ONLY those applications already installed. The ONLY those applications currently installed part is the problem. MS is forcing the installation of a NEW program which WAS NOT already installed. They are ignoring the choice made by the sys admins and installing the search application whether they wanted it or not.

    3. Re:Who's being "forced" to do anything?! by jellomizer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your internet seems to be down.... Call up your ISP they disconnected you because of Spamming... You don't Spam... Well then you should check your system and see who is sending out all these packets we will give you access again after this is fixed....

      Just because your system may not have important information it doesn't mean you should be lack on security. Having a good firewall is fine and good but that stops direct attacks on your system. Not indirect where you go to a page or download a program. Or heck someone breaks into the Game Company systems and that MMORG you are playing has a hole in it that some hacker is using. Update are not the golden ticket but staying uptodate even if you need to redelete some icons will help prevent some of the attacks.

      There are cases where people get arrested for Illegal content on their system and the only reason it is there is because of malware doing the bad stuff in the background without you knowing.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    4. Re:Who's being "forced" to do anything?! by Entropius · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, I'd notice a spambot running from spurious network activity, and my ISP is certainly right to disconnect me if something like that happens and I don't fix it first.

      All I have to say is that it's not happened yet, and that I believe the risk of h4x0r-types screwing up my system is less than Microsoft screwing up my system.

      And, to date, I've spent more time cleaning up after Microsoft updates than dealing with intrusions. In the worst case, I blow away the partition and reload everything from backups. No biggie.

    5. Re:Who's being "forced" to do anything?! by crabpeople · · Score: 4, Informative

      WRONG. mod parent down.

      My wsus downloaded and marked them as INSTALL tuesday night, they were rolled out at 3am just as any update I would have approved. EXCEPT I DID NOT APPROVE IT. Why the fuck would I 1) approve a patch the same day it was released with NO testing and 2) EVER APPROVE WINDOWS DESKTOP SEARCH.

      People like you piss me the fuck off. I run a tight ship. WSUS has NEVER done this before. EVER. It was 100% their fucking fault. Just because it didnt happen to you doesnt mean it didnt happen.

      --
      I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
    6. Re:Who's being "forced" to do anything?! by nuknuk · · Score: 2, Informative

      to be fair to the parent you think should be modded down, my experience is the same as his. windows 2003 server, WSUS 3.0, i show them marked as "updates". Should people like YOU piss me off?

      --
      You can pick your nodes, and you can pick your friends, but you can't pick your friend's nodes
    7. Re:Who's being "forced" to do anything?! by bstempi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Are you running WSUS2? I'm wondering if perhaps there is a difference in behavior between the 2 systems in regards to this patch.

    8. Re:Who's being "forced" to do anything?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      My wsus downloaded and marked them as INSTALL tuesday night, they were rolled out at 3am just as any update I would have approved. EXCEPT I DID NOT APPROVE IT.

      Perhaps your "Automatic Approval" options settings caused it to be approved for install? For me, I have nothing set to be automatically installed (my only automatic approval is "Detect Only"), and the Windows desktop updates all came in as "Declined". But, SP2 for Windows Server 2003 came in as "Install", when is should have been "Detect Only".

      Something is definitely weird about this group of updates.

    9. Re:Who's being "forced" to do anything?! by Arterion · · Score: 3, Informative

      I had the same problem. As it turns out, I had an auto-approval setup for updates that supersede previous updates. I look, and, sure enough, there was an update in there for "Windows Desktop Search 2.6.5 (KB911993)" and "Windows Desktop Search 2.6.6 (KB926356)". So when the new version came down the pipe, it was automatically approved, and sent out to all my workstations. What confuses me is that the previous versions never installed and came up on my taskbar. I have installed all the updates on my workstation (sans WDS 3.0.1) and I don't see any trace of WDS.

      What really gets me is that that isn't truly an "update" as I think of it, it's new software. Perhaps an "upgrade", but not an "update".

      --
      "That which does not kill us makes us stranger." -Trevor Goodchild
    10. Re:Who's being "forced" to do anything?! by Hydian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      That tingly feeling (no, the other one) is due to you being an end user and not an administrator and thus having absolutely no clue what the entire article is actually talking about. Nobody cares if the update is pushed down onto a home user's machine (and yes, it isn't forced or stealthed like the previous update to windows update itself was.)

      The issue is that Microsoft released this as an update revision, but had really changed the scope of the package to include an installer.

      The way that WSUS works, the administrator approves updates for his network. Once approved, revisions to an update don't require additional approval. These updates will only apply themselves to machines that already have the program in question installed. So, for example, I could approve the updates for Office 2007 for my entire network, but only the machines that have Office 2007 installed will actually download and install them. I don't need to worry about what software each machine has installed on it. The system handles that by itself.

      Since this package was flagged as a revision, it passed through WSUS with approval if the previous update had approval. However, since it was actually an installer, it loaded the program onto every machine whether it already had Desktop Search installed or not.

      Makes me glad that I was forced to take WSUS offline on a network that I'm responsible for. I didn't need to be there all day today.
    11. Re:Who's being "forced" to do anything?! by atamido · · Score: 2, Informative

      I just noticed the exact same thing happened to me as Arterion. I guess that I'd approved the older Windows Desktop Search when I just automatically approved everything when we first set WSUS up. That makes me a bit nervous, especially since I don't see anything resembling a WDS 2.6 installed on any of the desktops. I know that the latest revisions install a search bar in the task bar. What exactly does WDS 3.01 do? Does it keep searches separate for each user? Does it move the index with a roaming profile?

  30. If you have porn .. why do you need ... by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Funny

    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
    1. Re:If you have porn .. why do you need ... by jagdish · · Score: 5, Funny

      "An ounce of action is worth a ton of theory."
      -Fredrich Engel

  31. Re:Forced? by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  32. WTF? Did you really say... by WED+Fan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.
  33. Re:Forced? by Real1tyCzech · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  34. I call double-bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  35. Hello Kitty porn collection by DragonHawk · · Score: 2, Funny

    Relax. We're not interested in your 1.08GB Hello Kitty porn collection.

    Link, please.




    ;-)

    --

    dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
    I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
    1. Re:Hello Kitty porn collection by speaker+of+the+truth · · Score: 2, Funny

      C:\Hello Kitty\

      Hope that helps you :)

      --
      Using openSUSE instead of Windows since 9th of October, 2007 and liking it.
  36. It might be ~8 years old... by BUL2294 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...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
  37. Re:Can someone confirm this? by Grimfaire · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  38. Re:Forcefully? by JohnFluxx · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's not about you, it's about companies. They have to leave the automatic updates on for security updates.

  39. Why this isn't FUD by ACMENEWSLLC · · Score: 2, Informative

    Fact. I have WDS 2.x installed. It works with Kerio. 3.x doesn.t

    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 /q /norestart

  40. Microsoft lapdogs by dinther · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    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 .net stuff. They tend to use MS SQL Server and of course use any other quick solution Microsoft throws at them.

    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, .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.

  41. And even worse... by Bearhouse · · Score: 2, Informative

    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$?