Linked by Eugenia Loli on Thu 12th Jan 2006 07:36 UTC, submitted by Resolution
Bugs & Viruses Users of Windows who have set the Automatic Updates option to "Download updates for me, but let me choose when to install them" were surprised to find that the latest WMF patch had overridden these settings and not only installed the patch, but rebooted the machines as well.
Thread beginning with comment 85020
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Anti MS Paranoia
by cayfer on Thu 12th Jan 2006 10:54 UTC in reply to "Anti MS Paranoia"
Member since:

Non-administrative users applying patces? Weird! What
does the admin do then? Ohhh. I see.. he/she is enjoying
the privilege of rebooting the system manually!

Furhermore, if you go deep enough into the registry, or
even deep into the code, you can change ANY option; and
even can remove vulnerabilities!

I cannot understand why an admin should have an
equivalent of a PhD degree in undocumented registry
features. We, UNIXers do such things in human readable
AND documented config files. (See OpSYS-101 notes/text books).

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Anti MS Paranoia
by Lamego on Thu 12th Jan 2006 12:05 in reply to "RE: Anti MS Paranoia"
Lamego Member since:

Uh ?
The patches are not applied by non-administrative users, the patches are installed by the windows update software when non-administrative users are logged on, however this was an administrator decision (wether the admin understood it or not).
If you are system administrator (even just for your home pc) and you are using an update option that you do not understand read something about it. This is valid for both linux and windows admins.

This entire topic just demonstrates how much windows users/admins don't care much about the details of their system until they get something they don't expect.
If there is a feature/option which they were not aware of, its MS overriding their decisions... what a joke.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Anti MS Paranoia
by Sphinx on Thu 12th Jan 2006 17:30 in reply to "RE: Anti MS Paranoia"
Sphinx Member since:

I don't get it either, blind obedience and lack of experience with a decent OS is my only guess. The idea that the registry system is in any way better than the old ini files completely baffled me.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Anti MS Paranoia
by mlb2000 on Thu 12th Jan 2006 18:29 in reply to "RE: Anti MS Paranoia"
mlb2000 Member since:

Yeah - like ;)

One config file, four O'Reilly guides, one topping 1200+ pages!

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Anti MS Paranoia
by Celerate on Fri 13th Jan 2006 01:06 in reply to "RE[2]: Anti MS Paranoia"
Celerate Member since:

Like someone is really going to read all four books, or for that matter even one. Sysadmins for companies maybe, because it's their job to know every feature, but all the people I know who use programs like sendmail simply read one man page and then experiment a little to get the application working. It's not that hard.

Bad example too frankly, since Linux has no shortage of graphical e-mail clients that works very well. Another shortcomming with your argument is that you probably picked a fairly complicated configuration file, although never having used sendmail I really don't know how involved that is. Consider that the /etc/fstab configuration file is very straightforward and after spending a few minutes reading a man page I made changes to it that worked perfectly my very first time even opening the file.

Frankly whether you like configuration files or not is a matter of personal taste, I preffer well designed configuration applications, but I also preffer that settings be saved in configuration files than that they be saved in a regestry.

Reply Parent Score: 3