Let's face it, even those who do like using Windows (us included) aren't too fond of Windows Update -- and don't even get us started on what sysadmins have to go through keeping Windows boxes up to date (yeah, we used to do that too). Which is why we're so glad there's always a healthy 3rd party ecosystem in place to help fill in the gaps and get users get what they need and how they need it. Like AutoPatcher, the popular Windows Update substitute that's been around for the last four years. Well, kiss it goodbye. The AutoPatcher team is reporting that Microsoft has laid down the smack on them and their ops, demanding the immediate shutdown of the service. We understand it's kind of dubious (if not outright illegal) to redistribute Microsoft's code (in the form of Windows update patches), but try though we might, we just can't see what damage these guys are doing to Microsoft -- only good -- so we've got our fingers crossed the AP guys can figure out a way to re-enable service without future infringement. Won't someone please think of the chil -- sysadmins?
Read - AutoPatcher sounds like it's calling it quits
Read - The takedown notice Microsoft sent to the AutoPatcher team
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
finnith @ Aug 30th 2007 6:45PM
Reminds me how Microsoft took down kol's skin. They took down something that did nothing but satisfy their users. Things like these make me hate Microsoft even though I use a lot of their products.
Larz @ Aug 30th 2007 9:01PM
Just be thankful it's 90%/10% (Windows/MacOS) and not the other way around.
I can imagine it now...
User: "I'd like a custom software solution for my Apple Computer-Appliance."
Apple: "NO SOUP FOR YOU!"
ethana2 @ Aug 31st 2007 12:10AM
....aaannnddd....
I switched to Ubuntu. Going quite well. Got a 3d desktop, all updates done centrally in a completely open structure(to stay on topic), great stability, easier to use than a Mac, didn't cost me a cent.
ethana2@gmail.com For any help you may need switching. We're all in this together.
Trace The Hedgehog @ Aug 31st 2007 4:52PM
"I use a Linux based oprating system which means I get laid about as often as I have to reboot my computer"
Mindfield @ Aug 30th 2007 6:50PM
I've never used AutoPatcher, so I don't know, but did it verify Windows authenticity? If not, that would probably be one of the reasons Microsoft would want to see it disappear. Otherwise it's just Microsoft flexing its muscles at the little guy again and reasserting exclusive control over all things Microsoft. In other words, nothing new.
finnith @ Aug 30th 2007 6:52PM
That is a valid question. If it didn't verify then I guess they had every reason to do what they did.
Schwinn @ Aug 31st 2007 10:55AM
Autopatcher did not verify authenticity (even WGA was an optional install) but that's not their fault. WGA was optional for windows update, too (if you knew which KB# it was hidden under). In addition, most of the patches are available as free downloads from the website already, and can be applied without authenticity checks. The only patch that does an authenticity check was WMP11, which still did it whether you use Autopatcher or the free un-aunthenticty-checked download, or windows update.
Bottom line - AP did nothing different than what was already available - it just made it easier than downloading across a pile of webpages and tons of reboots.
Dasgooch @ Aug 30th 2007 6:54PM
How does this help sysadmins exactly? Microsoft already has a program inplace to help system admins called WSUS. Granted 1.0 was garbage but 2.0 and now 3.0 are actually pretty good. I think this is more a move to prevent people using non wga certified software to not recieve patches any longer. Who really has a problem with using Windows Updates?
E-Rock @ Aug 30th 2007 8:29PM
Funny thing is that WSUS (2 or 3) doesn't use WGA, and doesn't check your copy of Windows.
yoshi @ Aug 30th 2007 8:46PM
WUUS?
Scott @ Aug 30th 2007 9:54PM
Ummm offline builds of remote located machines in hostile network environments. True nothing beats a good local update server for a corp, but when you have a remote office on some co-located site lousy with viruses it is nice to bring up a system already patched.
Arthur Nonamiss @ Aug 30th 2007 11:13PM
You can't patch Uncle Fred's dial-up computer using WSUS. I run WSUS on my work network. It's insanely bloated, but it works for that purpose. Autopatcher, however, filled an entirely different niche. I don't always have access to the Internets.
As far as checking the legitimacy of your software, Microsoft needs to get over themselves. They've already inconvenienced sysadmins enough with activation, and that prevents most casual piracy. You have to try pretty hard to pirate a copy of XP, and frankly, the people who pirate now won't be slowed down by this minor speed bump.
JCD @ Aug 31st 2007 12:39PM
You don't have to try very hard to pirate XP, lol. Its actually very easy (yes, I own a legit copy of XP for each of my pcs). I won't say how, just that its very easy.
Dave @ Aug 30th 2007 6:54PM
So MS people need a third party app just to update windows?
*Laughs and Points*
craig @ Aug 30th 2007 7:04PM
No, just large installations like the ones Apple doesn't sell into.
jason51873 @ Aug 30th 2007 7:12PM
And MAC users need a site called www.macfixit.com because all of their computers "Just Work"
Dave @ Aug 30th 2007 7:59PM
You felt the need to reply.
*Points and Laughs*
ethana2 @ Aug 31st 2007 12:14AM
I prefer my OS, where third party and first party are the same because all the interfaces are OPEN.
Suckers.
JustSomeGuy @ Sep 4th 2007 5:19PM
"So you just called Mr. Block & crew stupid?"
I don't know them personally, but I've found the majority of people who complain about Windows not being able to do something are horribly misinformed about what can and can't be done. WSUS is really, really, really easy, and incredibly reliable. There is, quite honestly, no reason to use anything else (especially to PAY for a third party app).
But for some strange reason, people enjoy pretending that Microsoft has no fricken idea what they are doing, and that magically some 14 year old FOSSie living in his parent's garage understands Windows WAY better than MS ever will.
I can understand, and even appreciate, people who don't feel like being "company men". But when it comes to MS, nobody wants to acknowledge that not only does MS know what they are doing, but they are doing far better than anyone else. Is it professional jealousy? I don't know. I usually give people the benefit of the doubt and attribute it to simple ignorance.
The problem, as usual, isn't that people don't know enough. It's that they know too much stuff which is just plain wrong.
ekwmin @ Aug 30th 2007 7:02PM
That's just great! If security is the only reason Microsoft want these guys shut down, then why don't they just buy them out and run it themselves? But then, most likely they'll screw it up like all the other software they buy out.
John @ Aug 30th 2007 7:24PM
In this case, they already HAVE something to do this. That would be like Apple buying the rights to MyTunes or somesuch - they've got no reason to do so when they already have a tool for pretty much the same purpose.
Paul @ Aug 30th 2007 7:07PM
"How does this help sysadmins exactly? "
Because WSUS requires a windows 2000/3 server running IIS, and if you were a sys admin then you would know right there why that is not a one-size-fits-all solution.
tenfifteen @ Aug 30th 2007 7:32PM
Well, I am, and while this might suck for people who had come to rely on this tool, you can't host other people's copyrighted material. Duh.
I'm trying to understand what "problem" presented by WSUS or Windows Update this was supposed to solve. For the home user, Windows Update doesn't do what, exactly? In an enterprise environment, a Server 2003 box is a given; it isn't like WSUS requires an independent box or anything, and its resource footprint is very low. Having users hit the web for updates is a great way to bring your Internet pipe to its knees, but we try to avoid that. We use WSUS in a 6,000-user AD environment at 15+ sites across MD/DC/VA. And WSUS isn't one-size-fits-all; you group machines, target updates to the respective groups, test and deploy, which happens from within your network, NLB if you so choose (we do). Goes off monthly without a hitch. /shrug.
I mean... ROWR MICROSOFT IS TEH EVILLE!
RobG @ Aug 30th 2007 8:29PM
As a matter of fact I am a System Admin and if you are running Windows Clients that needed windows update on a large scale then why would you not have at least a Win2k or 2k3 server in your environment running AD or other Microsoft services? This has nothing to do with them offering a service to the little guys (thats what windows update is for) this is about them offering protected MS downloads for potentially non licensed software.
ethana2 @ Aug 31st 2007 12:18AM
"you can't host other people's copyrighted material. Duh."
Yeah really. The root of the problem.
My machine will be free of copyright within the year. GNU/CC-BY-SA, all the way.
(And yes, I'm aware that gnu technically goes on top of copyright. Effectively, though, it simply is not the same thing.)
Old Man @ Sep 12th 2007 2:11PM
I can think of several reasons this action is detrimental.
First, until last year I worked for a local university that uses Novell servers throughout the campus. Windows servers are few and far between. Also, the campus uses PeopleSoft as an ERP application before that company was bought out. Until recently PeopleSoft DID NOT support Windows XP, only Win2000, so anyone needing access to PeopleSoft had to be running Win2K. This amounted a significant percentage of the 5000+ faculty and staff. Someone (unknown who) introduced a virus into the campus network that attacked a vulnerability in unpatched Win2K systems as soon as they were placed on the network. Autopatcher was the only way at the time to patch new downgraded systems (take XP off and install Win2K) before they were placed on the network to retrieve the newest patches. PeopleSoft now supports XP, and the campus has implemented a couple of WSUS servers
Second: I currently work for a small computer repair company. Due to virus's/spyware and the like, we do a number of computer reloads a week. Microsoft does not officially support using WSUS with Windows Media Center, Windows XP Home or Vista Basic versions. We only have a 1.5mb Internet connection, and downloading the current 350+ MB of patches on multiple systems simultaneously slows down our entire work process. Before anyone jumps, I now have the registry entries and can download the patches from the company WSUS server, but there are numerous occasions where Autopatcher works where WSUS hasn’t, especially for systems that aren’t reloaded.
Third, I do personal PC work for individuals. A number of these folks only have dialup Internet service. When (grand)children, or the owners themselves, trash the system and it has to be reloaded, downloading those same 350+ MB of patches over dialup is downright painful. Autopatcher is indispensable in this situation if the customer doesn’t want to be deprived of their system overnight for me to take it home and patch it using my WSUS system.
Microsoft makes the patches available in monthly DVD ISO files, but these DVD’s are not cumulative and each patch has to be manually installed, an ugly process for a freshly loaded system. Autopatcher enables me to carry only a few CD’s instead of DVD’s from Jan 06 through current.
If anyone knows of another alternative, I’d be more than happy to read about it..
frank @ Aug 30th 2007 7:44PM
The heavy-handedness of it is what's upsetting. Microsoft's legal and PR departments could have denounced the remarks of Romania's president when he not-so-jokingly suggested that his country had Gates and company to thank for its technological prosperity. But they didn't because they'd look like evil, hate mongering capitalists. But why this? I dunno.
shmengie @ Aug 30th 2007 7:44PM
pirated or not, an unpatched system is bad for MS. they've said so themselves (a couple of years ago. please don't ask me for a link). everybody's smackin' down, nowadays...
Samurai Jack @ Aug 30th 2007 7:53PM
It seems obvious to me why they did this. It's the next step in their anti-piracy effort. Really, this step should have been apparent when WGA was announced. Next they'll start denying all unverified installs update access. Of course as someone else pointed out, unpatched systems are bad for everyone.
I don't use Windows myself and have a negative view of Microsoft in general, but I can certainly see the logic behind this action. It's a move they have to make if they want their anti-piracy efforts to succeed.
Datacide @ Aug 30th 2007 8:30PM
It won't be long tll someone puts up a list of mirrors again. And it's not like you can't find it with a quick search of Google. Loophole: They said take down the download page (which just lists mirrors), not stop making it...
Randall Lind @ Aug 30th 2007 9:47PM
I am suprise Microsoft hasn't shutdown http://windowsupdate.62nds.com/ they allow you to update Windows with the use of Firefox.
ethana2 @ Aug 31st 2007 12:25AM
Wow. That's different though.
All they do is remove the "if id_browser = "IE" then pass else nopass" line in the css. That or actually make it W3C standards compliant.
*I don't know anything of web code. But that does not change what I tried to express just there. I know how microsoft works, to some degree. And the above is correct, to my understanding.
Dave @ Aug 30th 2007 9:48PM
What I find intresting is that this takedown notice wasn't even really sent by Microsoft, it was sent by some other company "in thier name". I have to wonder if this is just some hopped up legal eagle trying to get in MS's good graces. If I were those boys (and girls) I'd send me a letter to MS legal and try and work something out. If what I read over on thier site they basically are just redistributing the patches that MS is WPA and all, they aren't modifiying them, the only thing they're doing is changing the delivery system.
Reguardless this is just one more example of how the DMCA is the most abusable law ever passed by congress with the possible exception of the Patriot Act. Hell the RIAA and MPAA lobyists threw around so much money most of our elected reps didn't even bother to read what they were signing.
brandon h @ Aug 30th 2007 9:53PM
Uhhh what's wrong with windows update?! While it is improved in Windows Vista, the XP version is a pain in the ass to use. You have to fire up IE, install an activeX control, then a update, then a WGA check, then you have to make sure all the updates are selected blah blah blah you know the routine. Auto Update is hit or miss, half the time downloads stall and it rarely downloads all the available updates. God forbid you don't have your router perfectly tweaked or install some piece of software that mudges one little network setting and you'll be getting cryptic 0x00B12223 kinda errors and you wind up having to reinstall windows to get it working again.
My mom couldn't use it, neither could my aunt or uncle. Last time I checked their machines hadn't been patched in over 9 months. My mom switched to a mac a year and a half ago and at least her machine is always running the latest version of everything.
If Microsoft wasn't so damned worried about piracy or would at least put its stupid ass DRM somewhere else rather than gumming it up in it's security critical update system, I probably wouldn't be complaining. But the clunky interface, unreliability, and DRM checks make it much harder than it should be, borderline negligent. Microsoft would be smart to make XPs update process more like Vista's. Better yet, make it more like ubuntu's or Apple's.
Not that im bitter or anything.
ethana2 @ Aug 31st 2007 12:27AM
I just get pissed when the updates overwrite GRUB on my master boot record. Makes it that much harder to get to the operating system that WORKS.
brandon h @ Aug 31st 2007 1:50AM
I haven't been using ubuntu long and im using it in vmware so that us yet happen to me, but ill take you word for it since im hardly a linux guru.you have by sympathy btw.
Herbert Neal @ Aug 30th 2007 10:28PM
WGA is the reason I hate windows update. It wants me to install that WGA crap, I don't want it on my pc. And yes my OS came with my laptop, I just don't want WGA. Good thing auto update doesn't make you install WGA. Not yet anyway.
ethana2 @ Aug 31st 2007 12:29AM
So you put up with windows just because it came on the machine? I hope you have a more solid reason to suffer than that... ethana2@gmail.com
Herbert Neal @ Aug 31st 2007 1:44AM
I put up with Windows because it works.
Linux is great as a hobby, but when I want to get work done I use Windows!
Daren @ Aug 30th 2007 11:04PM
they are asking for it to be taken down because unlike their service they can not verify that the users downloading the patches and updates paying customers deserve have a legit version of windows.
Bryan @ Aug 31st 2007 12:14AM
I don't understand what this program did that Windows Update doesn't do, other than not check the Windows key for authenticity ...
ethana2 @ Aug 31st 2007 12:28AM
That's all it takes, my friend.
AesirX @ Aug 31st 2007 12:31AM
Wow, Microsoft has really been helping Linux gain in popularity lately. Between goodwill shredding moves such as this, the craptasticity of Vista, and the impending release of ass-whooping KDE 4, I see some great times ahead for Linux.
As for me, this is the last straw. I loved Autopatcher which was great for updating computers with only dial-up access (yes, they still exist). I am now going to make a serious effort to convert entirely to Linux, and encourage every computer owner i maintain to do the same.
tekdroid @ Aug 31st 2007 12:53AM
Why update?
New fixes fix things that were broken last month, which were broken by what was released the month before, which were broken by...
If you run bare and naked into the internet, using only Microsoft apps, I can see why updates might be some use. Or if you have a specific issue that needs addressing.
But beyond that there is NO reason to update in the all-you-can-eat style Microsoft foists on its users. In fact, it is likely to cause more problems than it avoids/solves, IMO.
Michael @ Aug 31st 2007 6:14AM
Germanys best and most renowned IT magazine, Heise, maintains a script that pulls all current windows updates from microsofts servers for offline installation.
It's all from their microsofts own servers, so it probably won't be shut down anytime soon.
The english version can be found here:
http://www.heise-security.co.uk/articles/80682
so, if you are in need of some replacement software, might wanna try this ;)
I LOVE THE CAPS LOCK KEY @ Aug 31st 2007 8:45AM
That's fantastic! Thanks!
(direct link)
http://www.heise-security.co.uk/articles/80682/3#download
Matt Rihani @ Aug 31st 2007 12:23PM
Then AutoPatcher should make a script to import them from that download directory to their program directory. PROBLEM SOLVED.
wrabbit @ Aug 31st 2007 9:14AM
Just when I start thinking that maybe microsoft isn't so bad after all, they go and do something stupid like this. They're acting like total asses!
Schwinn @ Aug 31st 2007 11:04AM
As a business owner who services and repairs other peoples computers, WSUS is absolutely useless. If I go to a customer's house to repair their computer, and it needs a large refreshing of the updates, I have to run windows update and wait exceedingly long amounts of time, and usually many reboots. This doesn't even include those customers without broadband, or on dialup... try doing Windows Updates on those systems.
On the other hand, AP can let me literally run the program, and then leave the customer (saving them money) because it will simply reboot the machine after everything is done. Even if I stay for the install (as I often do, since MS patches can sometimes cause more problems than they fix) it's faster than running windows update.
So, WSUS is useless in such situations. And WU is not easy nor helpful either.
Aron Trimble @ Aug 31st 2007 1:37PM
If you're not on broadband or dial-up, what are you on!?