![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Updates. . . .
Jun. 10th, 2008 03:05 pmJonathan wrote:
It's gotten to the point where I always turn off updates on every software I use regularly with the exception of Windows, AVG, and online games. Those are bad enough.
AVG has become even more insistent that its updates absolutely require that you drop what you are doing and reboot the computer. This is of course, the worst misfeature of Windows. I've edited the registry to turn it off many times, and every so often it seems to get turned back on again.
Generally, when I click on a program icon, I want that program to load. I do not want to wait for an update to install.
I'm no longer impressed by the "security" excuse, either. I know I've asked before, but has anyone been keeping track of how many Windows updates are labelled with the notation that they are there to prevent a bug that would "enable an attacker to gain control over your system?"
This vague omen never explains what they'd have to do to get such control, or what they could do with such control. Without those key pieces of information, there's no way of judging whether the patch is worth the trouble it makes. Like government, its purpose is to keep the end users ignorant but frightened.
No, sorry, I have to *notice* a bug and be actually annoyed by it before wanting a fix.
Sick to death ... of the aggressive update policy of Apple ...
It's gotten to the point where I always turn off updates on every software I use regularly with the exception of Windows, AVG, and online games. Those are bad enough.
AVG has become even more insistent that its updates absolutely require that you drop what you are doing and reboot the computer. This is of course, the worst misfeature of Windows. I've edited the registry to turn it off many times, and every so often it seems to get turned back on again.
Generally, when I click on a program icon, I want that program to load. I do not want to wait for an update to install.
I'm no longer impressed by the "security" excuse, either. I know I've asked before, but has anyone been keeping track of how many Windows updates are labelled with the notation that they are there to prevent a bug that would "enable an attacker to gain control over your system?"
This vague omen never explains what they'd have to do to get such control, or what they could do with such control. Without those key pieces of information, there's no way of judging whether the patch is worth the trouble it makes. Like government, its purpose is to keep the end users ignorant but frightened.
No, sorry, I have to *notice* a bug and be actually annoyed by it before wanting a fix.
