disable annoying flash update notices

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in message
...
In message , "PA Bear [MS MVP]"
writes:
If updating were disabled, you probably wouldn't know about, e.g.,
http://www.adobe.com/support/securit...apsb10-14.html

I'd rather be annoyed every 2 or 3 months rather than be subject to a
widely-exploited security vulnerability, no matter what OS I was
running.


J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
WTF would you want to disable Flash update notices?

Because they annoy you?...

I notice you've snipped my other suggested reason, that you might have
an OS that can't take the updates ...

Isn't this a Win98 group, John? Win98 supports Flash 9.x.

If you read the link Robear posted, you will see it states,
"For users who cannot update to Flash Player 10.1.53.64, Adobe has
developed a patched version of Flash Player 9, Flash Player 9.0.277.0,
which can be downloaded from the following link."

So, if you disable Flash updates, you don't get notified of this update
that your OS *can* take.....

--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009
A+
http://dts-l.net/

Thanks for your support John!

To address the ridiculous comments which followed the initial post:

The 'WTF' comment from one who is supposed to be a 'professional' was uncalled for. I personally distain filthy mouth comments and respect for that person is deminished. Furthermore, a little more thought should have gone into comments before critizing. Consider the SUBJECT LINE; this was a post to turn off flash updates which are ANNOYING. If update notices DON'T annoy someone do you really think they are going to disable updates ?? (duhhhh!)

Furthermore, not everyone wants updates for any number of reasons, that's why MOST software has options to turn them OFF (right?)

For example, COMPATIBILITY issues; on my older PC's the newest flash 9 update does NOT allow for full screen playback, which I want, thus it is not wanted on my W98 box. On my older PC's with W2K or XP any flash beyond v10.045 does not allow full screen playback, thus update notices are NOT WANTED (get it?)

--- BTW, I believe the issue of no full screen playback is caused by too little VRAM ---

I think people need to get over the 'saviour' mentality which has begun to pervade our societies, which states; if someone considers this (whatever it is) is 'FOR YOUR GOOD' then they can SHOVE it down our throats, that they are justified in doing it, and those who DON'T want it are, of course, STUPID (right?) What a bunch of baloney.

GET A LIFE, and GROW UP!

Thanks for your support John!

To address the ridiculous comments which followed the initial post:

The 'WTF' comment from one who is supposed to be a 'professional' was uncalled for. I personally distain filthy mouth comments and respect for that person is deminished. Furthermore, a little more thought should have gone into comments before critizing. Consider the SUBJECT LINE; this was a post to turn off flash updates which are ANNOYING. If update notices DON'T annoy someone do you really think they are going to disable updates ?? (duhhhh!)

Furthermore, not everyone wants updates for any number of reasons, that's why MOST software has options to turn them OFF (right?)

For example, COMPATIBILITY issues; on my older PC's the newest flash 9 update does NOT allow for full screen playback, which I want, thus it is not wanted on my W98 box. On my older PC's with W2K or XP any flash beyond v10.045 does not allow full screen playback, thus update notices are NOT WANTED (get it?)

--- BTW, I believe the issue of no full screen playback is caused by too little VRAM ---

I think people need to get over the 'saviour' mentality which has begun to pervade our societies, which states; if someone considers this (whatever it is) is 'FOR YOUR GOOD' then they can SHOVE it down our throats, that they are justified in doing it, and those who DON'T want it are, of course, STUPID (right?) What a bunch of baloney.

GET A LIFE, and GROW UP!

+1

glee wrote:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in message
...
In message , "PA Bear [MS MVP]"
writes:
If updating were disabled, you probably wouldn't know about, e.g.,
http://www.adobe.com/support/securit...apsb10-14.html

I'd rather be annoyed every 2 or 3 months rather than be subject to a
widely-exploited security vulnerability, no matter what OS I was
running.


J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
WTF would you want to disable Flash update notices?

Because they annoy you?...

I notice you've snipped my other suggested reason, that you might have
an OS that can't take the updates ...

Isn't this a Win98 group, John? Win98 supports Flash 9.x.

If you read the link Robear posted, you will see it states,
"For users who cannot update to Flash Player 10.1.53.64, Adobe has
developed a patched version of Flash Player 9, Flash Player 9.0.277.0,
which can be downloaded from the following link."

So, if you disable Flash updates, you don't get notified of this update
that your OS *can* take.....

+1

glee wrote:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in message
...
In message , "PA Bear [MS MVP]"
writes:
If updating were disabled, you probably wouldn't know about, e.g.,
http://www.adobe.com/support/securit...apsb10-14.html

I'd rather be annoyed every 2 or 3 months rather than be subject to a
widely-exploited security vulnerability, no matter what OS I was
running.


J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
WTF would you want to disable Flash update notices?

Because they annoy you?...

I notice you've snipped my other suggested reason, that you might have
an OS that can't take the updates ...

Isn't this a Win98 group, John? Win98 supports Flash 9.x.

If you read the link Robear posted, you will see it states,
"For users who cannot update to Flash Player 10.1.53.64, Adobe has
developed a patched version of Flash Player 9, Flash Player 9.0.277.0,
which can be downloaded from the following link."

So, if you disable Flash updates, you don't get notified of this update
that your OS *can* take.....

Look like glee is +1 to your 98.99% always right Bear!



"PA Bear [MS MVP]" wrote in message
...
+1

glee wrote:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in message
...
In message , "PA Bear [MS MVP]"
writes:
If updating were disabled, you probably wouldn't know about, e.g.,
http://www.adobe.com/support/securit...apsb10-14.html

I'd rather be annoyed every 2 or 3 months rather than be subject to a
widely-exploited security vulnerability, no matter what OS I was
running.


J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
WTF would you want to disable Flash update notices?

Because they annoy you?...

I notice you've snipped my other suggested reason, that you might have
an OS that can't take the updates ...

Isn't this a Win98 group, John? Win98 supports Flash 9.x.

If you read the link Robear posted, you will see it states,
"For users who cannot update to Flash Player 10.1.53.64, Adobe has
developed a patched version of Flash Player 9, Flash Player 9.0.277.0,
which can be downloaded from the following link."

So, if you disable Flash updates, you don't get notified of this update
that your OS *can* take.....

Look like glee is +1 to your 98.99% always right Bear!



"PA Bear [MS MVP]" wrote in message
...
+1

glee wrote:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in message
...
In message , "PA Bear [MS MVP]"
writes:
If updating were disabled, you probably wouldn't know about, e.g.,
http://www.adobe.com/support/securit...apsb10-14.html

I'd rather be annoyed every 2 or 3 months rather than be subject to a
widely-exploited security vulnerability, no matter what OS I was
running.


J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
WTF would you want to disable Flash update notices?

Because they annoy you?...

I notice you've snipped my other suggested reason, that you might have
an OS that can't take the updates ...

Isn't this a Win98 group, John? Win98 supports Flash 9.x.

If you read the link Robear posted, you will see it states,
"For users who cannot update to Flash Player 10.1.53.64, Adobe has
developed a patched version of Flash Player 9, Flash Player 9.0.277.0,
which can be downloaded from the following link."

So, if you disable Flash updates, you don't get notified of this update
that your OS *can* take.....

In message , none
writes:
Thanks for your support John!
*
To address the ridiculous comments which followed the initial post:

I was actually going to say that glee had come up with some valid
arguments about why you might want the updates ...
*
The 'WTF' comment from one who is supposed to be*a 'professional'*was
uncalled for. I personally distain filthy mouth comments and respect
for that person is deminished. Furthermore, a little more thought

.... but I agree there ...

should have gone into comments before critizing. Consider the SUBJECT
LINE; this was a post to turn off flash updates which are ANNOYING. If*update notices*DON'T annoy someone do you really think they are going
to disable updates ??* (duhhhh!)

.... and that is a nice (in the original meaning of "nice") point! (Mind
you, the "duhhhh" reduces the respect, like the "WTF" did, for the
poster. But you can argue provocation ...)

*
Furthermore,*not everyone wants updates for any number of reasons,
that's why MOST software has options to turn them OFF (right?)

I hadn't thought of that aspect either.
[]
I think people need to get over the 'saviour' mentality which has begun
to pervade our societies, which states; if someone considers this
(whatever it is) is 'FOR*YOUR GOOD' then they can SHOVE it down our
throats, that they are justified*in doing it, and those who DON'T want
it are, of course, STUPID (right?)* What a bunch of baloney.

I agree; it's related to the "greater good" excuse which is given for
many things done apparently on our behalf, many of which reduce our
c*v?l l-bert-es (and don't do what they're intended, but aren't removed
once this is discovered).
*
GET A LIFE, and GROW UP!

I wish you hadn't added that, though. |-:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

"Mr. Notlob, there's nothing wrong with you that an expensive operation can't
prolong!" - Monty Python

In message , none
writes:
Thanks for your support John!
*
To address the ridiculous comments which followed the initial post:

I was actually going to say that glee had come up with some valid
arguments about why you might want the updates ...
*
The 'WTF' comment from one who is supposed to be*a 'professional'*was
uncalled for. I personally distain filthy mouth comments and respect
for that person is deminished. Furthermore, a little more thought

.... but I agree there ...

should have gone into comments before critizing. Consider the SUBJECT
LINE; this was a post to turn off flash updates which are ANNOYING. If*update notices*DON'T annoy someone do you really think they are going
to disable updates ??* (duhhhh!)

.... and that is a nice (in the original meaning of "nice") point! (Mind
you, the "duhhhh" reduces the respect, like the "WTF" did, for the
poster. But you can argue provocation ...)

*
Furthermore,*not everyone wants updates for any number of reasons,
that's why MOST software has options to turn them OFF (right?)

I hadn't thought of that aspect either.
[]
I think people need to get over the 'saviour' mentality which has begun
to pervade our societies, which states; if someone considers this
(whatever it is) is 'FOR*YOUR GOOD' then they can SHOVE it down our
throats, that they are justified*in doing it, and those who DON'T want
it are, of course, STUPID (right?)* What a bunch of baloney.

I agree; it's related to the "greater good" excuse which is given for
many things done apparently on our behalf, many of which reduce our
c*v?l l-bert-es (and don't do what they're intended, but aren't removed
once this is discovered).
*
GET A LIFE, and GROW UP!

I wish you hadn't added that, though. |-:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

"Mr. Notlob, there's nothing wrong with you that an expensive operation can't
prolong!" - Monty Python

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in message
...
In message , none
writes:
snip
I think people need to get over the 'saviour' mentality which has
begun
to pervade our societies, which states; if someone considers this
(whatever it is) is 'FOR YOUR GOOD' then they can SHOVE it down our
throats, that they are justified in doing it, and those who DON'T want
it are, of course, STUPID (right?) What a bunch of baloney.

I agree; it's related to the "greater good" excuse which is given for
many things done apparently on our behalf, many of which reduce our
c*v?l l-bert-es (and don't do what they're intended, but aren't
removed once this is discovered).
snip

Software updates to civil liberties is a bit of a leap,
folks....but......
Consider the other side of the coin. The Number ONE infection vector
for PCs right now is through vulnerabilities in browser plug-ins, and
the most used browser plug-ins are two Adobe products: Flash and Acrobat
Reader. Nearly every update to those two products is to fix a critical
security vulnerability, and if you don't update them, you are at much
higher risk of having your computer "owned", putting it under the
control of someone else without your knowledge.

Now I couldn't care less if you want to put your computer at risk
because it's easier to not install an update than to replace your
inadequate video card, and I couldn't care less if it got
pwned....except for the fact that then your pwned system becomes part of
a criminal network participating in DoS attacks and a host of other
activity that screws with everyone else. So it's better for you to
allow your system to be used for the disruption of my civil liberties,
than for your civil liberties to be interfered with by installing
updates?

If you get a recall notice for a sticking accelerator pedal in your car,
will you complain that they are shoving it down your throat and throw
the notice away instead of getting it fixed? And then when your car
runs amok and kills a family of 5, that's better because at least your
civil liberties were preserved?
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009
A+
http://dts-l.net/