ie8 fix
madison

Hardware 2.0

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes
Home / News & Blogs / Hardware 2.0

Confirmation of stealth Windows Update

By | September 13, 2007, 3:46am PDT

Summary: I can now confirm that the stealth Windows Update that I blogged about yesterday actually exists - because I’ve detected its presence on a machine at the PC Doc HQ.

Breaking news - Latest from Microsoft 

I can now confirm that the stealth Windows Update that I blogged about yesterday actually exists - because I’ve detected its presence on a machine at the PC Doc HQ.

At the PC Doc HQ we have several systems set not to update automatically. This is so that they are kept at a specific patch level for testing duties. Many of these systems are virtual machines but some are physical. When I heard about this stealth update I decided to take a look at one of these systems that don’t update automatically (it was set to download and notify) - and within seconds I found what I was looking for.

[UPDATED - Just to clarify, I can confirm that this stealth update was applied to systems where Windows Update was set to "Download updates but let me choose whether to install them" and "for updates but let me choose whether to download and install them" but not on systems set to "Never check for updates."] 

Which files are updated depends on the OS you are running. The updated files on Vista are:

  • wuapi.dll
  • wuapp.exe
  • wuauclt.exe
  • wuaueng.dll
  • wucltux.dll
  • wudriver.dll
  • wups.dll
  • wups2.dll
  • wuwebv.dll

And on XP SP2:

  • cdm.dll
  • wuapi.dll
  • wuauclt.exe
  • wuaucpl.cpl
  • wuaueng.dll
  • wucltui.dll
  • wups.dll
  • wups2.dll
  • wuweb.dll

The test system was running Windows XP SP2. Reports and rumors suggest that this update was being pushed out on or around the 24th of August so I fired up Event Viewer and scrolled down to this date … and here’s what I found:

Here’s the entry showing the update kicking off.

windowsstealthupdate_1_sm.jpg

Update completed successfully - but not the lack of information regarding the update.

windowsstealthupdate_2_sm.jpg

Here’s one of the updated files.

windowsstealthupdate_3_sm.jpg

These updates without notification is a slippery slope. I just don’t like the idea of having updates foisted upon systems without being aware that they are coming in and having the option to postpone them. Why? Simple. IT’S MY PC!!! If a user chooses not to have updates installed automatically, Microsoft needs to respect this decision. Period. If this is not possible, notifications should be made after the update has been installed clearly identifying the updates, describing what it does and giving users a way to roll back the system if they want to.

Poll

Stealth updates - Right or wrong?

Thoughts?

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

More from “Hardware 2.0”

Topics

Microsoft Windows Update, Information Technology, Update, Stealth, Microsoft Windows, Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes is an internationally published technology author who has devoted over a decade to helping users get the most from technology.

Disclosure

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

All opinions expressed on Hardware 2.0 are those of Adrian Kingsley-Hughes. Every effort is made to ensure that the information posted is accurate. If you have any comments, queries or corrections, please contact Adrian via the email link here. Any possible conflicts of interest will be posted below. [Updated: February 23, 2010] - Adrian Kingsley-Hughes has no business relationships, affiliations, investments, or other actual/potential conflicts of interest relating to the content posted so far on this blog.

Biography

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes is an internationally published technology author who has devoted over a decade to helping users get the most from technology -- whether that be by learning to program, building a PC from a pile of parts, or helping them get the most from their new MP3 player or digital camera.

Adrian has authored/co-authored technical books on a variety of topics, ranging from programming to building and maintaining PCs. His most recent books include "Build the Ultimate Custom PC", "Beginning Programming" and "The PC Doctor's Fix It Yourself Guide". He has also written training manuals that have been used by a number of Fortune 500 companies.

Adrian also runs a popular blog under the name The PC Doctor, where he covers a range of computer-related topics -- from security to repairing and upgrading.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
Ask a Question Start a Discussion
513
Comments
Add Your Opinion

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Confirmation of stealth Windows Update
power8 28th Jul 2009
The guy is so smart, I love him and age of conan power leveling.
View in thread
0 Votes
+ -
Common knowledge
whisperycat 13th Sep 2007
Dear Windows user. You may have paid for the PC harware, but you don't own it. Microsoft do. I thought giving up ownership of the hardware you aoid for to the vendor of the OS on it, was the whole point of you clicking "I Accept" to the Microsoft EULA?
0 Votes
+ -
hardware? no...
linuxoverwindows 13th Sep 2007
actually, when you buy a computer, the hardware is yours. read the eula, its the software that is not yours. you are leasing it so to speak. actually licensing the use of the software. but it is kind of like a car dealership coming to your house while you are sleeping, getting into your car and making some changes to the car, then leaving.

hey, i work in computer tech support, we have all kinds of car analogies.
0 Votes
+ -
Message has been deleted.
MOKO333 Updated - 28th Mar 2008
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
Should not be a surprise. After all.... it's Microsoft.
shawkins 13th Sep 2007
This is the company that will do whatever they feel like doing, whenever they feel like doing it. If it won't cost them lost sales or time in jail, they will feel free to do it, right or wrong.

They know full well they run people in the behind with things like this because the vast majority of computer users don't have a clue.

As long as we keep using Windows, this will happen. Get used to it.
0 Votes
+ -
Get a Clue - Read what you agree to
rnb3rd@... 13th Sep 2007
I work in the industry, and while I agree that electing not to have windows updates run automatically, I also actually took the time to read the EULA before agreeing to it. Appearently you didn't. Here's the reality of it. Microsoft OWNS Windows, you don't. Since it's theirs, and ownership has specific implications, such as being able to modify what belongs to you. While it's sneeky, because they know most people haven't read the EULA, it is theirs to do with what they will. If you don't like it, use Lynux. There are many user-friendly incarnations of Lynux out now. Better security, no secret updates, open source, and it's FREE!
0 Votes
+ -
The problem is they are being deceptive.
Kid Icarus-21097050858087920245213802267493 13th Sep 2007
Even though it says they can do what they want in the EULA, why is there nothing stating you may be subject to stealth updates in the Automatic Updates Control Panel? Why is it that this is not spelled out for you in this control panel? The control panel that is supposed to control if you would like your computer automatically updated or not?!? It doesn't, and that's the problem. Deception!

Why isn't it spelled out for you right there in that control panel?!? Do you think if MS told people that setting your computer to not receive automatic updates really meant they can update whatever the heck they want, people would be ok with that? Heck NO!

It's deceptive, plain and simple. You give me an option in the OS to keep my computer from being updated and you totally bypass that option is BOGUS!!
0 Votes
+ -
What is being
alaniane@... 13th Sep 2007
updated is mainly dlls. These are updated all the time without the user being aware of it. Each time you install software into your system, it will check to make sure that the dlls provided are up to date with the ones it needs. Most software installations do not bother to tell you that they are updating the dlls, they just do it. This has been a long-standing practice that goes back to the days when DOS was king.
0 Votes
+ -
Apples and oranges
csilverman@... 13th Sep 2007
We're not talking about some software you ELECTED to install. We're talking about patches being applied WITHOUT YOUR KNOWLEDGE.

When you install a piece of software and it updates DLLs, even though you may not know exactly what it's doing, you initiated the software install.

In any other venue, when software is installed without the user's knowledge, it's considered "spyware" or trojan software.

Apples and oranges.
0 Votes
+ -
You hit the nail....
hal9000mx 13th Sep 2007
Apples and oranges, that why i swiched to Apple years ago. Damn!!! i love my Mac's and OS X.

You poor Windows XP/Vista souls.

But, don't whine you got what you choose.
0 Votes
+ -
DLLs or not...
Zorched 13th Sep 2007
They are still making changes behind the scenes, without your consent, even if you elected to not have the changes made.

The reason it is such a terror has been stated by the author of the article. If they think it's okay do do this, how long do you think it will be before they start slipping other stuff, not so necessary to the safe operation of your machine in? In other words, how long before they start slipping spyware into your pc covertly trying to 'uncover acts of piracy' or whatever other B.S. reason they want to pull out of their arses? How long before they decide that they don't want you ripping that CD that you paid money for to your mobile device, because they are 'sure' that you are going to be distributing it? Prejudicial guilt anyone?

Some companies, Microsoft especially, seem to think that a EULA gives them Carte Blanche to do what they want to you. They are dead wrong. A few massive constitutional based class-action lawsuits, which are going to be coming soon I would bet, will tax even their resources. Tampling on people's privacy may have been granted with the patriot act, but an election is coming up soon, and things will change if 'We The People' as a whole deem it so. All it takes is getting us off our butts and doing something about it.

Us? Off our butts and be politically active? Ha. Yeah, right. Never mind my earlier comments. I think I'll go invest in the company that makes Vaseline, cause there's going to be a big demand for it soon. Stop voting for the big money parties and make lobbying illegal and we've got a start towards protecting our privacy since both seem to overly influenced by the almighty dollar more than what's best for the country.
0 Votes
+ -
Here Here!!
aallord 13th Sep 2007
Well Said!!!!
0 Votes
+ -
And that is the problem...
wpshea@... 13th Sep 2007
If I have a computer running an application that depends on an older version of a dll I do not want it updated period, that is why you turn off automatic updates. As someone who works in IT on an extreamly tightly controlled baselined system we DO NOT WANT UPDATES! Every patch and update to the OS or app on the system gets thoroughly tested in a separate test system to ensure it will not break any of or apps. The only updates that get implemented rapidly are critical security updates, and we watch the system closly afterwards to ensure it does not cause any havoc. We have a very exacting and controlled baseline we maintain for stability and predictability. It is often a double edged sword, as it often limits our toolset for administration, but the system is rock solid.

What do you think a major company would say if their critical applications on their servers whent down all because of a stealth update to a dll rendered them usless? It could potentially cost them millions. This is a worst case scenario, and not very likely, but it could still happen. That is the real reason there is the option to turn off automatic updates in my mind.
0 Votes
+ -
Well since the service cant be trusted ; - )
Suicida| 13th Sep 2007
disable it

sc config wuauserv start= disabled

You could use group policy to do this as well, but if you have an AD domain you should be using something like WSUS.
0 Votes
+ -
learn to spell
Grausam 13th Sep 2007
Its Linux, not "lynux"
0 Votes
+ -
spelling
harper@... 13th Sep 2007
Microsoft Windows is owned by Microsoft Corp.
Micro$oft Windoze and M$Windoze are in the Public Domain.

And you thought Bill was short for William?
Micro$oft Corp., maker of M$Windoze,
Billionaire Gates & Company.
wink
0 Votes
+ -
EULA is probably illegal......
linux for me 13th Sep 2007
No one reads the EULA....If Microsoft's EULA was tested in the courts, it would most likely be throw out. My computer is mine, to use as I see fit. If I do not want the updates, then I shouldn't be forced to get them. This is especially bad when your base system is modified when test application compatibilities.

My "pretend" acceptance of the EULA is solely to make the software run. Regardless of other opinions, I don't accept Microsoft's EULA, but hit the appropriate button only to make the software work. Rest assured, if you try to get a refund on the software, you will fail miserably.

Microsoft may own Windows, but as long as I don't do anything illegal with it, I can use it however I like. Therefore the EULA is invalid, and I will disregard it appropriately.
0 Votes
+ -
What were you smoking when you thought this up? LOL
laura.b 13th Sep 2007
I GUARANTEE it's legal, and more than that, it's so legal that it's freaking watertight. In addition to that, it's got so many loopholes and exceptions covered you'd think it was running for office. Know how I'm so sure? Because MS is a corporation that is capable of paying lawyers to write these things out. You don't think that Gates is sitting there pen in hand spelling out EULAs do you? Hell no. There is a $1000/hour lawyer (actually their paralegal) doing this work to ENSURE that it's legal from top to bottom.

They may be sneaky, but their not retarded. LOL.
0 Votes
+ -
Many lawers claim the opposite though
voska 13th Sep 2007
Many lawyer claim the EULA would never stand up in court.

Quite simply Microsoft can put anything they want in that EULA. You put that it's OK for me to break into your home and kill you on friday nights between 6 and 7. It doesn't make it legal to commit murder because I have contract with you.

There was one EULA I read from Microsoft that stated you couldn't install any non Microsoft software on your PC if you installed this particular software component from Microsoft. I clicked ok then did what I wanted installing lost of non Microsoft software.

In the end the only thing holding up a EULA is your belief that it is valid. Take it court assuming you have the money to waste and see if it hold up.
0 Votes
+ -
The EULA is a form of contract...
JohnBoyTheGreat 13th Sep 2007
In the U.S., to my knowledge, contract has to be SIGNED by both parties to be legal.

The only way the EULA is "legal" is if people don't challenge it in court. If we don't question the validity of a particular "contract", then the court assumes that it is valid. At that point you are just arguing over the details of the EULA.

However, when the first major lawsuit against software EULAs finds that EULAs are not a valid form of contract, and are therefore not binding upon the end-user, then that will be the effective end of the EULA.

Perhaps in the future, after EULAs are held to be invalid, Microsoft will require all end-users to sign a genuine contract in order to use their software?
0 Votes
+ -
What were you smoking?
Ole Man 16th Sep 2007
Probably the same thing those "lawyers" or "paralegals" were smoking when they edited the "EULA", if they thought everybody would take their hallucinations seriusly.

Like you have never driven over the speed limit, even though it's a well known fact that it's "against the law"? Know what I mean?
0 Votes
+ -
I'm glad you don't
xuniL_z 16th Sep 2007
drive, cause the oil companies have artificially increased the price of oil, while pocketing billions in bonuses and the like.

I'm glad there are people like you who stand on their principals and doesn't give in to conveniences like a vehicle.

0 Votes
+ -
You smoking too, Zuny?
Ole Man 16th Sep 2007
You must be hullucinating yourself. I didn't say anything about not driving, myself.

I'll agree with you though, that the oil companies are in the same class of scum-sucking pigs as you-know-who.
0 Votes
+ -
Airtight?
cunhajo 21st Sep 2007
Like any other agreement, the EULA is only as airtight as the next lawyer to challenge it. If enough people (representing enough dollars) get together and attract the right lawyer, this "airtight" agreement will go the way of many others.

Like most matters legal, what is legal and what is not generally comes down to the persuasiveness (AKA hourly rate) of the lawyer arguing the issue. Dangle enough potential dollars in front of enough greedy lawyers and even Bill Gates runs scared. As big tobacco.
0 Votes
+ -
Not true
mlindl 14th Sep 2007
You don't have the right to use any intellectual property the way you want to.
Books, articles, songs, etc. are copyrighted and the original creator is protected.

I firmly believe that if Microsoft, I company I despise and wish it would go away,
feels that it needs to do these updates without giving you the option to do so for
the sole purpose(s) of:

1. preserving it's goodwill;
2. protecting the software from malicious attack, inconveniencing you and creating
huge costs for it;
3. improving the functionality of the product to make you a more loyal customer;
4. informing itself of certain practices while protecting your data protection rights,

I am all for it. I want all companies to work in the best interests of their customers
and preserve their reputation/position as much as possible.

You are right, it is your PC. The more that stop using Windows, the happier I will
be and the more productive the world will be.

If you want to work with a great company, work with Apple. No stealths there
ALTHOUGH they don't always mention in their update descriptions at download
screen all the things they will do.

I find Microsoft guilty only of protecting their customers and themselves in this
practice.
0 Votes
+ -
You are not looking at the bigger picture here...
garyntexas@... 16th Sep 2007
Forget the EULA!! The issue more clearly lies in the apparent unauthorized access by Microsoft to your network and/or computer. You *may* have given Microsoft permission to update its software, but you most likely did not give it the express right to hack into your computer by deceptive means nor to bypass the security you placed onto your protected network (can we say 'firewall'). Both acts are illegal under Federal statue (some States have enancted similar laws) The more accurate terminology is "exceeding authorized access of a protected computer." Language similar to that is found in the Federal "Computer and Fraud Act", 18 U.S.C. ? 1030.
0 Votes
+ -
The EULA is stupid and as far as I'm concerned invalid.
Laff 13th Sep 2007
The the none choice...... choice and there for null and void as far as I'm concerned.
I've never read it..... nor do I intend to. I simply click agree and go on and do what I
want to do with the given product. IN all liklihood I break the EULA on a daily basis.
And I care how?

Pagan jim
0 Votes
+ -
Uh, hate to tell you this, PJ . . .
bbbaldie_z 13th Sep 2007
Your keystrokes were recorded by a Redmond subversive. Save your work quickly, you're getting the Black Screen within a hour!
0 Votes
+ -
More legal fun
Update victim 13th Sep 2007
Check the Ninth Circuit Court of apeals for Adobe v. Softman for a precedent.
0 Votes
+ -
Using a Mac....heh heh heh
Laff 14th Sep 2007
Don't give a wit about Apple's EULA either....:P

Pagan jim
0 Votes
+ -
Yeah, I told the bank the same thing
No_Ax_to_Grind 13th Sep 2007
I didn't read the loan contract and it means nothing to me and its not valid as far as I am concerned. Guess what????
0 Votes
+ -
What?!?
Kid Icarus-21097050858087920245213802267493 13th Sep 2007
You clicked OK on your loan contract? HA!

Whatever, you have no clue what you are talking about. Just because a
company says something goes against their EULA doesn't mean it will
necessarily hold up in court. Even actual signed contracts have been
held invalid in courts because they BROKE THE LAW.

Microsoft is not the judge and jury here.
0 Votes
+ -
You're right...
Chippolus 14th Sep 2007
You take them to court, you have the big wind in your wings. All you have to do is hire better lawyers than they can, hold out in court longer than them or convince a judge that you made the agreement but didn't mean it without sounding negligent. Just don't fly too close to the sun, you have been known to let your hubris overinflate your ego before.
0 Votes
+ -
A lawyer can tell me the sky is green..does not make it so.
Laff 14th Sep 2007
Congress can change the definition of green the United States to back up the lawyer
does not make it so.

The President of the United States can get on his pulpit and state to the country even
the world that by definition and law the sky is green....still does not make it so. (And
with this particular president you already know what ever he says is so.....is not so
much)

Pagan jim
0 Votes
+ -
A judge can put you in jail, but you will still have your weed...
Chippolus 14th Sep 2007
If you have the whole country stacked up against you and get your butt corked into jail, how important is it to feel right?
0 Votes
+ -
That's right, I do OWN the hardware!
larry.cox@... 13th Sep 2007
You are right in saying that MS owns the software, but I dont remember giving them permission to use my internet connection, or router, or hard drive to write new data to. Or MY processor.
0 Votes
+ -
grrr@microsoft.com
vaughanm 13th Sep 2007
I agree, how dare anyone steal my precious bandwidth and use my computer for anything, and I mean anything without my permission. If microsoft want to update my computer and auto update is turned off then why cant they email me and ask instead if just doing it. They have my email when I registered windows.
0 Votes
+ -
well at basic level, that means
xuniL_z 13th Sep 2007
every email you receive from a marketer is illegal.

Seriously, many apps installed on your PC, like flash, will periodically access your machine to check your software version. So in that sense, it's no different. There are many other examples like that. When Google moves your "deleted" mail to their servers would be another example...Stealing your data!

But the question is whether they had the right to initiate the update to run, not the access of your machine. That is legal and has a ton of presedent. Apple, Google, Adobe, Red Hat etc. etc. all do do it. It's only down to that install.
0 Votes
+ -
Another Linux Fanbow.
Relorian@... 13th Sep 2007
Its sad, you claim your in the industry and have read the EULA and then you go plugging Linux. Do those of us a favor, Stop. Not everyone wants to have to learn command line and have to go through emulation to play games or movies or to do even something as basic as install software. Linux is nice, i agree, but until its as fully functional and easy to use as windows, you wont win any supporters.
0 Votes
+ -
Guess you haven't tried
Linux User 147560 13th Sep 2007
a recent version of Linux then. devil
0 Votes
+ -
unless you want the software that is in the program manager yes you have to
SO.CAL Guy 14th Sep 2007
unless you want the software that is in the program manager yes you have to use the command line to install it.

and no company makes games for Linux you do have to play the good games with emulation software. i guess you could play the crappy opensouce games but they lets face it suck.

and watching movies on Linux is ok if you don't mind stealing codecs to watch them with. you can find them and be legal but Linux does not make it easy to find and most people don't know you need a license you use them

mac osx and windows license most codecs for you so you can just watch but on Linux they think everyones work is there for the taking sure Linux is easy to use easy to install.

but when it comes to downloading and installing software the OS takes me back to the days of dos lets get with the times.

the program manager is cool but if you really want Linux to take off make software installs that are not in the program manager point and click like mac osx or windows.
0 Votes
+ -
Oh boy! Another one!
Linux User 147560 15th Sep 2007
?unless you want the software that is in the program manager yes you have to use the command line to install it.?

No you don't! What are you using? A distro from 2000? All the modern distributions have a method for you to click on either a .rpm, or .deb and have the system install it for you. If you have a tarball to install all you have to do is use Kompile, a KDE tool that will do all the command line stuff for you. Like I said, use a modern distribution! devil

?and no company makes games for Linux you do have to play the good games with emulation software. i guess you could play the crappy opensouce games but they lets face it suck.?

Wrong again! Google is a wonderful Linux powered tool, use it. Also there is this web site that has other mainstream Linux games. Again Google is a wonderful Linux powered tool. devil

?and watching movies on Linux is ok if you don't mind stealing codecs to watch them with. you can find them and be legal but Linux does not make it easy to find and most people don't know you need a license you use them?

THAT is not Linux's fault, you can blame that on the MPAA, RIAA, Microsoft, Macintosh and a few others. Blaming Linux for this issue is in the same category of ignorance as blaming Linux for crappy wireless drivers. devil

?mac osx and windows license most codecs for you so you can just watch but on Linux they think everyones work is there for the taking sure Linux is easy to use easy to install.?

I am totally lost with this, could you write it in a format that actually makes sense?

?but when it comes to downloading and installing software the OS takes me back to the days of dos lets get with the times.?

You would have been right about 4+ years ago!

?the program manager is cool but if you really want Linux to take off make software installs that are not in the program manager point and click like mac osx or windows?

It is! Just you are not using a modern distribution. And like I said IF you find a tarball with no RPM or DEB package then you can use Kompile and never touch the command line. devil

Your post is so full of half truths and out right lies that I felt compelled to correct them BEFORE some poor SOB reads it and believes you!
0 Votes
+ -
I would have to disagree...
fnilsson 16th Sep 2007
and I find it less than amusing that you are ?unknowingly? spreading those lies.

unless you want the software that is in the program manager yes you have to use the command line to install it.

As the other guy said, no, you do not need to use the command line. If a friend of yours have tried to show you a GNU/Linux distribution, s/he probably used the command line since that is both faster and easier (if you do know it, and it is not all that hard to grasp) than using the GUI. This is not a limitation of GNU/Linux GUIs but rather universal for all systems, including Windows.

and no company makes games for Linux you do have to play the good games with emulation software. i guess you could play the crappy opensource games but they lets face it suck.

I sort of agree with you here, for games, Windows is often the better system. This will however slowly start to change as the companies discover a growing market for games on GNU/Linux.

and watching movies on Linux is ok if you don't mind stealing codecs to watch them with. you can find them and be legal but Linux does not make it easy to find and most people don't know you need a license you use them

I actually cannot see the difference between watching movies in VLC on Windows or on a GNU/Linux system. Am I stealing the codexs "more" because I operate a otherwise free system?
Also, as the other replier said this is hardly the fault of GNU/Linux anyway.

Forgive me for re-arranging your message, but the last part seemed not to fit very well with the first part of the statement

mac osx and windows license most codecs for you so you can just watch but on Linux they think everyones work is there for the taking

I'd really like for you to present proof that Microsoft or Apple are paying licensing fees in order to play the DivX, xvid or mp3 formats. (Again, when I used Windows I always downloaded a codec pack separately since the stuff Microsoft bundled was insufficient)

Further, the creators of the GNU/Linux distributions does NOT think everyone's work is there for the taking. (I cannot swear that there does not exist a single distro which does indeed disrespect this, but all of the large ones respect this)
They all use GPL'ed software, that is, software free to use.
They DO respect idiotic licences and patents which restricts the use of say, the mp3 format (a codec for mp3 is not included in e.g. Ubuntu) because the creators of Ubuntu recognizes that it would be wrong to bundle it. HOWEVER, would a user deem it ok to disrespect this, they can always download and incorporate it into their system somehow (and following a step by step guide in a forum is not that hard for a literate person)

sure Linux is easy to use easy to install.

Indeed it is, I couldn't agree with you more on this point.

but when it comes to downloading and installing software the OS takes me back to the days of dos lets get with the times.

Again I have to disagree with you. If the 15000+ titles of software which can be found in most distros repositories are not enough, and you really need to go searching online (may your problem have been that you where stuck in the Windows way of thinking that you have to go to various websites to download programs?) most sites offer both a pre-compiled binary, as well as the source-code if you'd rather have that.
There are, of course, exceptions to this, what can I say, it is an imperfect world. (I am however curious as to what kind of software you where looking for, but couldn't find in the repositories?)

the program manager is cool but if you really want Linux to take off make software installs that are not in the program manager point and click like mac osx or windows.

I have to admit to being uncertain about what this "program manager", to which you are referring to, is. (Of course, in general, which distribution you tried, and what version of said distribution, could probably clear up a lot of things as well)

I would like to end this reply by taking the time to say that YES, I am anti-Microsoft, for both ethical and practical reasons, but I am not blinded by my convictions to the extent that I cannot accept Windows strengths (mostly gaming)
This post should hopefully not be seen as an ant-Microsoftian post, but a pro-GNU/Linuxian post.
Finally I wish all of you, regardless of system, a nice day happy
0 Votes
+ -
Now see, you can play nice...
Chippolus 14th Sep 2007
I can't even razz you this time. Very nice. BTW, tell the crawdadd guy that he doesn't need XP or Vista to run a computer? The poor dolt thinks his hands are tied and he is limited to a couple of programs if he doesn't, but he hates MS sooooo much.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=774#comments

Thanks.

Disclaimer: I do not suggest everyone run to Linux, But some of you really have an irrational hatred for Microsoft, and should put your money where your mouth is. I am also not justifying any of Microsoft's actions, just waiting until the BS cloud passes and I'll see what's up. See my End Reader Blog Agreement.
0 Votes
+ -
I don't need to read it....
shawkins 13th Sep 2007
I'm so glad you took the time to read the EULA. You must have an exciting life. The EULA is a waste of time unless you are a highly trained attorney. Some of it is not even enforceable I'm sure and some of it is complete idiocy. However, though I haven' actually read it... I know what it says.

First... Microsoft can do pretty much whatever it wants as long as they don't lose money or go to jail. Microsoft has no real responsibility for anything.

Second... You can't do squat about item #1.

Third.... You don't have any real rights to do much of anything with Windows.

See how easy that is to read?

I also actually took the time to read the EULA before agreeing to it. Appearently you didn't. Here's the reality of it. Microsoft OWNS Windows
0 Votes
+ -
"Microsoft OWNS Windows"
elt10@... 13th Sep 2007
I won't argue with the aspects of the EULA that gives Microsoft "ownership" of Windows, but therein lies the rub. If Microsoft insists on "ownership" of this software, it should follow that they also have responsibility to keep the software running properly, since all the end user is purchasing is the functionality being sold. By this theorem, anytime this functionality is not available, Microsoft would be responsible for restoring it. As we all know, this is pretty much the opposite of the actual case; Windows crashes incessantly, and Microsoft has ZERO interest in fielding tech support calls to fix it. Try it sometime if you don't believ me. Anyhow, if we drill down to the heart of this problem, we can trace it back to Microsoft's (and the industry's in general) ability to write EULAs pretty much however they damn well please, and to make them unimaginably long winded and arcane. And guess where the industry GOT this legal right? That's correct: Washington DC! So your tax dollars went to a bunch of elected officials that wrote legislation allowing effectively unlimited rights to create EULAs that reserve every conceivably legal right for themselves, and the users be damned. Think about THAT every time you look at your paycheck, and all the money that gets deducted to send to Washington.
0 Votes
+ -
They don't own my internet...
carlpritcharduk@... 14th Sep 2007
...connection though. Spam is illegal because it effectively takes away my choice as to what uses up my broadband connection.
If I turn off automatic updates to stop my bandwidth being used then that is my choice. Microsoft might have the rights on how windows works but they do not have the right to tell me that I can switch off their update services use of my bandwidth - and then ignore that.
In most other trading worlds that would be something aproaching fraud.

I can understand the argument for protecting everyone else by blocking vulnerabilities that can create botnets - but then the answer to that is simply a windows to say "Let me update or I will stop working". I would be happy with that.
0 Votes
+ -
Microsoft doesn't OWN my computer...
3dtodd 14th Sep 2007
rnb3rd, you're completely clueless. I purchased Windows for my computer. If I didn't then it wouldn't have been installed on my computer. Microsoft owns the COPYRIGHTS to Windows coding and design. That's it. I get to decided how and when its updated because it's on MY computer. That's why there are settings to choose whether my computer is updated automatically, with a popup, or without. But the choice is MINE to make. If Microsoft is giving me the choice to control how my computer is updated, then they should honor that choice by respecting my update settings. So, pull your head out of the proverbial sand and use both of your brain cells. "I" own my computer. Not Microshaft.
0 Votes
+ -
What Industry?
ChodaBoy 22nd Sep 2007
You work in what industry? You obviously do not know anything about Linux...you cannot even spell it correctly.
0 Votes
+ -
While it's bad, consider what already happens
xuniL_z 13th Sep 2007
You buy an iPod shuffle or nano without video, you load iTunes and surprise!...you have QT loaded too. Talk about a huge trojan.

And the blogger talks about getting work done. What if you are like a large number of people that use scripting to input large amounts of data, or take it out, of a legacy system?

Then adobe comes along and WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION they periodically access your machine(once you've loaded flash player) w/o you knowing they are on until they spash a big update window on your screen, killing your scripting job and violating your PC. Sure they don't install anything without your persmission but now you're just splitting hairs.

There are many other examples of this behavior from Google Desktop moving data from your machine to their servers w/o your CONSENT to many other websites that do virutally the same thing. Even reading cookies from your maching is unlawful entry to your machine, isn't it?


Or is the line drawn on whether something is installed? I think Google moving data from your PC is as illegal.


Not apologizing for Microsoft, but we've not heard their side of this, and personally I didn't have this happen but rather got the MU client update last time I manually ran MU. So maybe people should try to remain open minded for now.
0 Votes
+ -
Like anyother corporation - or live on a island
neonfrank 23rd Sep 2007
Microsoft is no different than any other corporation.

If you don't like it don't use it.

That goes for phone companies, cars, oil, TV, Cable, ISP, Computers, Apple, Microsoft, Software, HMOs, governments and on and on it goes. They all are the "Evil Empire" why is this such a difficult concept?

Perhaps you would feel better living in a grass hit on a island in the pacific.

Cheers
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Confirmation of stealth Windows Update
power8 28th Jul 2009
The guy is so smart, I love him and age of conan power leveling.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix
Click Here
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

Blog Roll

Blog Archive

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix