ugh, silverlight...

[Vyndree]

I'm confused. Are you agreeing with me, or trying to somehow argue that you're incompetent and don't know how to manage your systems? I would assume that if you don't have it installed, it's not because it's odd - it's because you told it not to.

I have straight-out-of-the-box Vista on 4 of my "alt" computers (and XP on my shuttle PC) and don't do any fussing with it. None of them have Silverlight auto-installed, and they are all using Windows Update.

[algol]

I tend to post incrementally, sorry. See third paragraph.

I do know Windows Update misbehaves and that Microsoft will exploit a number of events (like installing Office) to stealth-reset Windows into full auto mode. And that there have been many occasions where Windows Update was used to push patches that then killed installations, opened new security holes, etc, such that a cautious person might want to wait a little bit when possible before installing anything, and avoid installing non-critical updates entirely if they don't affect anything important (e.g. one that adds a proprietary non-OS-portable Flash clone). I'm only taking Suvega's word for it that this has anything to do with Silverlight.

[Vyndree]

The whole discussion started with the SECURITY of silverlight.

Suvega was merely pointing out that security updates of silverlight are pushed down via Windows Update. The initial install is, of course, up to the user.

I believe the same thing goes for office -- Security patches are delivered via windows update when you have office installed on that computer. Basically -- Windows won't patch a security hole if you don't already have it on your system. That would be like forcing all XP users to download all Vista patches even though they didn't even need it.


My Configuration (the default vista install):
Note: Optional Updates are not installed since I did not intervene and specifically tell Win Update to install them.
Note: Windows update will always install SECURITY and PERFORMANCE updates.
Note: I receive updates for Microsoft products. This includes office, though I do not have it installed. Silverlight is also a Microsoft product (and I installed it yesterday)

Let's check to see if my computer auto-installed any office-related updates when I 1) do not have office installed and 2) did not tell it to install non-security/performance patches without my permission.

Hmm.... nope.

Any patch -- Flash, Windows, Apple, etc -- can bring down more flaws than it fixes. That's up to the test team in question to exercise. Look at WoW -- some patches brought down more issues than they resolved -- have you ever looked at the bug history for Surge of Light (priest talent)? Sometimes bugs are big enough and important enough to fix that test does not always have adequate time to perform a full test pass before the thing goes out the door, and that's always a problem no matter what company has to face that sort of thing. Do you think WoW testers had time to do a full 100% test pass on the database used for in-game mails before that fix went out the door? It was too large of a scale to 'waste time" on. I work in QA myself, and I don't necessarily like it -- but sometimes there is more at stake and the cost for a full test run is too great.

Anyway, back on topic...

Unless specifically told to -- Windows Update will only install CRITICAL security patches. If you actually poke around in windows update or manually update, you'll see all the optional material in a seperate group.

If your settings for Windows Update are not what you want (and you don't want security/performance patches auto-installed), check your settings to see if you've changed anything. If you find that Windows Update has installed something without your express permission (through security settings or whatnot), then you'd probably want to raise that up as an issue, or, alternately, get some legal advice depending on the severity of the issue.

[algol]

The whole discussion started with the SECURITY of silverlight.

Okay, that makes much more sense in context. Splitting threads, yay. O_o

Although that does rather do away with the one thing I mentioned it might have going for it - wide adoption - since that means it really does have very, very few users in comparison to what it's competing with. Unless Microsoft starts buying off sites the way they did developers to get the Xbox some market share (which turned out to be a very sound move looking at the present console market!), I don't see any point to Silverlight. Maybe Microsoft's people have some plan for it, but I'm a little clueless as to why they even devoted resources to developing it over other projects. Embedded devices, maybe?

[Vyndree]

Yea, as you could see I didn't even install Silverlight until Suvega used it for his guide.

It has some great features -- but I like my comfy salary and my comfy salary means the products I help generate have to cover that salary. Suvega used Silverlight because it's accessible for us (more accessible than Flash). For others, it might not be the case. But just because someone has a monopoly on a software genre doesn't mean others should stop trying. I mean, I'd be pretty miffed if Linux and Mac stopped development because more users (at the moment) use Windows. Competition breeds quality.

I'm sure each (flash and silverlight) has its benefits and flaws. *shrug* As a user, as long as they're easy to use from the consumer's perspective I could care less.

[algol]

True - at the least, maybe it'll get Macromedia to improve Flash. I guess the other main thing I have against Silverlight is that it is Microsoft releasing it, and that they inherently are motivated against making it cross-platform, which the web implicitly is. It's a little like trying to give kids spinach-flavored chocolates for Halloween - maybe it's good for you, but people aren't necessarily going to appreciate it in that setting. Although there are cases where Microsoft has dropped the Windows-only absolute-competition stance...I guess what I'm saying is, maybe Silverlight has potential, but I'll be more inclined to believe it when and if Microsoft releases an RPM for it.

[Tasty]

Saw expression web and just wanted to mention I love that software

[Vyndree]

I guess the other main thing I have against Silverlight is that it is Microsoft releasing it, and that they inherently are motivated against making it cross-platform, which the web implicitly is.

Well, the most I can tell you is that I have to jump through a MILLION hoops just to LOOK at anything close to source code for something that isn't Microsoft's -- for fear that it somehow inspires some future code of mine and gets MS into some sort of copyright legal battle. If those sort of hoops apply to things like Mac/Linux teams then I can only imagine how hard it is to develop for those platforms.

MS does make products for other platforms, but (like anything) it's always cost vs gain. For (example) Mac developers, even with a high cost to port a product to Windows results in a high gain (high userbase). For Windows developers, porting a Windows product to Mac is the same high cost, with less of a gain.

[Trammel]

While I appreciate all that the two (or one) of you have done for the community, submitting this, making us install silverlight (ok, maybe fine) but not telling us that the only zone in it is Borean Tundra?

I went through the trouble of doing it because I was led to believe that there was a "Wrath leveling guide," when in fact, it's just borean tundra...



With regards to security - printscreen?

It's all text anyhow so it would take somebody 10? minutes to retype it?

[Frosty]

Is it me, or does it seem like there are a lot of WoW forum posters that have found their way to this site?