Author Topic: [Humor]: An update is available for your computer! (Read 17992 times)

zridling · « **on:** February 24, 2011, 11:48 PM »

http://yfrog.com/gzxcwzbj

40hz · « **Reply #1 on:** February 25, 2011, 04:54 AM »

Sounds about right.

Ath · « **Reply #2 on:** February 25, 2011, 07:24 AM »

You can see who is good at expectation management

Josh · « **Reply #3 on:** February 25, 2011, 07:25 AM »

Actually, linux and windows should swap now. I have FAR MORE updates for my linux box than I do for Windows. Point being, Windows 7 in the last month has had 9 patches on my system. In the last week, I've had 19 patches for ubuntu 10.10 and 25 for opensuse 11.3

40hz · « **Reply #4 on:** February 25, 2011, 07:35 AM »

Actually, linux and windows should swap now. I have FAR MORE updates for my linux box than I do for Windows. Point being, Windows 7 in the last month has had 9 patches on my system. In the last week, I've had 19 patches for ubuntu 10.10 and 25 for opensuse 11.3
-Josh (February 25, 2011, 07:25 AM)

Yeah, but was it as annoying as Windows is when it has to update?

---

BTW: They left out SERVERS!!! (Caption to read: Well, so much for this weekend.)

Josh · « **Reply #5 on:** February 25, 2011, 07:58 AM »

Annoying? I came back to my machine seeing that it had updated automatically. I didn't have to do anything but reboot which took less than a minute. On Windows, the reboot is optional. On Linux, if I don't logoff after certain updates, the WM will look quite screwy.

40hz · « **Reply #6 on:** February 25, 2011, 08:44 AM »

@Josh- why are you letting Linux update automatically? I don't even let Windows do that. Both systems notify you enough about pending updates that you don't need to leave them to their own devices. Besides, I want to know what it wants to change before I let it regardless of platform.

On a positive note, reboots look like they'll soon be going away under Linux. And that includes following kernal updates. Very cool that!

Josh · « **Reply #7 on:** February 25, 2011, 08:47 AM »

I don't let Linux update automatically. Windows, on the other hand, can auto-update all it wants. I only have to put up with it once a month (minus serious 0-days which MS releases). Linux, if it were to auto-update, would be doing it at least once per day.

On Windows, I do not see Auto-update as a bad thing. I have never seen a patch crash a system in my many years working with it. I've heard of others having issues, but I've never experienced it.

40hz · « **Reply #8 on:** February 25, 2011, 09:01 AM »

Some time back I got called in when Windows once autoupdated an entire office (with 31 machines) to IE7. The following morning they couldn't get into half of their web apps. Big nightmare since they were a realty and rental management group. Those guys do most of their stuff up on the web.

I know they've since changed IE updates to optional. But I never quite trusted automatic updates since.

I guess in an unmanaged IT office setting you don't have much choice since missing a critical security update is a far more serious problem than the occasional introduced compatibility issue.

zridling · « **Reply #9 on:** February 25, 2011, 10:00 AM »

Josh, I run openSUSE 11.3 and I've had two updates in the past 7 days, both of them security without having to logout; system runs fine. ubuntu I don't know. Are you running it as a server or do you have 65 active repositories? (I have 14, including Chrome beta.) Also, I've only had to reboot twice in the past year, once was for a kernel upgrade. Your exaggerations make me wonder.

Josh · « **Reply #10 on:** February 25, 2011, 10:09 AM »

Zaine, I am telling you what I've experienced on my BASE INSTALL of opensuse from the Live CD image. After the initial 280 patch update, The number I gave you is what I was prompted to install over the past 7 days.

How about we stop accusing people of exaggerating and realize that everyone's experience may vary? I am very sick of people attacking me when I share my experience (typical in the *nix community). I am not trying to make Linux look bad, I have no reason to do so. I am not a fanboy of ANY platform or product. I run whatever works and am not afraid to point out shortcomings. I am merely stating what I am experiencing or have experienced.

To sum it up, from memory, I had 8 on Tuesday and 7 on Thursday with default repositories. Cannot recall the other days, but that is what I experienced with various 2-3 patch days in between.

On Windows, I had SP1 for Win7 and 5 security updates (for a month).

Does this mean it is bad for either platform? No, update your software. Please, keep me secure. But let's drop the age-old metaphor that Windows has more patches than a Linux system. Call it like it is.

40hz · « **Reply #11 on:** February 25, 2011, 10:30 AM »

@Josh - if it's any comfort, my NIX boxes easily get twice the number of updates my Windows machines do. And I should hope so, since I've got five times more stuff on them than I do Windows, to say nothing of all the bleeding-edge software I should have my head examined for using.

As you correctly observed, each individual's mileage can vary.

-////

Meanwhile...back at the OS cracker-barrel...

Zeke: Well lookee here! We gots us one o' them dang NIX community members gone agreein' with that young Josh feller. Can yew believe yer eyes?

Deke: Well i never...

Zeke: Yessir! What's this sorry world a'commin tew?

worstje · « **Reply #12 on:** February 25, 2011, 10:42 AM »

Annoying? I came back to my machine seeing that it had updated automatically. I didn't have to do anything but reboot which took less than a minute. On Windows, the reboot is optional. On Linux, if I don't logoff after certain updates, the WM will look quite screwy.
-Josh (February 25, 2011, 07:58 AM)

I disagree. Windows 7 is an absolute pain, putting your arm through the wrangler with regards to rebooting. Half the updates are marked as 'may need to reboot' and end up not needing it (although it maybe just have been the early W7 period when I paid a lot of attention to it). You cannot configure it to only automatically install only those things that do not need a reboot. Once something needing a reboot is installed, it is pure utter hell trying to get it to give you some slack. At most, you can tell it to wait 4 hours before nagging you again. And it will not take fullscreen apps into consideration. I've had it force-close me out of a lot of documents that didn't get auto-saved in any sort of way.

If Microsoft fixed that, I might call their updater pleasant. Right now, it is hell as it really forces me to manually involve myself far too much.

Clara Listensprechen · « **Reply #13 on:** February 25, 2011, 11:07 AM »

Annoying? I came back to my machine seeing that it had updated automatically. I didn't have to do anything but reboot which took less than a minute. On Windows, the reboot is optional. On Linux, if I don't logoff after certain updates, the WM will look quite screwy.
-Josh (February 25, 2011, 07:58 AM)

Yeah, that's nice at first, but after a while there are so many updates that the machine slows down, then MS comes out with a new OS and you buy a new machine with the new OS pre-install because it's cheaper than upgrading the one you got and what it all amounts to is that you change machines for the new faster OS like a person buying a new Cadillac because the ashtrays in the old one got full.

Stoic Joker · « **Reply #14 on:** February 25, 2011, 11:32 AM »

We use Kaseya to manage updates (and etc.) for the office and client networks. So I have a central point to approve updates (or not) for everyone at once. That way I can wait a few days to see if there is any screaming before pushing out any given update to 100 machines scattered across the countryside.

At home I just use automatic downloading and let me choose when to install. That way I can time when to do what, because the reboot question is frequently dependent on what is running at the time the patch is installed.

I think I only rebooted about 8 times last year.

40hz · « **Reply #15 on:** February 25, 2011, 11:37 AM »

... then MS comes out with a new OS and you buy a new machine with the new OS pre-install because it's cheaper than upgrading the one you got and what it all amounts to is that you change machines for the new faster OS like a person buying a new Cadillac because the ashtrays in the old one got full.
-Clara Listensprechen link=topic=25865.msg238822#msg238822

Actually, in the case of a new Microsoft OS, it's more like it would only cost a little extra to get that new Caddy than it would to vac out the ashtrays in the old one.

My GF bought a new laptop recently. When I asked her what she got, she said: I think I bought a copy of the "new Windows" and they threw in this i3 laptop for a hundred bucks.

Might have been funnier if it weren't so close to the truth.

Josh · « **Reply #16 on:** February 25, 2011, 11:49 AM »

I think I only rebooted about 8 times last year.
-Stoic Joker (February 25, 2011, 11:32 AM)

My windows 7 LAPTOP only gets rebooted MAYBE once per month unless I am installing something new that requires it. Plus, it takes me just over a minute to reboot, so it really is not an inconvenience.

Josh · « **Reply #17 on:** February 26, 2011, 01:15 PM »

To raise the issue once more, I updated 2 days ago (Thursday) and had the 7 updates I mentioned. Today, I go to update again and have 14 new updates. Today's series required me log out and log back in. Once again, my point is not to bad mouth the *nix platforms, but merely point out that number of updates, or the requirement to reboot/log out and log back in does not make a platform bad. I think using this criteria to judge a platform is ill-advised if not used in the proper context.

40hz · « **Reply #18 on:** February 26, 2011, 02:41 PM »

To raise the issue once more, I updated 2 days ago (Thursday) and had the 7 updates I mentioned. Today, I go to update again and have 14 new updates. Today's series required me log out and log back in. Once again, my point is not to bad mouth the *nix platforms, but merely point out that number of updates, or the requirement to reboot/log out and log back in does not make a platform bad. I think using this criteria to judge a platform is ill-advised if not used in the proper context.
-Josh (February 26, 2011, 01:15 PM)

100% with you on that one.

I never understood why it was such a big deal either. It doesn't matter if there are security holes or program bugs. Because there will always be security holes and program bugs. What's most important is that they get patched on a timely basis. I'd be much more concerned if updates were few and far between.

Updates and reboots are a small inconvenience to put up with in return for a more secure and stable machine.

Deozaan · « **Reply #19 on:** February 26, 2011, 04:27 PM »

I like having a million billion trillion windows open. Or, you know, maybe only 10. But each of those might have several "tabs" open as well. And even though they're all smart enough to open the same files/tabs I had open previously, for some reason I still don't like the inconvenience of having to shut it all down and reboot.

I thought Windows was supposed to have Update Tuesday. So how come I update on Tuesday and then a day or two later there are more updates? I like having vulnerabilities patched, but my machine is old and it takes time to reboot.

I don't mean to pick on Windows here. I'm only talking about my personal experience, which is mostly with Windows. I only boot into Linux so sporadically that there's bound to be a ton of updates anyway.

Updating your computer: It's an inconvenience. It annoys me. But it's worth it for the security and stability.

Clara Listensprechen · « **Reply #20 on:** February 26, 2011, 07:15 PM »

To raise the issue once more, I updated 2 days ago (Thursday) and had the 7 updates I mentioned. Today, I go to update again and have 14 new updates. Today's series required me log out and log back in. Once again, my point is not to bad mouth the *nix platforms, but merely point out that number of updates, or the requirement to reboot/log out and log back in does not make a platform bad. I think using this criteria to judge a platform is ill-advised if not used in the proper context.
-Josh (February 26, 2011, 01:15 PM)

100% with you on that one.

I never understood why it was such a big deal either. It doesn't matter if there are security holes or program bugs. Because there will always be security holes and program bugs. What's most important is that they get patched on a timely basis. I'd be much more concerned if updates were few and far between.

Updates and reboots are a small inconvenience to put up with in return for a more secure and stable machine.

-40hz (February 26, 2011, 02:41 PM)

I replaced a hard drive on an XP machine and installed a the fresh XP from the CD, and it ran fast. Then came the infernal updates--hundreds of them. Got all those installed and then--you guessed it--the machine slowed down. It slowed down to the point where the machine actually produced an error message from MS HQ complaining that the machine was running too slow, would I please close a few windows. It had a Report button, I clicked on that and said a few choice words about how, if MS wanted XP to run faster, what it needed to do is quit clogging the system with all those updates.

lanux128 · « **Reply #21 on:** February 26, 2011, 11:35 PM »

this might not be in line with the original image but with certain vendors' update, you start with one anti-malware tool and end up with two anti-malware tools which will fight over resources and bring down your computer.

large image alert

• http://imgur.com/gallery/mlioU

Edvard · « **Reply #22 on:** February 28, 2011, 10:13 PM »

Geez guys, if you're going to "well, actually" the cartoon, at least make some mention that updates to OS X don't cost $99.

... They're actually $29 ($49 for the 'Family Pack')
http://store.apple.c...roduct/MAC_OS_X_SNGL

Edvard · « **Reply #23 on:** April 04, 2011, 09:05 PM »

There, FTFY:

Josh · « **Reply #24 on:** April 04, 2011, 09:11 PM »

Now that is a tad more accurate.