Well, wasn't that easy! - Linux

This is a discussion on Well, wasn't that easy! - Linux ; I've just been notified that there are new updates ready for Mandriva 2008 Spring. This process couldn't be simpler. Click the icon on the panel and enter your password. Displayed are the list of the available updates. Oh look, an ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Well, wasn't that easy!

  1. Well, wasn't that easy!


    I've just been notified that there are new updates ready for Mandriva 2008
    Spring.

    This process couldn't be simpler.

    Click the icon on the panel and enter your password.

    Displayed are the list of the available updates. Oh look, an updated kernel
    and associated updates for fglrx.

    Click the Install Updates button.

    The updates are downloaded and then installed.

    Click the Quit button.

    All done.

    No warnings about restarting my system, no reminders that I haven't
    restarted my system and definitely no BSOD.

    Is that it? Apparently so, but I restarted the system just because I'm a
    cantankerous so and so and if I can't see it I don't believe it.

    Rock solid.

    Why, oh why don't I have the same problems that Doofus has? I feel so left
    out!

  2. Re: Well, wasn't that easy!

    SomeBloke writes:

    > I've just been notified that there are new updates ready for Mandriva 2008
    > Spring.
    >
    > This process couldn't be simpler.
    >
    > Click the icon on the panel and enter your password.
    >
    > Displayed are the list of the available updates. Oh look, an updated kernel
    > and associated updates for fglrx.
    >
    > Click the Install Updates button.
    >
    > The updates are downloaded and then installed.
    >
    > Click the Quit button.
    >
    > All done.
    >
    > No warnings about restarting my system, no reminders that I haven't
    > restarted my system and definitely no BSOD.
    >
    > Is that it? Apparently so, but I restarted the system just because I'm a
    > cantankerous so and so and if I can't see it I don't believe it.
    >
    > Rock solid.
    >
    > Why, oh why don't I have the same problems that Doofus has? I feel so left
    > out!


    So you just discovered this process? Well, at least we know you're a
    nOOb fanboi now - not that it wasn't immediately apparent from your
    first post.

    --
    It explains a lot. I've not heard of anyone I know, anywhere, buying XP,
    and I've not seen it sold whilst I've been in any shops.
    comp.os.linux.advocacy - where they put the lunacy in advocacy

  3. Re: Well, wasn't that easy!

    Hadron wrote:

    > SomeBloke writes:
    >
    >> I've just been notified that there are new updates ready for Mandriva
    >> 2008 Spring.
    >>
    >> This process couldn't be simpler.
    >>
    >> Click the icon on the panel and enter your password.
    >>
    >> Displayed are the list of the available updates. Oh look, an updated
    >> kernel and associated updates for fglrx.
    >>
    >> Click the Install Updates button.
    >>
    >> The updates are downloaded and then installed.
    >>
    >> Click the Quit button.
    >>
    >> All done.
    >>
    >> No warnings about restarting my system, no reminders that I haven't
    >> restarted my system and definitely no BSOD.
    >>
    >> Is that it? Apparently so, but I restarted the system just because I'm a
    >> cantankerous so and so and if I can't see it I don't believe it.
    >>
    >> Rock solid.
    >>
    >> Why, oh why don't I have the same problems that Doofus has? I feel so
    >> left out!

    >
    > So you just discovered this process? Well, at least we know you're a
    > nOOb fanboi now - not that it wasn't immediately apparent from your
    > first post.
    >


    No, I haven't just discovered it. It's just that sad little Doofy appears
    incapable of doing this self same thing himself. I'm just trying to
    encourage the poor little lad.

  4. Re: Well, wasn't that easy!

    On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 17:09:56 +0200, Hadron wrote:

    > SomeBloke writes:
    >
    >> I've just been notified that there are new updates ready for Mandriva 2008
    >> Spring.
    >>
    >> This process couldn't be simpler.
    >>
    >> Click the icon on the panel and enter your password.
    >>
    >> Displayed are the list of the available updates. Oh look, an updated kernel
    >> and associated updates for fglrx.
    >>
    >> Click the Install Updates button.
    >>
    >> The updates are downloaded and then installed.
    >>
    >> Click the Quit button.
    >>
    >> All done.
    >>
    >> No warnings about restarting my system, no reminders that I haven't
    >> restarted my system and definitely no BSOD.
    >>
    >> Is that it? Apparently so, but I restarted the system just because I'm a
    >> cantankerous so and so and if I can't see it I don't believe it.
    >>
    >> Rock solid.
    >>
    >> Why, oh why don't I have the same problems that Doofus has? I feel so left
    >> out!

    >
    > So you just discovered this process? Well, at least we know you're a
    > nOOb fanboi now - not that it wasn't immediately apparent from your
    > first post.


    Wait until he restarts his system and it refuses to boot or has some other
    catastrophic problem.
    Of course he will never post about that.


    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  5. Re: Well, wasn't that easy!

    Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:

    > On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 17:09:56 +0200, Hadron wrote:
    >
    >> SomeBloke writes:
    >>
    >>> I've just been notified that there are new updates ready for Mandriva
    >>> 2008 Spring.
    >>>
    >>> This process couldn't be simpler.
    >>>
    >>> Click the icon on the panel and enter your password.
    >>>
    >>> Displayed are the list of the available updates. Oh look, an updated
    >>> kernel and associated updates for fglrx.
    >>>
    >>> Click the Install Updates button.
    >>>
    >>> The updates are downloaded and then installed.
    >>>
    >>> Click the Quit button.
    >>>
    >>> All done.
    >>>
    >>> No warnings about restarting my system, no reminders that I haven't
    >>> restarted my system and definitely no BSOD.
    >>>
    >>> Is that it? Apparently so, but I restarted the system just because I'm a
    >>> cantankerous so and so and if I can't see it I don't believe it.
    >>>
    >>> Rock solid.
    >>>
    >>> Why, oh why don't I have the same problems that Doofus has? I feel so
    >>> left out!

    >>
    >> So you just discovered this process? Well, at least we know you're a
    >> nOOb fanboi now - not that it wasn't immediately apparent from your
    >> first post.

    >
    > Wait until he restarts his system and it refuses to boot or has some other
    > catastrophic problem.
    > Of course he will never post about that.
    >
    >

    Did you miss the part I wrote about restarting the system without any
    problems, or do you have Asperger's Syndrome?

  6. Re: Well, wasn't that easy!

    SomeBloke wrote:

    > Did you miss the part I wrote about restarting the system without any
    > problems, or do you have Asperger's Syndrome?


    No, he's just a trolling idiot like his cohorts Quack and StupiD00FuS.
    --
    Regards,
    [tv]

    ....Never mind the star, get those camels off my lawn!

    Owner/Proprietor, Cheesus Crust Pizza Company
    Good to the last supper

  7. Re: Well, wasn't that easy!

    On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 14:02:52 -0400, Tattoo Vampire wrote:

    > SomeBloke wrote:
    >
    >> Did you miss the part I wrote about restarting the system without any
    >> problems, or do you have Asperger's Syndrome?

    >
    > No, he's just a trolling idiot like his cohorts Quack and StupiD00FuS.


    Ya beat me to it!

    --
    But *someone* had to say it!


  8. Re: Well, wasn't that easy!

    "Tattoo Vampire" schreef in bericht
    news:r9v1g3txm886.dlg@ziggynet1.ziggynet...
    > SomeBloke wrote:
    >
    >> Did you miss the part I wrote about restarting the system without any
    >> problems, or do you have Asperger's Syndrome?

    >
    > No, he's just a trolling idiot like his cohorts Quack and StupiD00FuS.


    Wow!!!!, they might be running off crying for their mummy now, once they
    read your reply.
    --
    "Tattoo Vampire" Owner/Proprietor of trollfeeders anonymous!



  9. Re: Well, wasn't that easy!

    Hans wrote:

    > Wow!!!!, they might be running off crying for their mummy now, once they
    > read your reply.


    *Yawn*

    PLONK
    --
    Regards,
    [tv]

    ....If going to church makes you a Christian, does standing in a garage make
    you a car?

    Owner/Proprietor, Cheesus Crust Pizza Company
    Good to the last supper

  10. Re: Well, wasn't that easy!

    On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 15:51:12 +0100, SomeBloke wrote:

    >I've just been notified that there are new updates ready for Mandriva 2008
    >Spring.


    >This process couldn't be simpler.


    >Click the icon on the panel and enter your password.


    >Displayed are the list of the available updates. Oh look, an updated kernel
    >and associated updates for fglrx.


    >Click the Install Updates button.


    >The updates are downloaded and then installed.


    **** that. With windows, you can get your updates by the botnet herders who
    want your system in tiptop shape.


  11. Re: Well, wasn't that easy!

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Homer

    wrote
    on Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:15:57 +0100
    :
    > Verily I say unto thee, that AZ Nomad spake thusly:
    >> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 15:51:12 +0100, SomeBloke
    >> wrote:

    >
    >>> The updates are downloaded and then installed.

    >>
    >> **** that. With windows, you can get your updates by the botnet
    >> herders who want your system in tiptop shape.

    >
    > It's even easier than that, since Windows will update itself even if one
    > explicitly tell it not too:
    >
    > http://slated.org/windows_by_stealth..._you_dont_want
    >
    > Hows /that/ for service?


    Wow. Uh...any way we can firewall that off? :-)

    >
    > Of course one then needs to run around like a headless chicken, to
    > hundreds of other Websites, to update the /rest/ of one's software (or
    > endure hundreds of pop-up "updaters" at start-up, one for each and every
    > application on one's system).
    >
    > And the final result of this Greek Tragedy is that one now has hundreds
    > of "updated" applications that no longer work, because the other
    > "updates" (especially Windows "updates") changed shared resources and
    > made them incompatible.
    >
    > Worse still, many of these "updates" cannot be removed (or so Microsoft
    > claims - e.g. certain Windows Media Player and IE updates), so if they
    > b0rk the system then one needs to WipeNReinstall® (or "roll back", if
    > one's lucky enough to have System Restore enabled - and enough disk space).
    >
    > But it's really worth it in the end, because one has the peace of mind
    > and warm fuzzy feeling of having wasted huge wads of cash for a system
    > stuffed with buzzwords; brand names; and logos that provide absolutely
    > /nothing/ but frustration ... and a lighter wallet.
    >
    > I mean seriously, who could resist /that/?
    >
    > Now Windows users, apparently.
    >


    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    "Woman? What woman?"
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  12. Re: Well, wasn't that easy!

    On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:15:57 +0100, Homer wrote:
    >Verily I say unto thee, that AZ Nomad spake thusly:
    >> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 15:51:12 +0100, SomeBloke
    >> wrote:


    >>> The updates are downloaded and then installed.

    >>
    >> **** that. With windows, you can get your updates by the botnet
    >> herders who want your system in tiptop shape.


    >It's even easier than that, since Windows will update itself even if one
    >explicitly tell it not too:


    What easier way to get new popup ads and spyware than when an updater
    invites all it's friends.

    Install some kodak software, get the lovely backweb installer and
    a bountiful supply of popup ads. They'll even adjust themselves as the
    spyware monitors what websites you visit and they'll replace google
    searches with more appropriate search results! So convenient!

  13. Re: Well, wasn't that easy!

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, AZ Nomad

    wrote
    on Mon, 16 Jun 2008 19:45:53 -0500
    :
    > On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:15:57 +0100, Homer wrote:
    >>Verily I say unto thee, that AZ Nomad spake thusly:
    >>> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 15:51:12 +0100, SomeBloke
    >>> wrote:

    >
    >>>> The updates are downloaded and then installed.
    >>>
    >>> **** that. With windows, you can get your updates by the botnet
    >>> herders who want your system in tiptop shape.

    >
    >>It's even easier than that, since Windows will update itself even if one
    >>explicitly tell it not too:

    >
    > What easier way to get new popup ads and spyware than when an updater
    > invites all it's friends.
    >
    > Install some kodak software, get the lovely backweb installer and
    > a bountiful supply of popup ads. They'll even adjust themselves as the
    > spyware monitors what websites you visit and they'll replace google
    > searches with more appropriate search results! So convenient!


    It's that bad? Sheesh.

    One wonders what the UAC will do ... probably just say "The
    kodak website is about to perform an unsafe operation".
    (Yeah, that's specific.)

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Useless C++ Programming Idea #23291:
    void f(item *p) { if(p != 0) delete p; }
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  14. Re: Well, wasn't that easy!

    Lying Prick Homer wrote:
    > Verily I say unto thee, that AZ Nomad spake thusly:
    >> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 15:51:12 +0100, SomeBloke
    >> wrote:

    >
    >>> The updates are downloaded and then installed.

    >> **** that. With windows, you can get your updates by the botnet
    >> herders who want your system in tiptop shape.

    >
    > It's even easier than that, since Windows will update itself even if one
    > explicitly tell it not too:
    >
    > http://slated.org/windows_by_stealth..._you_dont_want
    >
    > Hows /that/ for service?
    >
    > Of course one then needs to run around like a headless chicken, to
    > hundreds of other Websites, to update the /rest/ of one's software (or
    > endure hundreds of pop-up "updaters" at start-up, one for each and every
    > application on one's system).
    >
    > And the final result of this Greek Tragedy is that one now has hundreds
    > of "updated" applications that no longer work, because the other
    > "updates" (especially Windows "updates") changed shared resources and
    > made them incompatible.
    >
    > Worse still, many of these "updates" cannot be removed (or so Microsoft
    > claims - e.g. certain Windows Media Player and IE updates), so if they
    > b0rk the system then one needs to WipeNReinstall® (or "roll back", if
    > one's lucky enough to have System Restore enabled - and enough disk space).
    >
    > But it's really worth it in the end, because one has the peace of mind
    > and warm fuzzy feeling of having wasted huge wads of cash for a system
    > stuffed with buzzwords; brand names; and logos that provide absolutely
    > /nothing/ but frustration ... and a lighter wallet.
    >
    > I mean seriously, who could resist /that/?
    >
    > Now Windows users, apparently.
    >



    Lying Prick Homer also wrote:

    http://slated.org/windows_by_stealth..._you_dont_want

    Windows By Stealth: The Updates You Don't Want
    Homer's picture
    Sun, 26/08/2007 - 10:43pm — Homer

    On the back of the recent WGA fiasco, further research has revealed yet
    another citation of what I already knew to be true: Windows updates
    itself without explicit permission, even if you turn off automatic updates.

    NEW! ... Further proof, confirmation, and details of this has been
    provided by Scott Dunn of Windows Secrets, and Adrian Kingsley-Hughes of
    ZDNet.

    The procedure is supposed to work like this (on XP at least):

    Launch "System Properties".
    Select the "Automatic Updates" tab.
    Select the "turn off Automatic Updates" (or manual) checkbox.

    And that, AFAIAC should be it. Off means off.

    And yet, according to Microsoft, apparently it doesn't.

    If Microsoft ever wanted to get caught with their pants down, they
    succeeded. For most people, the above doesn't make a whole lot of sense
    past the "you might have a virus" part. VerifyMyPC requires a little
    extra knowledge about computer systems when dealing with the details.
    Google is your friend in these cases. Running searches for 'wups.dll'
    and 'wups2.dll' turns up something about Automatic Updates. In
    particular, those DLLs provide Automatic Update functionality for Windows.

    In other words, the Automatic Updates utility automatically updated
    itself. Now this might not seem like a big deal but I have automatic
    updates set to manual (both download and installation have to be
    approved by me) and not the usual 'automatic' setting found on most user
    PCs. In other words, Windows updated itself without my express
    permission. Such behavior is right in line with spyware-like activity.








    http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=779

    [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.”]

  15. Re: Well, wasn't that easy!

    >Quack puked:
    >>
    >> So you just discovered this process? Well, at least we know


    ....that you're a piece of ****, Quack.


  16. Re: Well, wasn't that easy!

    RMS wrote:

    >(snip)


    *plonk*


  17. Re: Well, wasn't that easy!

    On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 01:28:34 -0500, RMS wrote:

    > Lying Prick Homer wrote:
    >> Verily I say unto thee, that AZ Nomad spake thusly:
    >>> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 15:51:12 +0100, SomeBloke
    >>> wrote:

    >>
    >>>> The updates are downloaded and then installed.
    >>> **** that. With windows, you can get your updates by the botnet
    >>> herders who want your system in tiptop shape.

    >>
    >> It's even easier than that, since Windows will update itself even if one
    >> explicitly tell it not too:
    >>
    >> http://slated.org/windows_by_stealth..._you_dont_want
    >>
    >> Hows /that/ for service?
    >>
    >> Of course one then needs to run around like a headless chicken, to
    >> hundreds of other Websites, to update the /rest/ of one's software (or
    >> endure hundreds of pop-up "updaters" at start-up, one for each and every
    >> application on one's system).
    >>
    >> And the final result of this Greek Tragedy is that one now has hundreds
    >> of "updated" applications that no longer work, because the other
    >> "updates" (especially Windows "updates") changed shared resources and
    >> made them incompatible.
    >>
    >> Worse still, many of these "updates" cannot be removed (or so Microsoft
    >> claims - e.g. certain Windows Media Player and IE updates), so if they
    >> b0rk the system then one needs to WipeNReinstall® (or "roll back", if
    >> one's lucky enough to have System Restore enabled - and enough disk space).
    >>
    >> But it's really worth it in the end, because one has the peace of mind
    >> and warm fuzzy feeling of having wasted huge wads of cash for a system
    >> stuffed with buzzwords; brand names; and logos that provide absolutely
    >> /nothing/ but frustration ... and a lighter wallet.
    >>
    >> I mean seriously, who could resist /that/?
    >>
    >> Now Windows users, apparently.
    >>

    >
    >
    > Lying Prick Homer also wrote:
    >
    > http://slated.org/windows_by_stealth..._you_dont_want
    >
    > Windows By Stealth: The Updates You Don't Want
    > Homer's picture
    > Sun, 26/08/2007 - 10:43pm — Homer
    >
    > On the back of the recent WGA fiasco, further research has revealed yet
    > another citation of what I already knew to be true: Windows updates
    > itself without explicit permission, even if you turn off automatic updates.
    >
    > NEW! ... Further proof, confirmation, and details of this has been
    > provided by Scott Dunn of Windows Secrets, and Adrian Kingsley-Hughes of
    > ZDNet.
    >
    > The procedure is supposed to work like this (on XP at least):
    >
    > Launch "System Properties".
    > Select the "Automatic Updates" tab.
    > Select the "turn off Automatic Updates" (or manual) checkbox.
    >
    > And that, AFAIAC should be it. Off means off.
    >
    > And yet, according to Microsoft, apparently it doesn't.
    >
    > If Microsoft ever wanted to get caught with their pants down, they
    > succeeded. For most people, the above doesn't make a whole lot of sense
    > past the "you might have a virus" part. VerifyMyPC requires a little
    > extra knowledge about computer systems when dealing with the details.
    > Google is your friend in these cases. Running searches for 'wups.dll'
    > and 'wups2.dll' turns up something about Automatic Updates. In
    > particular, those DLLs provide Automatic Update functionality for Windows.
    >
    > In other words, the Automatic Updates utility automatically updated
    > itself. Now this might not seem like a big deal but I have automatic
    > updates set to manual (both download and installation have to be
    > approved by me) and not the usual 'automatic' setting found on most user
    > PCs. In other words, Windows updated itself without my express
    > permission. Such behavior is right in line with spyware-like activity.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=779
    >
    > [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.”]


    Homer is a complete and total idiot who is a super "Linux fan boi" and Roy
    Schestowitz's lackey.

    If you go to his slated.org site using Internet Explorer you get a message
    that says "Use a standards compliant browser" and you can't view the site.

    Is this guy a Linux loon or what?

    He just cut his potential viewers by 80 percent or more.

    Hey, I wonder what happens when the Linux loons who are constantly claiming
    they set their browser id string to show IE, visit the site?

    The truth is [Homer] is a very strange, paranoid and Linux obsessed person.

    Just read some of his ranting's and you too will reach that conclusion.

    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  18. Re: Well, wasn't that easy!

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Homer

    wrote
    on Thu, 19 Jun 2008 02:18:29 +0100
    <5oooi5-j7k.ln1@sky.matrix>:
    > Verily I say unto thee, that The Ghost In The Machine spake thusly:
    >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Homer wrote on Mon, 16
    >> Jun 2008 16:15:57 +0100 :

    >
    >>> http://slated.org/windows_by_stealth..._you_dont_want
    >>>
    >>> Hows /that/ for service?

    >>
    >> Wow. Uh...any way we can firewall that off? :-)

    >
    > It's all about disabling, which may well be the single best word that
    > describes Windows in general. It's like an arms race, or a tug of war
    > between Microsoft and their own customers, who Microsoft sees as "the
    > enemy". In fact to Microsoft, pretty much everyone is the enemy. Such
    > is the way with tyrants.
    >
    > The story goes a little bit like this:
    >
    > . Microsoft releases "updates" designed to disable your system.
    > . You then disable the services that facilitate that disablement.
    > . Microsoft then releases a stealth update to bypass your disablement of
    > their disablement.
    > . You then rip out the stealth update and completely remove services
    > designed to disable your disablement of Microsoft's disablement.
    >
    > And so on.
    >
    > Then maybe sometime in the future...
    >
    > . Microsoft then lobbies for a change in the law to make disablement of
    > their disablement illegal.
    > . The EU Commission then disables Microsoft, and Microsoft's
    > ex-customers disable Windows completely by removing it.
    >
    > So overall, I'm quite happy for Microsoft to keep pushing these
    > Draconian measures. The harder they push, the harder their customers
    > push back, until eventually they push Windows all the way down the
    > toilet, where it belongs.
    >
    > Windows: The Disabled OS.
    >
    > http://media.slated.org/albums/userp...s-disabled.png
    >


    *grin* Not sure if that's for a disabled OS or for an OS
    that's ready to go to the Old OSes home. ;-) Either way,
    not the most flattering of concepts for that hol(e)y flag.

    Contrast this to

    http://www.borked.us/gallery/paper/gates800x600

    Now there's an OS with a 'tude. :-) Go get 'em Tux!

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    /dev/signature/pedantry: Resource temporarily unavailable
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

+ Reply to Thread