AutoPatcher no longer allowed

[markwolfe Veteran]

Was AutoPatcher Open-Source? If so, someone should fork the project and keep it alive.

You have totally and fundamentally missed what the issue is with AP.

The problem that Microsoft has is regarding redistributing their software (in the form of patches). It has nothing to do with how AP is developed or licensed. It is copyright ownership of the Microsoft patches.

[Shof]

Does anyone know where i get te beta vista autopatcher that i seen someone posted a kinda long time ago

[Dan~]

I've seen places that you can still get autopatcher would it still work, or is that it gone?

[bojanbl]

Shof, I hope that this is the version you have been looking for... It think that this is for all version of windows...

http://www.autopatcher.com/antonis/apup.rar

mikemyres, you can still download autopatcher releases, but latest autopatcher core release was august 2007 and you can download it from softpedia or some other site. Try to ask Google :)

[CelticWhisper]

You have totally and fundamentally missed what the issue is with AP.

The problem that Microsoft has is regarding redistributing their software (in the form of patches). It has nothing to do with how AP is developed or licensed. It is copyright ownership of the Microsoft patches.

I know that. What I'm saying is that if AP was open-source, it's not under the control of a single developer, and a developer who either lives in another country (i.e. one that doesn't place a whole lot of stock in copyrights and patents) or simply doesn't care what Microsoft wants could continue the project in flagrant disregard of Microsoft's yelling and screaming. As it is, though, if it's under one developer's control, it's possible to kill the project.

Same thing happened with DVD Decrypter. If LightningUK had opened the source, Sony would've been powerless to stop it.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that it would keep AP going, and governments of other countries may decide that there's nothing wrong with what AP is doing and tell MSFT to go stuff it.

[Dan~]

I know where to get it, but will all the latest updates be on there and will I be able to get like next months releases?

[+M2Ys4U Subscriber¹]

I know that. What I'm saying is that if AP was open-source, it's not under the control of a single developer, and a developer who either lives in another country (i.e. one that doesn't place a whole lot of stock in copyrights and patents) or simply doesn't care what Microsoft wants could continue the project in flagrant disregard of Microsoft's yelling and screaming. As it is, though, if it's under one developer's control, it's possible to kill the project.

Same thing happened with DVD Decrypter. If LightningUK had opened the source, Sony would've been powerless to stop it.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that it would keep AP going, and governments of other countries may decide that there's nothing wrong with what AP is doing and tell MSFT to go stuff it.

Opening the source is a bad idea when you're dealing with a program like this. Anyone could recompile it with added nasties in, most people wouldn't check the hash. It's a security program. Having ONE organisation able to release the program is a GOOD thing.

[Shof]

Opening the source is a bad idea when you're dealing with a program like this. Anyone could recompile it with added nasties in, most people wouldn't check the hash. It's a security program. Having ONE organisation able to release the program is a GOOD thing.

Maybe you have have like "chosen" people to have the source and let the update the program and so on when raptor and the rest of the Ap cant do it

[+M2Ys4U Subscriber¹]

That is what happened before - most team members has the tool to make the modules official.

[bojanbl]

I agree that the open source is bad idea because of risk of mallware implemented in diferent kinds of versions of autopatcher. Yes I agree that the open source could not be forbiden, but there is major problem with security, problems with diferent kinds of mallware in different versions of autopatchers... How would you know which version of autopatcher is OK?

Read this:

http://www.autopatcher.com/139

Mikemyres, I think that I read on that forum that new version of autopatcher would be able to update old version of autopatcher. All you need is to unrar apup.rar to folder where is old version of AP...

[CelticWhisper]

Opening the source is a bad idea when you're dealing with a program like this. Anyone could recompile it with added nasties in, most people wouldn't check the hash. It's a security program. Having ONE organisation able to release the program is a GOOD thing.

Opening the source makes these things transparent, however. Yes, anyone can put malware into it, but anyone else can see the source with the malware there and strip it right back out again.

With regard to the hash/source checking, they can do the same things the Firefox guys do - have an "official" release guaranteed to be safe to use (and again, hosted in a region with sane copyright laws) with disclaimers that any other releases are to be used at your own risk.

[+M2Ys4U Subscriber¹]

Opening the source makes these things transparent, however. Yes, anyone can put malware into it, but anyone else can see the source with the malware there and strip it right back out again.

With regard to the hash/source checking, they can do the same things the Firefox guys do - have an "official" release guaranteed to be safe to use (and again, hosted in a region with sane copyright laws) with disclaimers that any other releases are to be used at your own risk.

People will look for mirrors and will get malware.

One user getting malware from the application is too many users getting malware. The source they release might not be what's compiled in to the binary.

[CelticWhisper]

People will look for mirrors and will get malware.

One user getting malware from the application is too many users getting malware. The source they release might not be what's compiled in to the binary.

Granted, and I agree pretty much wholeheartedly with the 1=too many sentiment, but if people are grabbing precompiled binaries from mirrors/torrents/FTPs/whatever...assuming the creators and maintainers of the (hypothetical) now-OSSed AutoPatcher post ample disclaimers and warnings about official vs. unofficial releases, checking hashes, and the risks associated with carelessness in where one acquires their copy of the software, can the creators really be held responsible?

How much warning and public-awareness efforts are required to constitute a sufficient good-faith effort in keeping the software safe? Not a rhetorical question, nor am I trying to flame. I'm curious as to what others think should be the cutoff point between developer accountability and personal user responsibility. Of course we can't put it all on the user, as users are of varying levels of technical expertise and even the most hardened InfoSec guru can't be blamed if he was never advised or (perish the thought) purposely misled. On the other hand, though, it doesn't seem right to put the burden of each and every last case of malware infection on the developers if said developers did everything in their power to make users aware of the dangers inherent in getting precompiled binaries from unofficial sources, or of not checking source code attained from unofficial sources.

Not that any of this ultimately matters since AP isn't OSS anyway, but I'd still like to defend my case that OSSing future incarnations of it could be a good thing.

[+M2Ys4U Subscriber¹]

Irrespective of the (lack of) merit in OSSing AutoPatcher, the problem Microsoft has is thay we were distributing their programs (hotfixes).

Antonis has coded a utility (still in beta) that grabs said hotfixes from Microsoft's servers directly, once, and stores them in the same modular format as before. All the project needs now is reliable people to donate their time to create the scripts for this utility and to create the modules for AutoPatcher.

OSSing the program won't solve the hotfix distribution, won't increase security (which is one of the primary objectives of AutoPatcher) and isn't really any more of a useful tool for developers as OSS than closed-source freeware.

OSS in some places is a wonderful model; however I must disagree that OSSing AutoPatcher would ever be useful.

[mickrussom]

I second this!

I think open-sourcing the whole creation of Autopatcher would be the thing to do.

Death to Microsoft for this jerkoff policy.

Irrespective of the (lack of) merit in OSSing AutoPatcher, the problem Microsoft has is thay we were distributing their programs (hotfixes).

Antonis has coded a utility (still in beta) that grabs said hotfixes from Microsoft's servers directly, once, and stores them in the same modular format as before. All the project needs now is reliable people to donate their time to create the scripts for this utility and to create the modules for AutoPatcher.

OSSing the program won't solve the hotfix distribution, won't increase security (which is one of the primary objectives of AutoPatcher) and isn't really any more of a useful tool for developers as OSS than closed-source freeware.

OSS in some places is a wonderful model; however I must disagree that OSSing AutoPatcher would ever be useful.

Its hard to shutdown "everyone." They have no legal right if they put up software that can be downloaded without accepting a EULA - and between mirrors and Microsoft's site you can get all these files. Opening this project would lead to many forks and MSFT would have to go after a lot of people to shut it all down.

If I was President, I would imprison the officers of MSFT for this. They can secretly update your computer, but you cant distribute fixes for their fatal flaws which jeopardize national security.

Microsoft is a terrorist organization.

[markwolfe Veteran]

... They have no legal right if they put up software that can be downloaded without accepting a EULA - and between mirrors and Microsoft's site you can get all these files.

They own the copyright on that code. They retain the legal rights to say how it is copied/distributed. Not a difficult concept for most of us.

...

If I was President, I would imprison the officers of MSFT for this. They can secretly update your computer, but you cant distribute fixes for their fatal flaws which jeopardize national security.

Microsoft is a terrorist organization.

Wow. Just "wow". :blink:

[MasterC]

If I was President, I would imprison the officers of MSFT for this. They can secretly update your computer, but you cant distribute fixes for their fatal flaws which jeopardize national security.

Microsoft is a terrorist organization.

Well, isn't it a good thing that you're not president then, isn't it. :|

[+M2Ys4U Subscriber¹]

Wow. Just "wow". :blink:

Well, isn't it a good thing that you're not president then, isn't it. :|

:| seconded

[CelticWhisper]

Irrespective of the (lack of) merit in OSSing AutoPatcher, the problem Microsoft has is thay we were distributing their programs (hotfixes).

True, though the money bit may have had something to do with it too. Still, that's what they said, so we'll have to take them at their word unless/until we know more.

Antonis has coded a utility (still in beta) that grabs said hotfixes from Microsoft's servers directly, once, and stores them in the same modular format as before. All the project needs now is reliable people to donate their time to create the scripts for this utility and to create the modules for AutoPatcher.

I read about that app, and I'm looking forward to it. I'm not the best coder in the world, but I'll keep my eye on it and contribute if/how I can.

The next part is where I still don't entirely agree...

OSSing the program won't solve the hotfix distribution,

Okay, I lied. This much is true, though OSSing it will put the screw-job on MSFT if they actually want to do anything about it. Still, they might get even more unpleasant if they're cheesed off. Think of the chairs...

won't increase security (which is one of the primary objectives of AutoPatcher)

This one I have mixed feelings about. It will improve security for those savvy enough to check hashes and inspect source, as they can guarantee it never does anything they don't want. You make good points, though, about the laymen who aren't able to take such measures. I personally still feel that an "official release/official source" system a la Mozilla would alleviate many concerns, but there would still be some doubt, and I acknowledge that. One possible upside is that some (not all) users would be spurred to take the initiative to learn how to inspect downloaded software for things like this.

So yes, security concerns do exist. I think they're solvable in ways that still permit OSSing AutoPatcher, but they're definitely there.

and isn't really any more of a useful tool for developers as OSS than closed-source freeware.

This one I can't get my head around, though. If one is a developer, how is having access to source code not more useful than lacking that access? I may have completely misinterpreted this, though. It's still early and I've not had my morning coffee yet.

By the by, thanks for debating this one out coolly with me. I know many forums wherein this would've become a flamewar a long time ago.

[+M2Ys4U Subscriber¹]

This one I can't get my head around, though. If one is a developer, how is having access to source code not more useful than lacking that access? I may have completely misinterpreted this, though. It's still early and I've not had my morning coffee yet.

By the by, thanks for debating this one out coolly with me. I know many forums wherein this would've become a flamewar a long time ago.

What I mean is that unless AutoPatcher is going to be majorly hacked up (in the good sense), I don't see what use it would be to a developer that couldn't be achieved using smaller, purpose-built OSS software already. AutoPatcher can already be used sans-patches as an automated installation tool, devs could write tools that interact with it without needing the code (and lets face it, how many people code in VB6 anymore?)

My argument makes sense in my head I just can't put it into words properly :p

And no probs on the no flaming thing :)

[darthyoda6]

AutoPatcher can already be used sans-patches as an automated installation tool, devs could write tools that interact with it without needing the code (and lets face it, how many people code in VB6 anymore?)

VB6 is the only non web programming language that I know. I haven't learned the newer versions of .net yet.

And if I can help in any way I can, I'd be glad to, although I don't have high speed at/work, I can access it at least once a week.

[+M2Ys4U Subscriber¹]

my advice is that if you wish to help and can dedicate time every month to contact Antonis and see what you can do :)

[Atasas]

Once a Shi*- forever one! (M$)

[jackhammer10]

sorry for my ignorace but im new here

i just found the sep patch on torrent page and i found it a great idea specially for me

cuz i sell a lot of clon pcs that i build and it really easy to update windows in that way not having to connect it to the internet for 1h each pc

i just have a couple of questions:

1. since the download page is down (sorry for the loss, microsotf is well known for their idiotic actions), where can i get all the patches? torrent is my favorite but i cant find all months there so links or a search keyword would be perfect.

2. i noticed that there is a patch for each month and i wondered if there is a patch that includes all updates since sp2 was released?

3. if not, how would i know how far back i need to dowload the patches?

thnx in advance

[+M2Ys4U Subscriber¹]

If I remember correctly, August's release was Full, therefore that's all you need.

The tracker than I ran is now pointing at an open, public tracker so the old torrents should work, but no guarantees.