Brian Gregory <void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> wrote:
> On 31/12/2024 19:08, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> > Yet another
> > <https://www.zdnet.com/article/new-windows-11-24h2-bug-could-block-future-security-updates-see-whos-affected/>
> > in the ongoing stream of bugs from Microsoft resulting from the
> > Windows update process itself. This one breaks the ability to receive
> > further security updates. So once you get it, how do you get an update
> > to fix it? Particularly when there have already been updates that kept
> > introducing their own new bugs?
>
> If you read it properly instead of skimming and then rushing to
> gleefully spread the news, you'd see that it only applies to those who
> installed 24H2 from media (DVD or USB) that has had Windows updates
> slipstreamed into it.

Actually it's "that has had *the wrong* Windows updates slipstreamed
into it."

I.e. the imaginary user did the *wrong* thing and that might have led
to a problem.

That's what you get for doing things the wrong way, isn't it!? :-)

> Almost nobody does that.

<firmly sitting on hands>

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> On 4 Jan 2025 13:16:18 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
> > Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> On 3 Jan 2025 13:47:50 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> >>
> >> > Yes, the 'holes'/tricks have changed over time, but there still are
> >> > several.
> >>
> >> Naturally your typical Dimdows user has plenty of time and mental
> >> capacity to spare to keep up with all of this, don?t they ...
> >
> > This part of the thread has nothing to do with simple Windows users or
> > their time, but with the differences between Home and Pro.
>
> And how to work around them. Which Dimdows users seem to spend a lot of
> their time and effort doing -- trying to counter the platform owner?s
> attempts to direct them along lines counter to their own interests.

Pathetic, how you appparently feel the need to falsify what your
correspondent *actually* said, by continuously lying by ommision.

And your continuous childish use of "Dimdows users" says more about
you than about them.

Trust us, you've shown your true colours enough times. Exactly nobody
is impressed.

'Your' OS must *really* suck when your only 'defense' is dishonesty.

On 5 Jan 2025 14:35:17 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>
> Pathetic, how you appparently feel the need to falsify what your
> correspondent *actually* said ...

You have no memory of what you actually said, do you?

On 5 Jan 2025 14:14:38 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:

> Brian Gregory <void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> wrote:
>
>> If you read it properly instead of skimming and then rushing to
>> gleefully spread the news, you'd see that it only applies to those who
>> installed 24H2 from media (DVD or USB) that has had Windows updates
>> slipstreamed into it.
>
> Actually it's "that has had *the wrong* Windows updates slipstreamed
> into it."

How should that be possible? Don’t Microsoft’s own updaters check for
applicability before allowing themselves to be installed?

On Sun, 1/5/2025 7:15 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On 5 Jan 2025 14:14:38 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
>> Brian Gregory <void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> If you read it properly instead of skimming and then rushing to
>>> gleefully spread the news, you'd see that it only applies to those who
>>> installed 24H2 from media (DVD or USB) that has had Windows updates
>>> slipstreamed into it.
>>
>> Actually it's "that has had *the wrong* Windows updates slipstreamed
>> into it."
>
> How should that be possible? Don’t Microsoft’s own updaters check for
> applicability before allowing themselves to be installed?
>

Yes.

But even in Linux, if you go around randomly
deleting or installing stuff, if you go outside
the scope or bounds of the automated update system,
yon can break stuff.

For example, if I do this, this is kind of outside the
scope and bounds of any package manager. If you're following
the rules properly, you're not doing any construct
at all like this.

sudo rm -Rf /

Paul

On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 22:29:09 -0500, Paul wrote:

> On Sun, 1/5/2025 7:15 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> On 5 Jan 2025 14:14:38 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>
>>> Brian Gregory <void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If you read it properly instead of skimming and then rushing to
>>>> gleefully spread the news, you'd see that it only applies to those
>>>> who installed 24H2 from media (DVD or USB) that has had Windows
>>>> updates slipstreamed into it.
>>>
>>> Actually it's "that has had *the wrong* Windows updates slipstreamed
>>> into it."
>>
>> How should that be possible? Don’t Microsoft’s own updaters check for
>> applicability before allowing themselves to be installed?
>>
>>
> Yes.

Obviously not.

> But even in Linux, if you go around randomly deleting or installing
> stuff, if you go outside the scope or bounds of the automated update
> system, yon can break stuff.

But you can’t install packages that would conflict with ones already
present, unless you force things. Package managers are inherently
resistant to such screwups, by design.

> sudo rm -Rf /

“Doctor, it hurts when I do this!”
“Don’t do that, then.”

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

[Yet another falsification deleted.]

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> On 5 Jan 2025 14:14:38 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
> > Brian Gregory <void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> If you read it properly instead of skimming and then rushing to
> >> gleefully spread the news, you'd see that it only applies to those who
> >> installed 24H2 from media (DVD or USB) that has had Windows updates
> >> slipstreamed into it.
> >
> > Actually it's "that has had *the wrong* Windows updates slipstreamed
> > into it."
>
> How should that be possible? Don?t Microsoft?s own updaters check for
> applicability before allowing themselves to be installed?

A bit badly worded, but the answer is yes. But in this fictive
scenario, Microsoft's own updaters are not used and actually
circumvented, as I wrote in the part you snipped:

> > I.e. the imaginary user did the *wrong* thing and that might have led
> > to a problem.
> >
> > That's what you get for doing things the wrong way, isn't it!? :-)

You yourself wrote (in a response to Paul):

> sudo rm -Rf /
>
> Doctor, it hurts when I do this!
> Don't do that, then.

So when a Linux user does something out of line, you says the
consequences are their fault, but when a Windows user does something
similar, you blame Microsoft/Windows. Hypocritical much!?

Bottom line: Best not flame/blame stuff you don't understand.

But in case you still can resist: At least *try* not to be dishonest
and don't snip context/comments when they don't fit your anti Microsoft/
Windows agenda.

On 6 Jan 2025 14:47:29 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:

> On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 00:15:04 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> On 5 Jan 2025 14:35:17 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>
>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> Pathetic, how you appparently feel the need to falsify what your
>>> correspondent *actually* said ...
>>
>> You have no memory of what you actually said, do you?
>
> [Yet another falsification deleted.]

Or rather, yet another memory of what you said forgotten ...

On 6 Jan 2025 14:48:39 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:

> Microsoft's own updaters are not used and actually
> circumvented ...

You mean, running them from local media is not supported? Really?? Because
Linux installers/updaters work fine in that situation. There are times
when you *don’t* want to have to require a reliable Internet connection to
get work done.

>> sudo rm -Rf /
>>
>> Doctor, it hurts when I do this!
>> Don't do that, then.
>
> So when a Linux user does something out of line ...

Well, until you find some recommended Linux service procedure that
requires the execution of a command like the above, I would say that is
very definitely “out of line”.

On 05/01/2025 02:45, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 00:43:07 +0000, Brian Gregory wrote:
>
>> On 31/12/2024 19:08, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> Yet another
>>> <https://www.zdnet.com/article/new-windows-11-24h2-bug-could-block-future-security-updates-see-whos-affected/>
>>> in the ongoing stream of bugs from Microsoft resulting from the Windows
>>> update process itself. This one breaks the ability to receive further
>>> security updates. So once you get it, how do you get an update to fix
>>> it? Particularly when there have already been updates that kept
>>> introducing their own new bugs?
>>
>> ... you'd see that it only applies to those who
>> installed 24H2 from media (DVD or USB) that has had Windows updates
>> slipstreamed into it.
>
> Which doesn’t make it any easier to figure out how to fix it, is it?

If you can figure out the instructions for slipstreaming you're
definitely a genius who will fix this easily.

--
Brian Gregory (in England).

On 06/01/2025 06:29, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 22:29:09 -0500, Paul wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 1/5/2025 7:15 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> On 5 Jan 2025 14:14:38 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>
>>>> Brian Gregory <void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If you read it properly instead of skimming and then rushing to
>>>>> gleefully spread the news, you'd see that it only applies to those
>>>>> who installed 24H2 from media (DVD or USB) that has had Windows
>>>>> updates slipstreamed into it.
>>>>
>>>> Actually it's "that has had *the wrong* Windows updates slipstreamed
>>>> into it."
>>>
>>> How should that be possible? Don’t Microsoft’s own updaters check for
>>> applicability before allowing themselves to be installed?
>>>
>>>
>> Yes.
>
> Obviously not.
>
>> But even in Linux, if you go around randomly deleting or installing
>> stuff, if you go outside the scope or bounds of the automated update
>> system, yon can break stuff.
>
> But you can’t install packages that would conflict with ones already
> present, unless you force things. Package managers are inherently
> resistant to such screwups, by design.

There is no package manager and the updates were already slipstreamed
into the WIM image on your installation media.

--
Brian Gregory (in England).

On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 00:09:10 +0000, Brian Gregory wrote:

> There is no package manager and the updates were already slipstreamed
> into the WIM image on your installation media.

I’m sure that’s very convenient if you are able to keep getting entirely
new installation media every time.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 00:09:10 +0000, Brian Gregory wrote:
>
>> There is no package manager and the updates were already slipstreamed
>> into the WIM image on your installation media.
>
>I’m sure that’s very convenient if you are able to keep getting entirely
>new installation media every time.

Just use a USB media, it's reusable.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.