h a l f b a k e r y
[marked-for-tagline]
idea:
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, best, random
meta:
news, help, about, links, report a problem
account:
Browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
or Create a new account.
|
|
|
Unlike the usual malware being propagated out there in the real world, Tinkerbell is a virus that identifies your OS and browser... and other software, then zips off and downloads the latest patches, updates, security fixes, free upgrades, desirable plug-ins and lies dormant until there's a new lot of
good deeds to be done.
No data-mining cookies, no downside, just a good-deed virus with an entirely useful payload, and it even asks you whether you'd like to install, before it "infects" your system.
http://www.theregis...ontent/4/24746.html
http://www.theregis...ontent/4/24746.html
Moved from annotation . . . or, at least the part that worked was moved. The name anchor didn't work. [mcscotland, Apr 29 2002, last modified Oct 05 2004]
ThotMouser's link
http://dir.yahoo.co...nt_Software_Agents/
Moved from annotation . . . or, at least the part that worked was moved. The name anchor didn't work. [bristolz, May 02 2002, last modified Oct 05 2004]
Switch to Macs!
http://www.apple.com/switch/whyswitch/
They are less popular with viral sabotage. [XSarenkaX, Oct 05 2004]
[link]
|
| |
anything, anything to make Windows XP more agreeable.... |
|
| |
An argument could be made that the "Windows Update" daemon/client component in Win2K and XP is exactly such a virus. I find it very useful but have also had it install a couple of turkey patches that weren't fully-baked and caused me some small problems. |
|
| |
[rfr]: Don't complain, switch. Somewhere out there, there is an unloved Amiga or Indigo2 waiting for you. |
|
| |
How about 'The Boy Scout Virus'? |
|
| |
Is that anything like "The Altar Boy Virus"? |
|
| |
Virus = bad, no matter the intent. |
|
| |
So call it anything else, waugs. Feature, upgrade, add-on, enhancement, agent, whatever; it's all just perception-branded ones and zeros. |
|
| |
bristolz - have you yet enjoyed the behaviour of Windows Update and Window's Messanger stuff? Delete Messenger from your machine (you cannot uninstall it in XP) and Windows Update will try to reinstall it (when updating *other* unrelated components) as a "critial" update. |
|
| |
I enjoy it in that it keeps patches and stuff up to date. On my desktop box it has performed flawlessly. My laptop though has been hurt by one of the updates. I doubt that that has anything to do with the updating mechanism and everything to do with the update and the specific configuration of the laptop. Or, maybe it was a moon phase thing. I don't know. |
|
| |
I enjoy spouting off from the car, as it were; so, if you must autoinstall I'd recommend installing only the critical updates but checking voluntarily for unit-specific upgrades. That way you'll know what you're getting and can plan for it, and you can choose to hide from view whatever upgrades you've ruled out -- ta da. |
|
| |
Online Virusscan: McAfee's daily ‘every third page’ cookie that calls for an update after logon is an absolutely frustrating feature of a perfectly fine product (‘nother rant for a ‘nother time). |
|
| |
¯msscotland: re: liking the MS_IM & Oe in XP? Not much, or not yet -- it has more affinity for my default utilities than I'd like. I've not yet tried to uninstall it, but I've already determined (as per your post) that would create interference within the operating system. |
|
| |
Sounds like a typical AI fantasy. |
|
| |
<admin: URL moved to 'link' area. --bristolz> |
|
| |
Absolutely NOT. I've had the (not-really-a-) pleasure of using the America Online dialup client. It tries to do this. Every time there is a "patch" or an "upgrade" or a "new feature" it insists on commandeering the entire system for a few minutes while it downloads and installs the lastest piece of stinkware. Usually this clashes with the other applications, drivers, and settings that I have already painstakingly set up and brought into (relative) harmony. Worse yet, the downloads were completely unmarked as to their function or bundle of functions, and there was no way to opt out of the upgrade except to force the connection to fail by unplugging the line. |
|
| |
Although using a utility like this to get critical OS security and stability patches might be tolerable, who gets to decide which patches are "critical" and which will ultimately make my system go super-critical at the worst possible moment? For my computer, I would hope that I get to make that decision. But that would require too many things that just aren't going to happen. First, the patches would need to be written with greater care and forethought than the bug-riddled OS that requires them. Then patches would need to be tested for stability first in a non-production environment that matches my production environment exactly. Finally, every patch would need to be packaged separately and carefully labelled as to what portions of code get modified and what the intended effects are, so that I may intelligently decide whether to opt out or not. |
|
| |
I'd rather just receive notices that a new patch exists, what it does, and where I can go later to get it. Oh wait, that's how it works right now! |
|
| |