A possible solution to the forced upgrade issue

[T]

Hi All,

It occurs to me that a possible solution to the
new forced upgrades policy is to whack M$ Updates
web site with your firewall. Hmmmm. I wonder ...

Then use WSUS on your own time clock.

-T

[Paul]

T wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> It occurs to me that a possible solution to the
> new forced upgrades policy is to whack M$ Updates
> web site with your firewall. Hmmmm. I wonder ...
>
> Then use WSUS on your own time clock.
>
> -T

Or your HOSTS file, even.

It all depends on how they set up Windows Update,
to thwart your attempts. "They control the horizontal,
they control the vertical..." It's pretty hard to
stop a determined piece of software which is already
inside the system, and it will be a formidable opponent.

They could even put the protocol, on a CDN you cannot
afford to filter, like Akamai. Any CDN used for multiple
purposes, is going to be difficult to filter.

Paul

[T]

On 05/02/2015 01:56 AM, Paul wrote:
> T wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> It occurs to me that a possible solution to the
>> new forced upgrades policy is to whack M$ Updates
>> web site with your firewall. Hmmmm. I wonder ...
>>
>> Then use WSUS on your own time clock.
>>
>> -T
>
> Or your HOSTS file, even.
>
> It all depends on how they set up Windows Update,
> to thwart your attempts. "They control the horizontal,
> they control the vertical..." It's pretty hard to
> stop a determined piece of software which is already
> inside the system, and it will be a formidable opponent.
>
> They could even put the protocol, on a CDN you cannot
> afford to filter, like Akamai. Any CDN used for multiple
> purposes, is going to be difficult to filter.
>
> Paul

Hi Paul,

I wouldn't put it past M$ to have thought of that.

:'(

-T

[. . .winston]

T wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> It occurs to me that a possible solution to the
> new forced upgrades policy is to whack M$ Updates
> web site with your firewall. Hmmmm. I wonder ...
>
> Then use WSUS on your own time clock.
>
> -T
What forced upgrades.
IE11 ?
Windows 10 ?

Win10 will be optional, i.e. no forced upgrades, user required to check
the offering 'box' to install.



--
...winston
msft mvp consumer apps

[T]

On 05/02/2015 11:56 AM, . . .winston wrote:
> T wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> It occurs to me that a possible solution to the
>> new forced upgrades policy is to whack M$ Updates
>> web site with your firewall. Hmmmm. I wonder ...
>>
>> Then use WSUS on your own time clock.
>>
>> -T
> What forced upgrades.
> IE11 ?
> Windows 10 ?
>
> Win10 will be optional, i.e. no forced upgrades, user required to check
> the offering 'box' to install.

Hi Winston,

The "rumor" out there is that M$ will not give you an
option to install or not to install updates on w10 after
the general release. M$ has threatened, but it is not
for sure that they will follow through on it.

Knowing M$'s terrible track record for botched updates,
a mandatory policy would be a disaster.

So we have to wait and see. But, who knows what M$
is up to: they seldom listen to customers to start with.

-T

[T]

On 05/02/2015 02:00 PM, John wrote:
> www.microsoft.com/updates 127.0.0.1

Hi John,

I was unaware that you could add the "/updates" to
the line.

Checking the holy mother of all hosts blockers:

http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.txt

I do not see the practice, but it may be because they
want the whole site blocked.

Were you able to double check that this worked?

Many thanks,
-T

[. . .winston]

T wrote:
> On 05/02/2015 11:56 AM, . . .winston wrote:
>> T wrote:
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> It occurs to me that a possible solution to the
>>> new forced upgrades policy is to whack M$ Updates
>>> web site with your firewall. Hmmmm. I wonder ...
>>>
>>> Then use WSUS on your own time clock.
>>>
>>> -T
>> What forced upgrades.
>> IE11 ?
>> Windows 10 ?
>>
>> Win10 will be optional, i.e. no forced upgrades, user required to check
>> the offering 'box' to install.
>
> Hi Winston,
>
> The "rumor" out there is that M$ will not give you an
> option to install or not to install updates on w10 after
> the general release. M$ has threatened, but it is not
> for sure that they will follow through on it.
>
> Knowing M$'s terrible track record for botched updates,
> a mandatory policy would be a disaster.
>
> So we have to wait and see. But, who knows what M$
> is up to: they seldom listen to customers to start with.
>
> -T

One first has to board the Win10 upgrade before they can embark on the
Win10 Windows Update boat.

Afiacs, there will always be some marginal failure rate for a variety of
reasons (MSFT fault, hardware/software conflict, OEM build caused, etc.)
- nothing knew with any software be it utility, image/backup,
browser....no possible way to test every single scenario.

Mandatory in some cases might actually provide faster telemetry for
resolution.

As usual with any product, not everyone who use or purchase it will be
satisfied.


--
...winston
msft mvp consumer apps

[Paul]

.. . .winston wrote:

>
> As usual with any product, not everyone who use or purchase it will be
> satisfied.

Especially if it causes an "outage" that wouldn't have
existed in a previous OS that was equipped with more control options.

I've already done the "satisfaction analysis" in advance.

I'm "not satisfied" and it hasn't shipped yet :-)

Paul

[T]

On 05/02/2015 03:08 PM, . . .winston wrote:
> T wrote:
>> On 05/02/2015 11:56 AM, . . .winston wrote:
>>> T wrote:
>>>> Hi All,
>>>>
>>>> It occurs to me that a possible solution to the
>>>> new forced upgrades policy is to whack M$ Updates
>>>> web site with your firewall. Hmmmm. I wonder ...
>>>>
>>>> Then use WSUS on your own time clock.
>>>>
>>>> -T
>>> What forced upgrades.
>>> IE11 ?
>>> Windows 10 ?
>>>
>>> Win10 will be optional, i.e. no forced upgrades, user required to check
>>> the offering 'box' to install.
>>
>> Hi Winston,
>>
>> The "rumor" out there is that M$ will not give you an
>> option to install or not to install updates on w10 after
>> the general release. M$ has threatened, but it is not
>> for sure that they will follow through on it.
>>
>> Knowing M$'s terrible track record for botched updates,
>> a mandatory policy would be a disaster.
>>
>> So we have to wait and see. But, who knows what M$
>> is up to: they seldom listen to customers to start with.
>>
>> -T
>
> One first has to board the Win10 upgrade before they can embark on the
> Win10 Windows Update boat.
>
> Afiacs, there will always be some marginal failure rate for a variety of
> reasons (MSFT fault, hardware/software conflict, OEM build caused, etc.)
> - nothing knew with any software be it utility, image/backup,
> browser....no possible way to test every single scenario.
>
> Mandatory in some cases might actually provide faster telemetry for
> resolution.
>
> As usual with any product, not everyone who use or purchase it will be
> satisfied.
>
>

You are correct about not being able to satisfy every scenario.
I have even seen Linux updates go bad. About three in 20 years
of using it. So, some do it much, much better than others.
M$ has a ton of room for improvement.

[T]

On 05/02/2015 03:13 PM, John wrote:
> On Sat, 02 May 2015 14:18:40 -0700, T > wrote:
>
>> On 05/02/2015 02:00 PM, John wrote:
>>> www.microsoft.com/updates 127.0.0.1
>>
>> Hi John,
>>
>> I was unaware that you could add the "/updates" to
>> the line.
>>
>> Checking the holy mother of all hosts blockers:
>>
>> http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.txt
>>
>> I do not see the practice, but it may be because they
>> want the whole site blocked.
>>
>> Were you able to double check that this worked?
>
> No.
> But it is only an URL. It gets DNSed into a number and HOSTS
> redirects it to LOCALHOST, that's the deadzone, cemetery, zombieland
> for URLs. I don't see why it *wouldn't* work.
> And even if it doesn't. What else is there on Microsoft.com that
> anyone would want?

You have a point.


> I could, in the time it took me to type this, have tried the
> experiment but I'm rendering video and I don't really want to ****
> that up.
> Video takes so *long* to do anything with.
> J.
>
>
>>
>> Many thanks,
>> -T
>
> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---
>

[Paul]

T wrote:
> On 05/02/2015 03:08 PM, . . .winston wrote:
>> T wrote:
>>> On 05/02/2015 11:56 AM, . . .winston wrote:
>>>> T wrote:
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>
>>>>> It occurs to me that a possible solution to the
>>>>> new forced upgrades policy is to whack M$ Updates
>>>>> web site with your firewall. Hmmmm. I wonder ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Then use WSUS on your own time clock.
>>>>>
>>>>> -T
>>>> What forced upgrades.
>>>> IE11 ?
>>>> Windows 10 ?
>>>>
>>>> Win10 will be optional, i.e. no forced upgrades, user required to check
>>>> the offering 'box' to install.
>>>
>>> Hi Winston,
>>>
>>> The "rumor" out there is that M$ will not give you an
>>> option to install or not to install updates on w10 after
>>> the general release. M$ has threatened, but it is not
>>> for sure that they will follow through on it.
>>>
>>> Knowing M$'s terrible track record for botched updates,
>>> a mandatory policy would be a disaster.
>>>
>>> So we have to wait and see. But, who knows what M$
>>> is up to: they seldom listen to customers to start with.
>>>
>>> -T
>>
>> One first has to board the Win10 upgrade before they can embark on the
>> Win10 Windows Update boat.
>>
>> Afiacs, there will always be some marginal failure rate for a variety of
>> reasons (MSFT fault, hardware/software conflict, OEM build caused, etc.)
>> - nothing knew with any software be it utility, image/backup,
>> browser....no possible way to test every single scenario.
>>
>> Mandatory in some cases might actually provide faster telemetry for
>> resolution.
>>
>> As usual with any product, not everyone who use or purchase it will be
>> satisfied.
>>
>>
>
> You are correct about not being able to satisfy every scenario.
> I have even seen Linux updates go bad. About three in 20 years
> of using it. So, some do it much, much better than others.
> M$ has a ton of room for improvement.

I have had a metric ton of incompatible kernel updates
delivered to me in Linux. The fix is trivial (boot manager,
select old kernel, boot), but the need to do that, or even
to "memorize what stinking kernel works", is not a
recommendation for Linux.

I have even had LiveCDs fail to boot in a VM, due to a known
issue. I expected the fix to be backported faster than it was - I
was seeing the same issue for a period of a year to a year and
a half. Just because kernel.org fixes it in two minutes,
doesn't mean the distro itself releases it in any hurry.

Paul

[T]

On 05/02/2015 08:39 PM, Paul wrote:
> T wrote:
>> On 05/02/2015 03:08 PM, . . .winston wrote:
>>> T wrote:
>>>> On 05/02/2015 11:56 AM, . . .winston wrote:
>>>>> T wrote:
>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It occurs to me that a possible solution to the
>>>>>> new forced upgrades policy is to whack M$ Updates
>>>>>> web site with your firewall. Hmmmm. I wonder ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then use WSUS on your own time clock.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -T
>>>>> What forced upgrades.
>>>>> IE11 ?
>>>>> Windows 10 ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Win10 will be optional, i.e. no forced upgrades, user required to
>>>>> check
>>>>> the offering 'box' to install.
>>>>
>>>> Hi Winston,
>>>>
>>>> The "rumor" out there is that M$ will not give you an
>>>> option to install or not to install updates on w10 after
>>>> the general release. M$ has threatened, but it is not
>>>> for sure that they will follow through on it.
>>>>
>>>> Knowing M$'s terrible track record for botched updates,
>>>> a mandatory policy would be a disaster.
>>>>
>>>> So we have to wait and see. But, who knows what M$
>>>> is up to: they seldom listen to customers to start with.
>>>>
>>>> -T
>>>
>>> One first has to board the Win10 upgrade before they can embark on the
>>> Win10 Windows Update boat.
>>>
>>> Afiacs, there will always be some marginal failure rate for a variety of
>>> reasons (MSFT fault, hardware/software conflict, OEM build caused, etc.)
>>> - nothing knew with any software be it utility, image/backup,
>>> browser....no possible way to test every single scenario.
>>>
>>> Mandatory in some cases might actually provide faster telemetry for
>>> resolution.
>>>
>>> As usual with any product, not everyone who use or purchase it will be
>>> satisfied.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You are correct about not being able to satisfy every scenario.
>> I have even seen Linux updates go bad. About three in 20 years
>> of using it. So, some do it much, much better than others.
>> M$ has a ton of room for improvement.
>
> I have had a metric ton of incompatible kernel updates
> delivered to me in Linux. The fix is trivial (boot manager,
> select old kernel, boot), but the need to do that, or even
> to "memorize what stinking kernel works", is not a
> recommendation for Linux.
>
> I have even had LiveCDs fail to boot in a VM, due to a known
> issue. I expected the fix to be backported faster than it was - I
> was seeing the same issue for a period of a year to a year and
> a half. Just because kernel.org fixes it in two minutes,
> doesn't mean the distro itself releases it in any hurry.
>
> Paul

Hi Paul,

This is why I stick with Red Hat products. Your experience is
not uncommon. Red Hat is extremely professional. Never once
had a bad kernel update. Had an issue with a kernel and
cutting DVDs that whacked my hard drive once, but Red Hat jumped
on it immediately and fixed it for me. Try that with M$.

I use Fedora Core on workstations and Enterprise Linux clones
for servers. Red Hat also uses SE Linux, which makes it a lot more
secure. (I have a cartoon explaining SE Linux somewhere in my
bookmarks, if you would like it. It takes about 5 minutes to view.
It has a bunch of stuff about the dog not being able to eat the
cat's food. Bad dog, bad dog!)

Ah and nothing is perfect. Someone has to keep the show
running. That why guys like us were invented.

-T

My favorite GUI is Xfce. It is not a playground. Get out of
the way and lets you do your work.

[T]

On 05/02/2015 08:39 PM, Paul wrote:
>> You are correct about not being able to satisfy every scenario.
>> I have even seen Linux updates go bad. About three in 20 years
>> of using it. So, some do it much, much better than others.
>> M$ has a ton of room for improvement.
>
> I have had a metric ton of incompatible kernel updates
> delivered to me in Linux. The fix is trivial (boot manager,
> select old kernel, boot), but the need to do that, or even
> to "memorize what stinking kernel works", is not a
> recommendation for Linux.
>
> I have even had LiveCDs fail to boot in a VM, due to a known
> issue. I expected the fix to be backported faster than it was - I
> was seeing the same issue for a period of a year to a year and
> a half. Just because kernel.org fixes it in two minutes,
> doesn't mean the distro itself releases it in any hurry.
>
> Paul

Hi Paul,

Speaking of Linux,

If you have a bad kernel, you can remove it. You can also set
which kernel is the default kernel. Well, you can under Red Hat.

Also for boot problems, have you discovered <ctrl><alt><f2> and
<f1> yet? Great for when X11 gets messed up.

What disto are you having all this trouble with?

-T

[Paul]

T wrote:
> On 05/02/2015 08:39 PM, Paul wrote:
>>> You are correct about not being able to satisfy every scenario.
>>> I have even seen Linux updates go bad. About three in 20 years
>>> of using it. So, some do it much, much better than others.
>>> M$ has a ton of room for improvement.
>>
>> I have had a metric ton of incompatible kernel updates
>> delivered to me in Linux. The fix is trivial (boot manager,
>> select old kernel, boot), but the need to do that, or even
>> to "memorize what stinking kernel works", is not a
>> recommendation for Linux.
>>
>> I have even had LiveCDs fail to boot in a VM, due to a known
>> issue. I expected the fix to be backported faster than it was - I
>> was seeing the same issue for a period of a year to a year and
>> a half. Just because kernel.org fixes it in two minutes,
>> doesn't mean the distro itself releases it in any hurry.
>>
>> Paul
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> Speaking of Linux,
>
> If you have a bad kernel, you can remove it. You can also set
> which kernel is the default kernel. Well, you can under Red Hat.
>
> Also for boot problems, have you discovered <ctrl><alt><f2> and
> <f1> yet? Great for when X11 gets messed up.
>
> What disto are you having all this trouble with?
>
> -T
>

I probably have more Ubuntu VMs than any other.

Some distros, I boot the ISO and reject them
before they even get installed. Some are
interesting, but I can tell I'd never get
any use out of them.

Paul

[T]

On 05/03/2015 01:09 AM, Paul wrote:
> T wrote:
>> On 05/02/2015 08:39 PM, Paul wrote:
>>>> You are correct about not being able to satisfy every scenario.
>>>> I have even seen Linux updates go bad. About three in 20 years
>>>> of using it. So, some do it much, much better than others.
>>>> M$ has a ton of room for improvement.
>>>
>>> I have had a metric ton of incompatible kernel updates
>>> delivered to me in Linux. The fix is trivial (boot manager,
>>> select old kernel, boot), but the need to do that, or even
>>> to "memorize what stinking kernel works", is not a
>>> recommendation for Linux.
>>>
>>> I have even had LiveCDs fail to boot in a VM, due to a known
>>> issue. I expected the fix to be backported faster than it was - I
>>> was seeing the same issue for a period of a year to a year and
>>> a half. Just because kernel.org fixes it in two minutes,
>>> doesn't mean the distro itself releases it in any hurry.
>>>
>>> Paul
>>
>> Hi Paul,
>>
>> Speaking of Linux,
>>
>> If you have a bad kernel, you can remove it. You can also set
>> which kernel is the default kernel. Well, you can under Red Hat.
>>
>> Also for boot problems, have you discovered <ctrl><alt><f2> and
>> <f1> yet? Great for when X11 gets messed up.
>>
>> What disto are you having all this trouble with?
>>
>> -T
>>
>
> I probably have more Ubuntu VMs than any other.

Hi Paul,

I dabbled with Ubuntu for a while, specifically
KDE and gNome. I didn't care for it/them. I told
myself that it was because I was too ingrained in
Red Hat. But maybe it was Ubuntu I just didn't like.

Of my 14 VM's
6 Linux
8 Windows

Is it just me, or does Windows 7 look mysteriously
like KUbuntu?


>
> Some distros, I boot the ISO and reject them
> before they even get installed. Some are
> interesting, but I can tell I'd never get
> any use out of them.
>
> Paul
>

I love Live CD for that reason.

Have you used "persistence" on Live USBs yet?
My tricked out Live USB is 16 GB with EXT4
and persistence.

-T

[Paul]

T wrote:

>
> I love Live CD for that reason.
>
> Have you used "persistence" on Live USBs yet?
> My tricked out Live USB is 16 GB with EXT4
> and persistence.
>
> -T

Just the one USB flash stick with Mint 17 on it.
With persistent store.

Paul

[Char Jackson]

On Sat, 02 May 2015 14:18:40 -0700, T > wrote:

>On 05/02/2015 02:00 PM, John wrote:
>> www.microsoft.com/updates 127.0.0.1
>
>Hi John,
>
>I was unaware that you could add the "/updates" to
>the line.
>
>Checking the holy mother of all hosts blockers:
>
> http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.txt
>
>I do not see the practice, but it may be because they
>want the whole site blocked.
>
>Were you able to double check that this worked?

As I suspect you know, the hosts file is only checked during a *domain*
lookup. URI's (uniform resource identifier) are not considered.

[. . .winston]

Paul wrote:
> . . .winston wrote:
>
>>
>> As usual with any product, not everyone who use or purchase it will be
>> satisfied.
>
> Especially if it causes an "outage" that wouldn't have
> existed in a previous OS that was equipped with more control options.
>
> I've already done the "satisfaction analysis" in advance.
>
> I'm "not satisfied" and it hasn't shipped yet :-)
>
> Paul
>

Hi, Paul and T
http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/Ignite/2015/KEY01

Windows Update info
Scroll forward to the 2 hour 19-20 minute mark...the next presenter,
Terry Myerson, top Windows exec, covers WU on Win10.

The meat of the matter starts around 2:27 where it covers Enterprise
(mission-critical devices) and consumers (Windows-as-a-service) and
delivery methods (distribution rings) - note the 2 slides regarding
Windows 10 Update Approach (slide 1 for Mission critical, End-user
devices, Consumers)applicable. End-User devices (falls under Windows
Update for Busines - slide 2, Consumer does not) - Windows Update for
Business (free and applicable to Win 10 Pro and Enterprise (allows
choice and control) but apparently not necessarily for Consumer (e.g.
Windows Core).

Based on the above, Pro, if available to the consumer market would seem
to be the sole choice for WU control.

What everyone should keep an eye out for is the qualifying o/s(Win7,
Win8.1 Core and Pro) and the available upgrade paths to Win 10..e.g.
will Pro 7/8.1 upgrade to Pro 10.

--
...winston
msft mvp consumer apps