Woody Leonhard of Infoworld summarizes the current state of Microsoft KB 2919355, the ambiguously-titled 'Windows 8.1 Update' (not to be confused with the update _to_ Windows 8.1).
In short: Microsoft has frozen two discussion threads on KB2919355 issues (after 103 and 116 pages of comments), and updated the Knowledge Base article with workarounds for seven major errors... some of which don't work.
In last week's Patch Tuesday, Microsoft changed their deadline for this Update until June (formerly they were requiring all Windows 8.1 and Server 2012 systems worldwide to have installed the Update in order to receive new patches).
Meanwhile, if you run a WSUS server, you may notice that the package for KB291355 (last reissued for the third time on 6 May) was apparently silently reissued over the weekend with a new release date of '15 May 2014', but there's no indication of any software updates in the KB article. The article revision number, however, now stands at '21.0'. Yes, twenty-one revisions. With no changelog.
Anyone else with interesting stories about your deployment issues with this Update?
Its VERY simple..umafuckitt...damn what a UID, the Challenge is to simulate what Joe and Jane NORMAL would go through if they had chosen Linux instead of Windows. Lets say you are the average customer that comes into a shop like mine, you know very little about computers and your needs are modest, you want to print, surf, hook to your router by wireless so you don't have cords running across the floor, all VERY basic needs that Linux advocates have said for years that Linux is up for...following me so far? Now since I can't go into the year 2019 (wish I could, i know who'd be winning the powerball!) to get all the versions between now and then to simulate a 5 year support cycle (actually its closer to 8 now thanks to multicores, but I'm giving Linux a softball test by only asking for HALF the Windows level of support) there is only ONE way to do it and that is to go into the past.
So its late 2006, the month Vista, the supposed "bad" Windows is released, and you see a Vista machine sitting next to Ubuntu 6.04, the Ubuntu looks nice, Linux advocates SAY its ready so you pony up the money and take it home...now are you REALLY gonna sit here and argue that a home user should know about Linux partition scheming AND about disc burning AND that he or she can go download ISOs and use those (after they have set up a Linux partition schema which just FYI no preinstalled Linux I've ever seen comes with) JUST to update/grade the OS? of course not and moreover the user shouldn't have to because that is what the GUI update manager IS FOR!
At the end of the day my challenge shows that even asking for what frankly should be the most trivial task an OS has in 2014, the ability to update itself with security patches for just 5 years after purchase simply does not work thanks to the bad driver design and that if Joe and Jane were to take a Linux advocates advice and choose Linux over Windows at the end of the day all they'd have is a broken computer. Linux works on servers because a 2014 server comes with ATI Rage Pro II graphics, no sound, and a small amount of parts that rarely changes, Linux works in embedded because you only have to make it work once, but what should honestly be the absolute bare minimum with desktops, the ability to have the system run for a lousy 5 years without crapping on its own drivers? It just doesn't work.
Please don't take MY word for it, run the challenge yourself, if you were to say use ubuntu the version to start with would be 6.04 which was released within 90 days of Vista. You will see for your own eyes what the person who chose Linux over Windows would have seen,which will be broken wireless with no WPA within 2 years, and depending on the chip you most likely wouldn't have sound or anything other than VESA by year 3 tops. I'm not asking for a miracle, honestly the fact that the test is so tilted in Linux' favor and it still fails should send off giant warning bells there is something seriously wrong in Linux land, but as you'l see with crutchy's posts all you get is insults and attacks. Is Linux REALLY so far behind Windows that it can't update itself without crapping on its own drivers, something Windows hasn't seen with any regularity since Win98? My challenge shows the answer is YES and until that changes the only place I would say Linux is a replacement for Windows is if the Windows we are talking about is Win98.
I can take Win2K from RTM to EOL with no broken drivers and the wireless that works at the beginning will work at the end, same goes for WinXP, how anyone can argue that its outrageous to expect Linux to muster just half that amount is frankly beyond me.
I get all that and I believe you that the in-place upgrade won't work. I just think it's a rather contrived scenario, that's all. Instructions for burning an iso are easy. If the user can't do that, they can buy the disk for under a tenner. A lot places, like book stores, sell boxed Linux distros too. So getting a disk is a non-issue. Any beginner distro will take care of the partitioning. The user needs no advanced knowledge here. As I say, even if there's only one partition the install will retain the existing home directory. It's really very easy and it's all GUI. The update manager doesn't do the job, so forget it about it. There's an equally easy alternative. My colleague in the lab just did an Ubuntu install with zero prior knowledge and came in the next day shocked at how straightforward it had been.
It is easy for YOU that does NOT mean its easy for the user. You also ignored the fact that NO preinstalled Linux, and I've seen plenty as many people traded the Linux netbooks and nettops in when the XP ones came out, have a "/home" partition schema so if they were to take your advice? they'd lose everything.
And most importantly you are ignoring the fact that its 2014 and you are advocating for what Linux users USED to make fun of Windows for which is having to wipe and reinstall every time. Just FYI but if I stick with 32bit I can go from XP-Vista-7-8 just by upgrading but again I don't have to because Windows gets 10 years of support which you can't get without spending several times more than Windows on support contracts.
And one final thing....why should a user HAVE to go through all that when the OS comes with an upgrade manager? What is the fucking point of having it if it don't work? I mean can you imagine the royal shitfit that would happen if most users couldn't run Windows Update without the OS shitting on itself? So why shoud you or anybody else put up with that on Linux? I mean for God's sake we are talking about one of the most fundamental tasks of an OS, the ability to upgrade itself without breaking, yet we are supposed to accept that something windows has been able to do for FOURTEEN YEARS is completely beyond the capability of Linux?
Now how in the world can anybody argue that Linux is a replacement for Windows when such a fundamental function is broken and requires going through the bullshit of 1.- Finding out which version you have, 2.- Knowing that a new version is out, 3.- knowing which of the on average 4 version on the website is the correct one, 4.- Knowing how to set up a Linux partition schema so you don't lose your data and apps, 5.- Download and burn an ISO, 6.- Blow away the OS and start fresh? How can ANYBODY argue that is comparable to 1.- Click on Windows Update and set to automatic...really?
And most importantly you are ignoring the fact that its 2014 and you are advocating for what Linux users USED to make fun of Windows for which is having to wipe and reinstall every time.
Your post is hyperbole and your putting words into my mouth. My last Ubuntu update was an in-place update that was flawless and 100% GUI. Your challenge appears to be taking a 5 year old OS and updating to current version. I can well believe that may not work and it's not reasonable. If I'm doing an upgrade from a substantially older version then I'll reinstall everything. However, the key thing is that this isn't a big deal. Why? Because your comparison with a Windows wipe and re-install isn't reasonable. When you do this on Windows you're returned to a vanilla system and have to spend the rest of the day installing software and arsing about. This is because Windows can only install or uninstall one thing at a time and it demands frequent re-boots. When you do a fresh Linux install your home directory is intact and 90% of the software you use is already installed. Almost all of the rest you can install in one go from the package manager. I can do a Linux wipe and re-install and be back up and running in full work mode almost right away. If I try this on Windows I lose a day installing software and updates. Big, big, difference.
How EXACTLY is that "not reasonable"? Am I supposed to tell my customers "too bad, no updates for you" because Linux has piss poor update mechanisms? Windows gets TEN YEARS and the average PC users DOES NOT have the skills to do what you suggest...does that mean you accept the fact that linux is NOT a suitable replacement? because you have yet to explain how somebody who went and bought a Linux box off the shelf is supposed to get updates...do you really expect them to shell out $45 an hour to pay me to do it every release?
And you completely sidestepped the fundamental issue which the hairyfeet challenge was made for...YOU and other advocates say "Linux is a suitable replacement" while ignoring that all Windows users get 10 years of updates and NO version of Linux gets anywhere close to that! You say its not fair when it comes to Windows reinstalls? Good because Windows doesn't need reinstalls just to get security updates while LINUX DOES.
So show me a free mainstream distro tailored to home users that gets 10 years and I'll agree with you 100%, but its not gonna happen because they don't exist. Even LTS isn't for home users, its for businesses so say Canonical. So don't blame me that linux has an updater that doesn't update, an upgrader that breaks the drivers, i didn't design the thing and as long as its in its currently broken state neither myself nor any other B&M retailer will carry it!
10 years is longer than most people keep a computer. But that's besides the point. Yes, Linux is a shit replacement for Windows. The update mechanism sucks goat cock. Everyone who buys a Linux box off the shelf has been screwed. Steer all customers away from Linux. Problem solved.
ol' hairycock is just pissy that he can't get linux to install so he'll never comprehend how easy it is to use and update. he obviously loves windows xp so much cos he hasn't figured out how to update his windows either. if windows didn't come preinstalled he probably wouldn't be here cos he would be trying to stick the operating system install disc up his ass. it's ok though cos us idiot linux luzerz share stuff... here have one of my blue crayons; it's only a bit slobbery and i have no idea why it smells like shit. you gotta find your own window to lick though eh :-P
I'm sorry but I'm in retail and you are DEAD WRONG and here is why....multicores. before multicores the average age of a PC in the home was three years, why? because faster chips came out and you couldn't run the latest software on the older chips. But then the MHz war was replaced by the Core wars and suddenly the whole thing changed. With cores it really doesn't matter a hell of a lot if that AMD chips you have is a Phenom I or an FX, and on Intel it really doesn't matter if that chip is a C2x or an iWhatever (ignoring the Pentium D of course, because netburst was shit) because when it comes to programs they al run just fine and that is what the users care about. a perfect example is not 20 feet from me, my wife is at the shop today because she wanted to use one of the benches to work on one of her pieces of jewelry. Right beside her is her laptop which she is quite happy with...its from 2006 and originally came with Vista, but I slapped Win 7 on and it has a C2D and 4GB of RAM so guess what? all her FB games run, it plays DVDs smooth as butter so she is quite happy.
So this is why I call 5 years for Linux a "softball test" because even the business customers have 7 and 8 year old systems in the offices and are quite happy with them. People forget that 8 years ago we had Core 2 Duo and Athlon 64 X2, both VERY capable chips which for basic web surfing and office work has cycles to spare so there really isn't a reason to replace unit the previous unit breaks.
But all of this doesn't change the fact that FOSS fanboys should be outraged that in 2014 you can't even update the thing by GUI without it trashing its drivers. I mean for fucks sake one of the most fundamental jobs of any OS is to be able to update its software when security problems arise, but we get the FOSSie faction swearing with a straight face that its a suitable replacement for XP when it craps itself if you dare touch the update mechanism that comes with the thing? Like I said nobody would tolerate that shit with Windows and it just goes to show the FOSSies are guzzling the koolaid to think that is suitable behavior of an OS in 2014. Torvalds and friends ought to be ashamed of such a thing, I know I wouldn't let a device out of my shop that couldn't perform even basic functions like that, disgraceful.
here's a new hairyturd challenge for you: actually give linux a try... you might come to realise that all the bullshit you're spewing is just that.
updating linux is easier in linux than in windows, and i use both. in windows there is usually a dozen different update programs running in the background, barraging the user with click bait (no wonder windows is so prone to malware). what could be easier than opening gnome update manager, typing the su password (as opposed to a rediculous click-through popup), reviewing all the programs to be updated and clicking a single button to update them all.
but don't let me tell you... try for yourself. the rest of us all use windows so we can compare. time for you to compare... or just keep beating your cock on a dead horse. choice is yours.