On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 2:08 AM, Eris Discordia <eris.discor...@gmail.com> wrote: > This thing about Windows updates, I think it's a non-issue. It's not like > updates are mandatory and, as a matter of fact, there's rather fine-grained > classification of them on Microsoft's knowledge base which can be used by > any more or less experienced user to identify exactly what they need for > addressing a specific glitch and to download and install that and only that. > Periodic updates of Windows are really unnecessary and can be easily turned > off. Cumulative updates (like the service packs), on the other hand, are > often the best way to go.
That is a lie. There are updates which (at least on XP) you could never refuse. Nevermind the fact that Windows would have to restart more than once on a typical series of updates. > > What seems to actually be the problem for you is that you don't like being > told there's a closed modification to your existing closed software. Well, > that's the nature of binary-only proprietary for-profit software. The only > way to get you to pay out of anything other than good will, which is a rare > bird. No, I think he's saying that Windows Update is a piece of fetid garbage. > > P.S. On open/free software mailing lists and forums justice is often not > done to Windows, et al. Particularly, no meaningful alternative is presented > for carrying out the important duties Windows currently performs for general > computing, i.e. non-technical home and office applications which combined > together were and continue to be the killer application of microcomputers. Mac's updater is miles ahead of Windows Update, but both are still crappy. I've given Linux to several "computer illiterates" and they were immediately relieved that they could open up a single application and search for any kind of software they needed, and updating it all was done by that simple application. How simple is that! The rate of failure of updates (compared to Windows update, which would leave you with a completely unusable system every once in a while) was also much lower. > > --On Saturday, April 18, 2009 8:11 AM +0200 lu...@proxima.alt.za wrote: > >>> The update/installation process in Ubuntu sucks. If you try something >>> using BSD ports or Gentoo portage, you can fine tune things and have >>> explicit control over the update process. >> >> I was specifically omitting BSD ports, as they are in a different >> league. The point I _was_ making is that one readily sacrifices >> control for convenience and that Linux and Windows users and those who >> assist them have to accept second-rate management and pay for it (I >> should know, I can see it when XP decides to use the GPRS link for its >> updating :-( >> >> Enough reason for me to prefer Plan 9 (and NetBSD, but I can only get >> my teeth into so many apples), if there weren't many more reasons. >> >> ++L >> >> > >
