the relative dearth of Linux-running PCs out there makes encountering malware exceedingly unlikely.
so? it’ll shut down by itself after it’s done. and you’re already logged off of the system, so why sit there and wait?
How about Flash and Java updates? Do people leave those on automatic? And AV apps depend on updates, so aren’t they the most in need of automatic updates? (AV is the only program I allow to have automatic updates)
If you’re shutting down because of a power outage, hell yes you want it shut down NOW, without any screwing around. I had an auto update fail on my work machine (where I must have it turned on). I lost a full day’s work while the help desk got MS office working again.
Automatic notification with manual update is the way to go. That way you still have some control over your computer.
I love updates, I just don’t want them on the very first day of release. The list of new updates that broke something goes on and on. AV software that takes out a critical system file, an OS update that takes out your Internet connection. A long, scary, list.
Within a day or two these get fixed.
I turn off automatic updates for this reason. But that means I have to manually check for updates which is a pain and also kind of scary.
What they need is an option for “auto only for updates that have been out a couple days”.
(And the nonsense about having to reboot your computer just because you updated your AV defs or some such is ridiculous. I go weeks without rebooting, I like to keep things in the current “state” of what’s running and set. Having to restore the activities I have going on is a major pain. Especially for buggy, security deficient programs that have to have updates a couple times a week. I’m looking at you Adobe.)
the average computer user can’t be trusted to run the updates manually. If they could, automatic wouldn’t be the default (or recommended default.)
This is the attitude Microsoft often exhibits. They forget that it’s my computer, so they force things on me, with no way to opt out temporarily (like a Shut down now button when they’ve decided they are going take over my computer to install updates).
This attitude is a big part of why I run Linux.
if the person has a real hard time using the computer then automatic update may be best for them, one less task to learn and do. people in that category might also use AOL and AOL does automatic ‘don’t turn off, takes half an hour’ updates all the time anyway.
If I think about it some more I can not avoid to get the impression that this “updating” of the different programs is being accepted as a normal thing, but, imagine your car would have to go back to the dealer every day to change some settings in order to have it running safely…
Would you buy such a car?
I would if it had free porn.
I’m glad, because Windows users with your attitude are why worms spread so fast and why botnets exist.
If all cars worked that way, then yes, you would have no choice. The problem is that software is a very different beast to a lump of metal. Most people don’t ever realise how very very different it is, because there is nothing in their life that even begins to approximate the complexity and brittleness of even medium sized software systems. Worse, we have ended up in a situation where for all intents, every time you boot your computer and connect to the Internet you are entering it into a war zone. The seething mass of pain awaiting your computer out there is beyond anything you can relate to. We used to estimate that a brand new Windows install would last about 20 minutes from being connected to the Internet to being compromised. The only reason new machines are not so vulnerable is the progress made in security of the software. If you got an installation disk for an older version it would still be compromised in 20 minutes.
The difference between software and a car is this. To be secure the software has to be perfect. Absolutely without flaw. Any flaw can expose the software to total failure. It is as if a slight scratch in the paintwork of your car could suddenly result in the car fracturing in two, killing the occupants. I used to explain this to my software engineering students like this. If you were travelling on a plane somewhere, and you looked out of the window and noticed that there was a loose rivet in the wing, would you be worried? The answer is no, planes are designed to survive vastly greater damage than that. But with software it is as if that loose rivet could suddenly result in the plane disassembling itself into its individual components.
This isn’t because all programmers are lazy, incompetent, or fools (although, like anywhere there are some). It is simply the nature of the beast. Certainly there are commercial and other forces that have led to some bad software systems, and history shows some very poor technical choices that led to some of these problems - but picking on these is easy in hindsight - and vastly harder otherwise. The commercial and engineering reality is simple. If you want the level of functionality and features that seems to be demanded by the mainstream buyer, you buy into the idea that the software is of only a given quality, and your protection against problems is that whenever the vendor finds an issue, they fix it. This isn’t brilliant. But difficult to come up with a viable alternative to. Not one that satisfies the modern consumer’s desire for ever more features and capabilities.
Highly reliable and secure systems exist, but the dramatic lack of features, and extraordinarily high development costs make them very different. A good example is actually a modern car’s computer systems. Things like stability control. Just think that there are a number of communicating computers controlling the engine, brakes, and various sensors, whose responsibility is to manage your car under skidding conditions, to keep you safe. Those guys take reliability more seriously than just about anyone you will ever meet. (Even the now defunct Space Shuttle flight control guys. The shuttle only flew a bit more than a hundred times. These guys write software that is in millions cars being driven every day. Software that could just as easily kill their passengers.) The only way to get this level of reliability is to keep it as simple as possible and to apply the most extraordinarily rigorous engineering processes to its development. It can be easily be hundreds of times the cost to develop than ordinary PC software of similar size and complexity.
Francis Vaughan has it right. You can have your software that (almost) never needs updating, if you are willing to accept reduced functionality, delays in receiving new features and greatly increased cost. Software design and implementation involves trade-offs.
One way to allay your concerns might be to get a good system backup and do incremental backups every night. Then, if an update comes in that has a problem, you can always roll back to the previous day.
I don’t think it’s the updates people mind, it’s more the fact that the computer will initiate the process with the owner’s consent or direction. Sure, you can opt out of the automatic aspect of it, but then we have the problem of a low compliance rate.
It looks like some of these have been said, but in any case, here are a few of my reasons for not having automatic updates turned on. (I do ask programs to notify me when updates are available.)
-
Some updates are big events and I want careful control of these. For instance, I won’t install a Windows service pack until I have a large block of time to do it in case of issue and (importantly) until I have done a full clone backup of my HDD.
-
Some “important” updates are nonsense clutter. Windows 7 is currently imploring me to install the “important” Bing Bar update.
-
I typically have many metaphorical balls in the air. I currently have 15 applications present across the task bar. If an update requires a reboot, I may very much not want to reboot now (or possibly for many days to follow). However, leaving half-finished updates lying around is a recipe for instability, especially if other updates come through before one gets around to doing the reboot, so I would basically be forced to reboot.
-
I like letting others be the guinea pigs on updates. This is most relevant for major version changes in programs, which often carry with them bugs that will get patched soon enough.
-
Related to major version changes in programs: if I’m happy with how things are going, I don’t always want to change them. Windows Media Player is a good example. I use it very rarely, only when there is some random media file that I need it for. As long as my current version is supported and I’m getting stability and security updates, I am not interested in updating to a new major version to get whatever bells, whistles, or social networking marketing stuff that will come along, nor am I interested in going through the intentionally difficult task of ensuring that WMP doesn’t take over as the default player for everything under the sun. (Aside: the next time you find yourself doing this, take notice that there are multiple ways to have WMP gain file type associations, including an “everything” button, there is no way to say either “none” or “only what is currently set”. You have to go item by item through the list, unchecking every random file type that you think is handled by something better already.)
-
If an update will enter one of the “please wait - do not turn off your computer” stages, I better be free to “please wait”. However, I’m usually only ready to turn off my computer when I’m heading out the door somewhere, and that’s usually when I don’t want to be waiting. Just another reason to control the timing of the updates.
-
I like to know exactly what is being modified so I can better diagnose problems when they arise. If something weird starts happening to my wireless connection, say, I know whether there was an update that modified network-related items or not. Conversely, if an update comes through that affects a particular aspect of my system, I know to check that that aspect still works as expected after the update. If it doesn’t, it will be way easier to undo the update right then than it will be months later after the system has changed in countless other ways.
Indeed! I run an Ubuntu machine and have been in conversation earlier today with a Windows professional who has Ubuntu on a tablet and doesn’t like it, for various reasons, one being that he finds automatic updates interfere with/slow his machine.
I am somewhat bemused by this as Ubuntu does not have the aggressive update policy that Microsoft subscribe to. It is basically a take it or leave it, as you wish, policy.
I find now that it will highlight the update manager icon in the launcher but wait for me to activate it.
It then presents a list of updates, with descriptions, and the option to deselect any or all and either proceed with updates or defer them until a more appropriate time.
I always let it just get on with it.
There has never been a Linux update that has interfered with anything I was doing at the time, no automatic restarts (rarely any restarts anyway) and I have never been aware of the machine slowing down while updating.
This is a older machine that I built around eight years ago, that is still faster than the majority of new Windows machines I encounter, including my own newer and higher spec’d laptop.
I just let the Windows automatic updates get on with it too, although on occasion it is irritating when it nags to be restarted persistently and sometimes, not so often now, breaks things that take ages to fix (actually I just reinstall when that happens, often quicker and simpler that buggering around fixing it for ages).
To echo what some others have posted, if one knows what they are doing with computers and wants to check out the results of other people after an update and then proceed to update (or not) then that is acceptable. Otherwise leaving auto update processes intact is liable to be the better choice in the long run even with the occasional hiccup.
An anecdote (this is once out of numerous updates): I had my graphics card drivers auto updated which left my computer only able to start in safe mode till I reverted to the version I was using previously. The take away? Make refresh points sensibly and auto updating is fine.
It’s been said, but while I had fun tinkering with my PC when I was younger, as the owner of a desktop at home and work, a smartphone (basically a PC), and x laptops, they’re going to have to start taking care of themselves 'cause I don’t have the time.
With MS stuff there are two things that are annoying though, the install-on-shutdown, and the shutdown-whenever-and-lose-all-my-stuff features. With the first I could have sworn there was an option in XP, but with Win7, the group policy editor can fix both of those problems.
Run gpedit.msc, then go to (Computer Configuration > Administrative Templates > Windows Components > Windows Update), then adjust things as desired.
First thing I do when I install an OS is turn updates off. Completely off. I also don’t update them manually. And yet my systems still are just fine without supposed “critical security updates”, go figure.
if by “fine” you mean full of security vulnerabilities, then I guess you’re right.
So much for “fighting ignorance” :rolleyes: