Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 29th Aug 2007 21:57 UTC, submitted by Kroc
Microsoft The AutoPatcher project has been asked by Microsoft to stop operations. "Today we received an e-mail from Microsoft, requesting the immediate take-down of the download page, which of course means that AutoPatcher is probably history. As much as we disagree, we can do very little, and although the download page is merely a collection of mirrors, we took the download page down. We would like to thank you for your support. For the past 4 years, it has been a blast. Unfortunately, it seems like it's the end of AutoPatcher as we know it."
Order by: Score:
RE
by Kroc on Wed 29th Aug 2007 22:08 UTC
Kroc
Member since:
2005-11-10

I fix machines for a living now, I know just how much consumers suffer with Windows and they need all the help they can get. Autopatcher has helped my customers stay safe for years, and I'm frankly disgusted by Microsoft's complete contempt for its users. How much more do users have to suffer?

Reply Score: 25

RE
by Adurbe on Wed 29th Aug 2007 22:14 UTC in reply to "RE"
Adurbe Member since:
2005-07-06

although doubtless helpful to MANY (myself included)

it did mean I didnt manually click 'agree' which means if I broke something within that text then I would have deniability, microsoft cannot accept that

Reply Score: 2

RE
by Kroc on Wed 29th Aug 2007 22:16 UTC in reply to "RE"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Microsoft's EULA is presented when you run AutoPatcher. AutoPatcher is nothing more than a time saving device that spares you from downloading the patches and installing them one by one yourself. You still agree to the EULA the same.

Reply Score: 5

RE
by flanque on Thu 30th Aug 2007 02:59 UTC in reply to "RE"
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

Why not start openAutopatcher?

Reply Score: 4

RE
by CVDpr on Thu 30th Aug 2007 04:25 UTC in reply to "RE"
CVDpr Member since:
2005-10-17

Good One!

Reply Score: 0

RE
by Kroc on Thu 30th Aug 2007 07:28 UTC in reply to "RE"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Because the problem would be the same. Microsoft do not want people redistributing patches not marked as redistributable. Open Source has nothing to do with it :|

Reply Score: 1

RE
by flanque on Thu 30th Aug 2007 07:58 UTC in reply to "RE"
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

Sure, but what if the software downloaded them off the Microsoft website and built the installer afterwards. Only the software is being downloaded, no patches redistributed.

Besides, if it's open, the source is out there and it will live regardless of whom Microsoft email.

Reply Score: 2

RE
by robertojdohnert on Thu 30th Aug 2007 07:08 UTC in reply to "RE"
robertojdohnert Member since:
2005-07-12

WGA will never play a part in the security update side because everyone and anyone can download security updates. If you have a legal version of Windows why does it matter anyhow? I dont see this as contempt, its Microsoft protecting its brand because if someone does litter the updates with viruses and malware, who is going to field the calls? Microsoft. Not you, not me. IMO people are blowing this way out of left field.

Reply Score: 4

RE
by morglum666 on Thu 30th Aug 2007 13:18 UTC in reply to "RE"
morglum666 Member since:
2005-07-06

I've never understood why anyone would want to use a third party outside of the vendor for patches. What kind of protection does that offer you?

Even worse, setting it up for a business.. imagine if they found a trojan or the file had been modified, and then they learn that you *skipped* the official update process because you thought it was a better idea?

Windows update has a few quirks but its a well run service. They even turn it on for you when the operating system is installed, so its no hassle at all.

Morglum

Reply Score: 1

RE
by shapeshifter on Thu 30th Aug 2007 14:39 UTC in reply to "RE"
shapeshifter Member since:
2006-09-19

Windows update has a few quirks but its a well run service. They even turn it on for you when the operating system is installed, so its no hassle at all.


Welcome to our planet Earth, hope you'll enjoy your stay.
Any software that downloads files to my computer without my permission is SPYWARE, TROJAN, VIRUS.
And that's what Windows Update is, one gigant SPYWARE,TROJAN, and VIRUS, all-in-one.

Reply Score: 1

RE
by morglum666 on Thu 30th Aug 2007 15:05 UTC in reply to "RE"
morglum666 Member since:
2005-07-06

You seem to have a lot of anxiety.
Maybe its time to go outside and get some fresh air.

Morglum

Reply Score: 2

RE
by sappyvcv on Thu 30th Aug 2007 19:59 UTC in reply to "RE"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Do you use Firefox?

Firefox is one gigant SPYWARE, TROJAN, AND VIRUS, all-in-one.

Reply Score: 1

Microsoft has a competing product?
by bornagainenguin on Wed 29th Aug 2007 22:14 UTC
bornagainenguin
Member since:
2005-08-07

"Microsoft now releases ISO-9660 DVD5 image files that contain all the security updates that are released on the Microsoft Windows Update Web site for Windows. The ISO image files are released at the same time as security updates are released on the Windows Update Web site."

See: http://preview.tinyurl.com/2vq8du

Could this be the reason why Microsoft is shutting down Autopatcher? So it can promote its own alternative? How much longer before Microsoft begins charging for this DVD release....

--bornagainpenguin

PS: Most of the Autopatcher releases can still be found via torrents if you know where to look...

Reply Score: 4

Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Or worse, requiring WGA to download.

edit Well that's no good. A DVD of only one month's patches? Are we expected to carry around a stack of DVDs and go through every one to get a fresh SP2 install up to date?

Edited 2007-08-29 22:19

Reply Score: 7

bornagainenguin Member since:
2005-08-07

Well no one said they were offering a better product...

In fact it wouldn't surprise me if the main reson they went after Autopatcher is because they made Microsoft's solution look... ahem... amateurish... by comparison.

--bornagainpenguin

Reply Score: 10

What a crock of crap
by Bit_Rapist on Wed 29th Aug 2007 22:14 UTC
Bit_Rapist
Member since:
2005-11-13

Autopatcher is a life saver for people doing support on machines that have slow or dialup connections. Hell even broadband it speeds things up.

MS has become so big thats it is now a paranoid entity that treats its own users like criminals.

How many hoops will they think of for us to jump through just to get updates?

Reply Score: 10

RE: What a crock of crap
by orion on Wed 29th Aug 2007 22:24 UTC in reply to "What a crock of crap"
orion Member since:
2005-07-21

I agree. This is stupid on Microsoft's part. Well stupid for the user, but it seems to fall nicely into their plan to control how you use their operating system. Yes, we just pay for the privilege to use their software. They don't care about us, as long as they get their money.

AutoPatcher has been a life saver for me as well. It makes it so much easier to maintain my network and it makes working on Windows boxes a breeze. Especially with installs.

I hate to break it to Microsoft, but Windows Update is terrible. I get so many hang ups when trying to use it. That's why I gave up on it.

Also, I prefer to choose which updates I want installed. They're probably just pissed because most AutoPatcher users never get around to installing those "critical" WGA updates.

I'm still trying to figure out how it's an advantage to us users? ;)

Edited 2007-08-29 22:26

Reply Score: 3

But why?
by tristan on Wed 29th Aug 2007 22:20 UTC
tristan
Member since:
2006-02-01

I don't use AutoPatcher -- indeed, I'd never heard of it till a couple of minutes ago -- but could somebody enlighten me as to what they're doing wrong in Microsoft's eyes?

Provided the click-wrap EULAs are in place, why does MS have a problem with this? And on what grounds are they shutting them down?

Reply Score: 4

RE: But why?
by Kroc on Wed 29th Aug 2007 22:24 UTC in reply to "But why?"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Security. The patches could be spiked with viruses &c. because they are being redistributed. Microsoft are expressing that they want people to download their patches only from their own site.

AutoPatcher (or a new startup) may be able to get around this by creating an app that uses an RSS feed of Microsoft patch releases, enclosing the download URL for each, so that it could download patches as they come out, and spit out an "autopatcher" release for personal use.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: But why?
by tristan on Wed 29th Aug 2007 22:39 UTC in reply to "RE: But why?"
tristan Member since:
2006-02-01

Security. The patches could be spiked with viruses &c.


Right. But presumably the files are digitally signed for precisely this reason?

And in any case, if someone got a virus from using a third-party update tool, it's not like Microsoft themselves could be held liable.

There's something more to this.

Microsoft are expressing that they want people to download their patches only from their own site.


Which is precisely the bit that makes me suspicious.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: But why?
by Kroc on Wed 29th Aug 2007 22:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: But why?"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

I don't think you have to see suspicion, just corporate incompetence.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: But why?
by Arawn on Thu 30th Aug 2007 00:41 UTC in reply to "RE: But why?"
Arawn Member since:
2005-07-13

AutoPatcher (or a new startup) may be able to get around this by creating an app that uses an RSS feed of Microsoft patch releases, enclosing the download URL for each, so that it could download patches as they come out, and spit out an "autopatcher" release for personal use.


Exactly my thoughts. No way Microsoft could complain about redistribution, and they couldn't also complain about the possible spiking of the updates, since they are downloaded from their website. They could complain about the possibility of spiking *after* the download, but if something like that happened, it would be known on the Web immediately, and the app would soon be shunned by everyone. That's what communities are for. ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: But why?
by n4cer on Thu 30th Aug 2007 03:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: But why?"
n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

Exactly my thoughts. No way Microsoft could complain about redistribution, and they couldn't also complain about the possible spiking of the updates, since they are downloaded from their website.


The proposed RSS feed with links directly to MS' site wouldn't be redistribution. Redistribution is exactly why MS shutdown AutoPatcher. AutoPatcher never had the right to redistribute or repackage MS' updates except for the few binaries labled as redistributable.

http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.mspx#ESB
NOTICE SPECIFIC TO SOFTWARE AVAILABLE ON THIS WEB SITE.
Any software that is made available to download from the Services ("Software") is the copyrighted work of Microsoft and/or its suppliers. Use of the Software is governed by the terms of the end user license agreement, if any, which accompanies or is included with the Software ("License Agreement"). An end user will be unable to install any Software that is accompanied by or includes a License Agreement, unless he or she first agrees to the License Agreement terms.

The Software is made available for download solely for use by end users according to the License Agreement. Any reproduction or redistribution of the Software not in accordance with the License Agreement is expressly prohibited by law, and may result in severe civil and criminal penalties. Violators will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible.

WITHOUT LIMITING THE FOREGOING, COPYING OR REPRODUCTION OF THE SOFTWARE TO ANY OTHER SERVER OR LOCATION FOR FURTHER REPRODUCTION OR REDISTRIBUTION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED, UNLESS SUCH REPRODUCTION OR REDISTRIBUTION IS EXPRESSLY PERMITTED BY THE LICENSE AGREEMENT ACCOMPANYING SUCH SOFTWARE.

Reply Score: 4

What was that First Amendment thing again?
by tristan on Wed 29th Aug 2007 22:33 UTC
tristan
Member since:
2006-02-01

From www.neowin.net:

"I had a call from Microsoft Legal this morning and they have told me that we are no longer allowed to endorse AutoPatcher on Neowin."

"The AutoPatcher forums on Neowin have been disabled for guests and members."

So according to MS, you can't even *talk* about AutoPatcher? Whatever happened to freedom of speech?

Reply Score: 10

jayson.knight Member since:
2005-07-06

"So according to MS, you can't even *talk* about AutoPatcher? Whatever happened to freedom of speech?"

I'm not getting where you see that MS told Neowin that there couldn't even be any discussion about AutoPatcher, or perhaps you're reading between the lines?

No one told Neowin to shut down their Autopatcher forums, they did it on their own accord. Yell at Neowin, not MS.

Reply Score: 5

bthylafh Member since:
2006-09-21

The First Amendment applies to the government restricting your freedom of speech, etc. It says nothing about what a commercial entity may or may not do.

Furrfu, take a civics class.

Reply Score: 2

....
by islander on Wed 29th Aug 2007 22:37 UTC
islander
Member since:
2007-04-11

Its stuff like this that is going to make me switch to Linux full time.

Reply Score: 8

RE: ....
by Kroc on Wed 29th Aug 2007 22:40 UTC in reply to "...."
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Stop "going" and start "gone". Look back after, not before. Be the changes you want to see. Do, or do not; there is no try. Need I say more?

Reply Score: 10

v RE[2]: ....
by islander on Wed 29th Aug 2007 22:44 UTC in reply to "RE: ...."
v RE[3]: ....
by raver31 on Thu 30th Aug 2007 00:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ...."
RE[4]: ....
by islander on Thu 30th Aug 2007 01:13 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: ...."
islander Member since:
2007-04-11

I already do.4 machines.3 Linux 1 Windows XP
My small home network Server is Mandriva One 2007:)

Edited 2007-08-30 01:16

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: ....
by UltraZelda64 on Wed 29th Aug 2007 23:13 UTC in reply to "RE: ...."
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

Well said. Talking about what you *might* do "if" Microsoft keeps doing things you don't like means nothing, until you actually do it. And trust me... Microsoft won't just change their ways.

Two years ago I was in the same boat as the original poster is in now, when I finally switched after maybe a year of contemplating it and getting pissed at Microsoft's decisions. Here I am now, been using Linux full-time these last two years, and still more and more disappointed in Microsoft's ways by the day. The only difference: I'm sitting here from a sideline point of view, no longer directly a part of Microsoft's userbase. It's quite refreshing actually, to no longer feel bound to what Microsoft says I should and should not be allowed to do.

It did take a lot of determination, patience and time to get used to it, to find what I like, and to get it the way I want it... but overall it's been enjoyable, and knowing how to use Linux opens the way for me to be able to use many other UNIX-like operating systems if I want to, with minimal extra learning.

Edited 2007-08-29 23:14

Reply Score: 9

My reasoning
by adsims2001 on Wed 29th Aug 2007 23:18 UTC
adsims2001
Member since:
2007-04-12

Microsoft may be killing AutoPatcher because it was possible to be fully updated on an illegitimate copy of Windows by dodging WGA validation by using AutoPatcher.

Reply Score: 3

RE: My reasoning
by kaiwai on Wed 29th Aug 2007 23:34 UTC in reply to "My reasoning"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

No; actually the problem is this; lets assume these updates are spread, those updates might get spread, one of the files have been infected by a virus or has been hacked. A large number of people have a negative experience. People then start to blame Microsoft for the dodgy update.

Yes, yes, I know, you'll say, "well, they used a dodgy update' - there are lots of things Microsoft are accused of which have no factural weight and yet take their toll on Microsofts image. This would be one of them. Irrespective of the stupidity of the end user, Microsoft would still end up being accused.

Call it a move to protect their name. If people had an ounce of personal responsibility, it would be a non-issue. But lets remember, the world is chock to the brim with morons. Morons who hack up their Windows installation and wonder why things go wrong. Use undocumented so-called 'tweaks' that end up causing more problems than they promise to solve. Over clocking their machines then wondering why they're unstable.

All the above get blamed on Microsoft by idiots in the media and blogspots, irrespective of how much evidence is bought forward proving that its the end users fault.

Reply Score: 10

RE[2]: My reasoning
by Quag7 on Thu 30th Aug 2007 01:55 UTC in reply to "RE: My reasoning"
Quag7 Member since:
2005-07-28

Right, so the obvious answer is for Microsoft to protect their own ass at the expense of their customers. Boo hoo. You'll take it you know where and pay for the privilege.

I am not even one of these people who think that Windows is like Wormwood falling from the sky or something, but it is really hard for me to sympathize with any action that denies basic freedoms and conveniences to one group of people, because another group are morons. It's group punishment, and it ticked me off in grade school, and it would especially tick me off if I paid hundreds of bucks for Windows - oh, sorry, the right to use Windows for some period of time on one computer.

Poor Microsoft, getting accused of having a miserable product by those horrible bloggers. I really do not sympathize. Put it in the stupid EULA or something, "If you get your patches elsewhere, we're not responsible for anything that happens." Plaster it on the front page of your website, but don't make life harder on people.

I don't disagree with what you are saying in terms of what happens, nor do I disagree that this is a predictable corporate remedy to the situation.

That doesn't make it any less rotten and just another reason not to run it. Windows is, of course, a fact of life. Whether we like it, or Microsoft, is sort of immaterial. Most of us are forced to use or support it from time to time, and this is just another hurdle.

Group punishment, which is what this is, sucks in gradeschool, and it sucks now. That it makes sense from a corporate image perspective doesn't really serve as much consolation to me, personally.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: My reasoning
by kaiwai on Thu 30th Aug 2007 02:32 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: My reasoning"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Right, so the obvious answer is for Microsoft to protect their own ass at the expense of their customers. Boo hoo. You'll take it you know where and pay for the privilege.


I *NEVER* said it was ok. I was simply explaining Microsofts rationale for their decision. I don't know where the bloody hell you came off with the idea that some how I'm jumping around protecting Microsoft from legitimate grevinces. Lets also remember that Microsoft OWN the software. You agree when purchasing a licence to Microsoft software that ultimately you don't own it, you only purchase a right to use it. A right at time they can revoke for what ever reason they see fit.

With that being said, however, I think that Microsoft would have been better off working with the Autopatcher project and see if thee is some way to work it as part of a large Windows community of projects. I do think that what Microsoft done is harsh. Yes, they're well within their rights to do so but I think Microsoft has alot to learn about community.

Edited 2007-08-30 02:34

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: My reasoning
by Soulbender on Thu 30th Aug 2007 07:06 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: My reasoning"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"You agree when purchasing a licence to Microsoft software that ultimately you don't own it, you only purchase a right to use it. A right at time they can revoke for what ever reason they see fit."

This is not necessarily legally enforceable or even legal.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: My reasoning
by Quag7 on Thu 30th Aug 2007 04:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: My reasoning"
Quag7 Member since:
2005-07-28

If I misread the intention of your post, I apologize.

And to reiterate, I agree with your explanation.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: My reasoning
by -pekr- on Thu 30th Aug 2007 07:04 UTC in reply to "RE: My reasoning"
-pekr- Member since:
2006-03-28

Kaiwai, I think that each company, as big as MS, has some ppl preaching to it on the one hand, and cursing it on the other hand.

I would like to remind you, that those patches are in the first place patches to their faulty software we pay for, right? And we pay for it even in the form of end user support. How many pcs do you take care of personally?

I think that all those efforst as AutoPatcher started pretty much naturally. You are the guy who takes care of user machines, you are the guy who tries to make your life easier, so you produce some helper tool, which you call an AutoPatcher. Then you also have friends, taking care of their user's PCs, so you share your work with them.

I think you live out of reality, and I really don't understand the way, in which you defend MS. My folks take care of some 300PC, privately I do take care of some tens of PCs. Do you know who my friends or employees call, if something is broken? Me, us, our team. Never MS. Even us never call MS to take care of the actual troublesome situation.

The process is self-healing. As someone already said here, that is what open community is for here. So, I really think, that you should find better arguments to defend MS, as this step is another drop of poison to ppl, which are here to cure PC related problems, MS product related problems including. I really think that that move was really stupid on their part, and the public community opinion will cause MS more harm, then actual problems, which could arise by eventual missuse of AutoPatcher system.

Cheers,
Petr

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: My reasoning
by sappyvcv on Thu 30th Aug 2007 12:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: My reasoning"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

I would like to remind you, that those patches are in the first place patches to their faulty software

All software is faulty.

Reply Score: 2

RE: My reasoning
by bornagainenguin on Wed 29th Aug 2007 23:35 UTC in reply to "My reasoning"
bornagainenguin Member since:
2005-08-07

Great theory.....only you still have to validate via WGA with Autopatcher.

--bornagainpenguin

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: My reasoning
by adsims2001 on Wed 29th Aug 2007 23:38 UTC in reply to "RE: My reasoning"
adsims2001 Member since:
2007-04-12

I don't know about newer versions, but AutoPatcher didn't require WGA validation when I used it maybe five months ago.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: My reasoning
by chrono13 on Wed 29th Aug 2007 23:41 UTC in reply to "RE: My reasoning"
chrono13 Member since:
2006-10-25

"only you still have to validate via WGA with Autopatcher."

Only for IE7, WMP11 or WGA. Each is optional. If you are a pirate with a slipstreamed and updated disk already, IE7 and WMP11 won't ask to validate.

Autopatcher would have been shut down eventually, but I'm guessing it would have been closer to SP3 if they had not decided to make WGA optional.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: My reasoning
by dylansmrjones on Thu 30th Aug 2007 01:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: My reasoning"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Hmm.. WGA doesn't work well on my Win2K3 system (acquired through MSDN AA), but that hasn't given me any kind of trouble in regard to WMP or IE7. WGA fails to run (that crap simply doesn't work) but apparently Windows Update just assumes everything is okay.

Reply Score: 2

Heise Offline Updater
by pxa270 on Wed 29th Aug 2007 23:32 UTC
pxa270
Member since:
2006-01-08

Heise has a similar update tool:

http://www.heise-security.co.uk/articles/80682

In contrast to Autopatcher, it does not repackage/redistribute the MS patches, rather it's a collection of scripts that pulls all the patches from the MS site with Wget, and then creates an ISO which can run them all in unattended mode. It's a bit bigger and slower than Autopatcher though.

Edited 2007-08-29 23:34

Reply Score: 5

RE: Heise Offline Updater
by boblowski on Thu 30th Aug 2007 06:02 UTC in reply to "Heise Offline Updater"
boblowski Member since:
2007-07-23

The Heise Offline Updater actually works quite well. My only complaint is that it's somewhat slow, but it gets the job done.

Ironically enough, I feel that the whole installation and keeping it current is one of the weaker sides of Windows. Without tools like AutoPatcher/Heise/nLite, installing Windows can be a real PITA. Especially if you have to install and maintain several machines.

Edited 2007-08-30 06:03

Reply Score: 1

nudge nudge, hint hint.
by jadeshade on Thu 30th Aug 2007 01:36 UTC
jadeshade
Member since:
2007-07-10

I think I'm being fair when I say that, for the alternative os users who are not paranoid conspiracy theorists, this exact sort of BS is the real reason we left microsoft. We're willing to pay for a 'tivo' or two, don't always agree with RMS and crew, and can even deal with a few EULA's. But when the closed nature of a company stands directly in the way of user experience (as it does now), we just shake our heads and welcome a few new {linux, bsd, syllable, etc.} users into the fold. Maybe, if we're bored, we look up some of Stallman's rants, and one at a time, they'll begin to make sense...

Reply Score: 12

RE: nudge nudge, hint hint.
by djohnston on Thu 30th Aug 2007 07:27 UTC in reply to "nudge nudge, hint hint."
djohnston Member since:
2006-04-11

Well said. I had to mod you up for that line of reasoning.

Reply Score: 0

RE: nudge nudge, hint hint.
by sappyvcv on Thu 30th Aug 2007 12:31 UTC in reply to "nudge nudge, hint hint."
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Maybe, if we're bored, and have some marijuana laying around, we look up some of Stallman's rants, and one at a time, they'll begin to make sense...

Fixed ;)

Anyway.. this kind of sucks. It's not going to stop people from using it though, just make it harder to get.

Now, if they go and require the UXtheme patcher be taken down...

Reply Score: 0

Just Another Symptom
by pfsams on Thu 30th Aug 2007 01:51 UTC
pfsams
Member since:
2006-01-05

Microsoft does more and more to alienate their customers. Autopatcher is not well known to many, however MS keeps adding more annoying hurdles to their customers to "fight piracy" "genuine advantage" and (fill in your example here), that their paying customers will start leaving. It may not be overnight, but does anyone remember the "invincible" Sears & Roebuck?

Reply Score: 3

I knew I wouldn't go to Vista
by cerbie on Thu 30th Aug 2007 02:21 UTC
cerbie
Member since:
2006-01-02

Autopatcher has been an amazing tool to get work done. All MS needs to do is repackage their own updates every couple months in a big cumulative update that can be easily redistributed, and we wouldn't even need it. As it is, a plain XP install needs 80+ updates, now. Autopatcher makes this a nice, easy process, and I get Java, Flash, and other little goodies in the process.

I won't say right now I will go ahead and get rid of Windows, but this is the first time I've genuinely considered doing it (up to now, I've been waiting for something I want to not run on Win2k, since I'm just plain used to it). I understand their concerns, but this is not the way to solve the problem.

Reply Score: 2

RE: I knew I wouldn't go to Vista
by REM2000 on Thu 30th Aug 2007 07:56 UTC in reply to "I knew I wouldn't go to Vista"
REM2000 Member since:
2006-07-25

perhaps this is where service packs should go, round up all the security updates a little quicker instead of waiting years inbetween SP's.

Reply Score: 4

One thing...
by Almafeta on Thu 30th Aug 2007 02:50 UTC
Almafeta
Member since:
2007-02-22

It looks like Microsoft asked politely, and they took it down politely.

And who knows? The Autopatcher folks, now that they've shown they can work with the Windows systems on a deep level, just might find a nice employment contract hitting their desks soon. Especially with his closing line -- "the end of AutoPatcher as we know it." Not "the end of AutoPatcher."

See the example of Sysinternals for what I mean.

Reply Score: 3

RE: One thing...
by SReilly on Thu 30th Aug 2007 08:19 UTC in reply to "One thing..."
SReilly Member since:
2006-12-28

The Autopatcher folks getting a nice job or not is hardly the issue being discussed here. MS shutting down a useful community project that was helping allot of people, to witch they have no competing solution or valid replacement, is.

I'm sure people can come up with plenty of reasons for why they did it, and some of them might even sound justified. It still does nothing to ease the burden on system builders and support engineers though.

You can try to polish it, dress it up and cover it with perfume, but at the end of the day, a turd is still a turd.

Reply Score: 4

Torrents
by bthylafh on Thu 30th Aug 2007 03:34 UTC
bthylafh
Member since:
2006-09-21
One bit of irony
by ubit on Thu 30th Aug 2007 06:49 UTC
ubit
Member since:
2006-09-08

I read on the SCOX Yahoo board from "searcher4.g" that I thought I'd share because it was really cogent:

"We will not only dictate what our code can do but what the code you may develop may do."

Hmmm sounds like the common, yet incorrect, complaint about the gpl.

Reply Score: 2

Registry tweaks.
by hollovoid on Thu 30th Aug 2007 08:54 UTC
hollovoid
Member since:
2005-09-21

The company I work for used to use autopatcher quite frequently, but stopped because of the catastrophy that "security registry tweak" caused. Even though it can be undone, the chaos caused by over 400 computers suddenly disconnected was inexcusable by upper management. Im sure they could have researched more and avoided it, but it seems strange that would be enabled by default when it is known in some cases to cause a problem. On top of that the microsoft reps refused to help when the undo tweak didnt work on many of these computers once they admitted autopatcher was used.. I know it seems trivial, but increased support volume is most likely the cause of the hammer coming down.

google it up quickly, there are many more problems stemmed from it, while many may never have run into issues, it only takes a couple noticed by the wrong people to wrap up a project like this.

Reply Score: 2

Sadly...
by ssa2204 on Thu 30th Aug 2007 11:31 UTC
ssa2204
Member since:
2006-04-22

Basically, people are naive to have used Autopatcher to begin with. I can say this much, I would fire any Sys or Net admin in a heartbeat if I caught them using such a tool, especially when there are already numerous sanctioned utilities already out there. In fact, Microsoft has already released several of their own for IT admins.

Same goes for OSS as well. I would never allow any update to a RHEL or Novell that is not directly sanctioned and authorized by them to release packages and patches that have not been directly approved.

Reply Score: 3

This'll push it underground.
by knightrider on Thu 30th Aug 2007 17:06 UTC
knightrider
Member since:
2006-12-11

They are doing this because Autopatcher allows you to install updates that would otherwise require WGA authentication to download. Hence one can use Autopatcher to update a system installed with a pirated copy of XP.

Reply Score: 1

Where to download the current ones
by RMSe17 on Thu 30th Aug 2007 17:08 UTC
RMSe17
Member since:
2006-03-06

can I get the current version somewhere like bittorrent? or is there a depository where they are still available?

Reply Score: 1

Another Mafiasoft Effort to "Help"
by trijdw on Fri 31st Aug 2007 01:36 UTC
trijdw
Member since:
2007-08-31

The entire reason for AutoPatcher existence was that Mafiasoft refuses to or doesn't bother with offering a similar tool to those who need it. Even if one pays for the relatively expensive TechNet support package, support personnel can't obtain anything close to AutoPatcher from the Benevolent Entity.

Keep playing with fire, Mafiasoft. You make this brilliant move at a time that Vista is floundering and that Windows Server 2008 gets delayed yet again until perhaps some time next year. In case you haven't noticed, Apple's Mac share keeps increasing--and that's before Leopard and shortly after availability of Adobe CS3.

Reply Score: 1