09-14-2007
|
#11 |
|
|
Re: Stealth Updates are just wrong
news:0F43528C-A93A-46BF-A51E-4F95E5B59C22@microsoft.com... > "Saucy" <saucy538347334873772.sjhdf@net.net.net> wrote in message > news:%23f2Du1t9HHA.1484@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > >> >> >> "Public outcry"? Have you had your coffee this morning Mr. Brown? >> >>  >> >>< chop > > > This update was pushed out to all Windows computers (XP and Vista for > sure, Windows Server maybe) regardless of what you had set Windows update > to do. In other words even if you had set "Never check for updates" this > update was downloaded and installed without any notification. > > -- > Kerry Brown > Microsoft MVP - Shell/User > http://www.vistahelp.ca > > Are you sure Microsoft actually did this? What update(s) specifically was 'pushed'? A lot of blanket statements get said on this newsgroups by Linux advocates that are just way out in left field. I'm skeptical that there's been such a mystery update. Saucy |
|
09-14-2007
|
#12 |
|
|
Re: Stealth Updates are just wrong
<Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_much@spam yourself.com> wrote: >Kerry Brown wrote: >> After reading the many posts in this newsgroup, blogs from Microsoft, >> blogs from Microsoft critics and fans, magazine articles, I have come to >> the conclusion that Microsoft has overstepped the boundary of trust >> here. I know they legally have the right to update files with out notice >> because of the EULA. This does not excuse what they have done. They have >> an option to "Never check for updates". To me this includes updates for >> Windows Update. If it doesn't this should be stated clearly on that >> screen. The only thing that will make this clear to them is a public >> outcry. Please add your comments here for or against. It may not do any >> good but it will help to keep the issue in the public eye. Please don't >> turn this into an anti-Microsoft thread. Keep comments about the issue >> at hand and why you think it is right or wrong. Flaming Microsoft will >> get the issue ignored. Reasoned debate and comments are needed. >> > >Short answer: It is wrong. > >I do have automatic updates on, but this is a matter of principle. Another principle Microsoft conveniently overlooks; is it is MY computer and accordingly I ultimately should have the right to decide what software and updates of same gets installed or NOT. Suggested viewing: "I Robot" 2004 release starting Will Smith set in near future circa 2035 where robots have taken over many of the mundane everyday tasks humans rather not do and nearly everybody has one at home. These robots are governed by three laws: #1) they cannot harm a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. #2) they must do whatever they're told by a human being as long as such orders don't conflict with law one. #3) they have to defend themselves as long as such defense doesn't conflict with laws one or two. The plot begins with the creator of these robots supposedly jumping out a window from a high floor at the headquarters that builds these robots. It turns out one of his robots "murdered" him by design as a wake up call to the human race before it was too late just as a newer version of the robots is set to take over everything and enslave the human race. See any parallels? It is bad enough Microsoft already dominates the software market as far as operating systems, preventing competition. Now they seem intent on controlling YOUR computer as well. I don't think so. Time to pull the plug. |
|
09-14-2007
|
#13 |
|
|
Re: Stealth Updates are just wrong
http://blogs.technet.com/mu/archive/...p-to-date.aspx -- Kerry Brown Microsoft MVP - Shell/User http://www.vistahelp.ca "Saucy" <saucy538347334873772.sjhdf@net.net.net> wrote in message news:u4YZoPu9HHA.396@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > "Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message > news:0F43528C-A93A-46BF-A51E-4F95E5B59C22@microsoft.com... >> "Saucy" <saucy538347334873772.sjhdf@net.net.net> wrote in message >> news:%23f2Du1t9HHA.1484@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >> >>> >>> >>> "Public outcry"? Have you had your coffee this morning Mr. Brown? >>> >>> >>> >>>< chop > >> >> This update was pushed out to all Windows computers (XP and Vista for >> sure, Windows Server maybe) regardless of what you had set Windows update >> to do. In other words even if you had set "Never check for updates" this >> update was downloaded and installed without any notification. >> >> -- >> Kerry Brown >> Microsoft MVP - Shell/User >> http://www.vistahelp.ca >> >> > > > Are you sure Microsoft actually did this? What update(s) specifically was > 'pushed'? A lot of blanket statements get said on this newsgroups by Linux > advocates that are just way out in left field. I'm skeptical that there's > been such a mystery update. > > Saucy |
|
09-14-2007
|
#14 |
|
|
Re: Stealth Updates are just wrong
"Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in
news:286728FE-0266-46B4-9FBA-1B04F62FBC5C@microsoft.com: > After reading the many posts in this newsgroup, blogs from > Microsoft, blogs from Microsoft critics and fans, magazine > articles, I have come to the conclusion that Microsoft has > overstepped the boundary of trust here. I know they legally have > the right to update files with out notice because of the EULA. > This does not excuse what they have done. They have an option to > "Never check for updates". To me this includes updates for Windows > Update. If it doesn't this should be stated clearly on that > screen. The only thing that will make this clear to them is a > public outcry. Please add your comments here for or against. It > may not do any good but it will help to keep the issue in the > public eye. Please don't turn this into an anti-Microsoft thread. > Keep comments about the issue at hand and why you think it is > right or wrong. Flaming Microsoft will get the issue ignored. > Reasoned debate and comments are needed. > For 90% (just my guesstimate) of the users out there........My bet is it's better they don't know or have the option to choose what updates should be installed. The majority of users can barely check email let alone decide which critical core system files should be updated. One outdated or insecure pc can rack havoc on millions of people. I read this group everyday and almost all the issues are self- inflicted. People making changes trying to get Vista to function like XP or trying to get their 5+ year old unsupported apps to work or turning off system services or just making uneducated changes to their system or not knowing how a simple file structure works. (I could go on and on) Does Vista have legitimate issues......of course it does and it always will, just like XP still does to this day. that is why we have updates, they must be installed....behind the scene or not. -- The most reliable time to upgrade to a new Operating System is at the end of its life cycle. Dave |
|
09-14-2007
|
#15 |
|
|
Re: Stealth Updates are just wrong
This was put forth yesterday regarding Windows Update updating its own
software (updating itself) recently, to clarify concerns regarding how the update was installed, and the lack of user input if Automatic Updates was turned on. That is, if Automatic Updates was turned on, the update went ahead and installed without a thumbs up or down from the user: http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/wi...c-updates.aspx http://blogs.technet.com/mu/archive/...p-to-date.aspx In its history, Vista has had two such updates from the originally installed files for Windows Update, versions 7.0.6000.374 and 7.0.6000.381. On my computer, with Automatic Updates turned off, having "Never check for Updates" chosen in Settings, I actually was offered a choice to install. Of course, unless the update is installed, Windows Update won't work, at least in terms of searching for further updates. Normal use of Windows Update, in other words, is blocked until this update is installed. Anyway, I c****ed on Check for Updates in the Windows Update control panel window, and it said software had to be installed before I could check for updates, and that Windows Update would install the software, close, and then reopen, with no changes made to my personal settings, or something to that effect. It showed up in the history window as Windows Update software 7.0.6000.381 after I chose Install. (It can't be uninstalled). In Vista, it updates the following System32 files to version 7.0.6000.381: wucltux.dll wuauclt.exe wuaueng.dll wups2.dll wuapi.dll wudriver.dll wups.dll wuapp.exe wuwebv.dll "Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message news:286728FE-0266-46B4-9FBA-1B04F62FBC5C@microsoft.com... > After reading the many posts in this newsgroup, blogs from Microsoft, > blogs from Microsoft critics and fans, magazine articles, I have come to > the conclusion that Microsoft has overstepped the boundary of trust here. > I know they legally have the right to update files with out notice because > of the EULA. This does not excuse what they have done. They have an option > to "Never check for updates". To me this includes updates for Windows > Update. If it doesn't this should be stated clearly on that screen. The > only thing that will make this clear to them is a public outcry. Please > add your comments here for or against. It may not do any good but it will > help to keep the issue in the public eye. Please don't turn this into an > anti-Microsoft thread. Keep comments about the issue at hand and why you > think it is right or wrong. Flaming Microsoft will get the issue ignored. > Reasoned debate and comments are needed. > > -- > Kerry Brown > Microsoft MVP - Shell/User > http://www.vistahelp.ca > > |
|
09-14-2007
|
#16 |
|
|
Re: Stealth Updates are just wrong
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 16:00:30 GMT, Dave Cox <dcox1961@gmail.com> wrote:
>For 90% (just my guesstimate) of the users out there........My bet is >it's better they don't know or have the option to choose what >updates should be installed. > >The majority of users can barely check email let alone decide which >critical core system files should be updated. Of course you're the exception, right? ROTFLMAO! You fanboys are a delusional bunch if anything. You pretend you are expert and you're not. You pretend you know everything and you don't. You constantly look down your nose at what you foolishly consider the average user all the while you demonstrate what a klutz you are yourself by posting nonsense in this newsgroup, just like you did now. Amazing. Truly amazing! Well I have more faith in my fellow human beings than you do. Duh! > >One outdated or insecure pc can rack havoc on millions of people. > >I read this group everyday and almost all the issues are self- >inflicted. People making changes trying to get Vista to function like >XP or trying to get their 5+ year old unsupported apps to work or >turning off system services or just making uneducated changes to >their system or not knowing how a simple file structure works. (I >could go on and on) Pure bull****. Tell me oh wise one how it is I that cause Windows Explorer to choke, spin, and sputter along at 1/10th the speed of other shells moving/copying the SAME files? Please, tell me, I'll wait for more pearls of your "wisdom". Put your brainy answer right here for all to see, I await you considering expertise with baited breath. BTW, how's the weather there up on Mt. Olympus? Us mere morals never get to walk on that hallowed ground like your Windows gods. <snicker> Let's see, on the pompous windbag scale your post ranked an 8! |
|
09-14-2007
|
#17 |
|
|
Re: Stealth Updates are just wrong
"Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
news:E441F8AD-11A6-41F0-BB3D-5F238D9CD2CB@microsoft.com... > Microsoft admits this was done. > > http://blogs.technet.com/mu/archive/...p-to-date.aspx > > -- > Kerry Brown > Microsoft MVP - Shell/User > http://www.vistahelp.ca > > > "Saucy" <saucy538347334873772.sjhdf@net.net.net> wrote in message > news:u4YZoPu9HHA.396@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >> "Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message >> news:0F43528C-A93A-46BF-A51E-4F95E5B59C22@microsoft.com... >>> "Saucy" <saucy538347334873772.sjhdf@net.net.net> wrote in message >>> news:%23f2Du1t9HHA.1484@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> "Public outcry"? Have you had your coffee this morning Mr. Brown? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>< chop > >>> >>> This update was pushed out to all Windows computers (XP and Vista for >>> sure, Windows Server maybe) regardless of what you had set Windows >>> update to do. In other words even if you had set "Never check for >>> updates" this update was downloaded and installed without any >>> notification. >>> >>> -- >>> Kerry Brown >>> Microsoft MVP - Shell/User >>> http://www.vistahelp.ca >>> >>> >> >> >> Are you sure Microsoft actually did this? What update(s) specifically was >> 'pushed'? A lot of blanket statements get said on this newsgroups by >> Linux advocates that are just way out in left field. I'm skeptical that >> there's been such a mystery update. >> >> Saucy > Thanks for the link. I read the blog. OK, the blog admits to the terrible crime. Maybe they shouldn't have done that, but in my estimate it is completely inconsequential. The updater fixed itself, no reboot required. And I think they are now aware they should have explained it. While I empathize with the concern for privacy, but I think there was no harm intended (quite the contrary) and this one should just be let go .. Saucy |
|
09-14-2007
|
#18 |
|
|
Re: Stealth Updates are just wrong
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 08:57:30 -0700, "Kerry Brown"
<kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote: >Microsoft admits this was done. > >http://blogs.technet.com/mu/archive/...p-to-date.aspx If I ever seen a statement cleared by a company's legal department, the above is it. Instead of dancing all around the issue Microsoft should SAY it updated whatever. Obviously the technology is already build into Windows with it needlessly popping up all kinds of annoying notification messages in the bottom right corner of the desktop like reporting unused icons on your desktop, do you want to delete them and nagging if your want to turn on UAC if it happens to be set to off. So updating ANYTHING on the sneak and not informing the user it happened is at best deceptive and worse something far more sinister. The bottom line is why does Microsoft always end up doing things behind user's backs and then sheepishly needing to trot out some half-*** excuse why they do it? As with everything else, Microsoft does NOT respect it's users, their privacy or property and yes, MY computer is MY property and it does not belong to Microsoft to do with as they please. My computer and all it contains is MINE to do with as I please. Wish the boys of Redmond would learn that. |
|
09-14-2007
|
#19 |
|
|
Re: Stealth Updates are just wrong
Saucy wrote:
> "Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message > news:286728FE-0266-46B4-9FBA-1B04F62FBC5C@microsoft.com... >> After reading the many posts in this newsgroup, blogs from Microsoft, >> blogs from Microsoft critics and fans, magazine articles, I have come >> to the conclusion that Microsoft has overstepped the boundary of trust >> here. I know they legally have the right to update files with out >> notice because of the EULA. This does not excuse what they have done. >> They have an option to "Never check for updates". To me this includes >> updates for Windows Update. If it doesn't this should be stated >> clearly on that screen. The only thing that will make this clear to >> them is a public outcry. Please add your comments here for or against. >> It may not do any good but it will help to keep the issue in the >> public eye. Please don't turn this into an anti-Microsoft thread. Keep >> comments about the issue at hand and why you think it is right or >> wrong. Flaming Microsoft will get the issue ignored. Reasoned debate >> and comments are needed. >> >> -- >> Kerry Brown >> Microsoft MVP - Shell/User >> http://www.vistahelp.ca >> >> > > > "Public outcry"? Have you had your coffee this morning Mr. Brown? > > > > You can turn off automatic updating fully or partially. Here's the list: > > - Install update automatically (recommended) > > - Download updates but let me choose whether to install them > > - Check for updates but let me choose whether to download and install them > > - Never check for updates (not recommended) > > That pretty much covers the gamut, doesn't it? > > Have a nice day, > Saucy No, it doesn't. The updates take place regardless of user choices for those settings. That is the crux of this issue. -- norm |
|
09-14-2007
|
#20 |
|
|
Re: Stealth Updates are just wrong
Kerry Brown wrote:
> After reading the many posts in this newsgroup, blogs from Microsoft, > blogs from Microsoft critics and fans, magazine articles, I have come to > the conclusion that Microsoft has overstepped the boundary of trust > here. I know they legally have the right to update files with out notice > because of the EULA. This does not excuse what they have done. They have > an option to "Never check for updates". To me this includes updates for > Windows Update. If it doesn't this should be stated clearly on that > screen. The only thing that will make this clear to them is a public > outcry. Please add your comments here for or against. It may not do any > good but it will help to keep the issue in the public eye. Please don't > turn this into an anti-Microsoft thread. Keep comments about the issue > at hand and why you think it is right or wrong. Flaming Microsoft will > get the issue ignored. Reasoned debate and comments are needed. > I agree with your statement as a whole. One reason for additional concern, in my estimation, is that there is a track record of apology for behavior of this ilk, and then a repeat of the behavior in some form or another. -- norm |
Linear Mode
