Application that can stop automatic software upgrades?

General Topics
1

Does anyone know of an application that can be setup to stop resident applications from doing automatic application installs?

In some cases (Avast for example is one) even when the application is set to “manual update” the update might still be done. Avast has done this (others on this board have said the same thing as well) in my case of which after many years of “obeying” my setting at only “manual update” Avast actually installed an application update to version 2014 for the Avast AV application (I’m not talking about VPS updates obviously).

I would like to keep Avast from doing that again at some point in the future. The only explanation I got back on this board at the time this occurred was that it was surmised that Avast stopped supporting the specific version I had. That’s fine if Avast wants to inform me that there is no longer any support, but I still want the option to update the application in my hands regardless, that is when I have the application set to “manual update”. I don’t think any software should override a “manual update” setting for any reason. Again, notices as to support issues is one thing, but to override a setting is another and is wrong.

So hopefully someone can suggest an application that can stop programs from overriding “manual update” settings and I would add other than WINPATROL since I don’t need all of the bells and whistles this application includes. I am just interested in something with a very small footprint that simply blocks software installations unless I’ve said it is OK myself.

Oh btw, I got the blank text area sending this (SEE LINK: BUG IN THE FORUM BOARD), thank goodness for DavidR’s suggestion regarding the “Form History Control” add-on for FF, right/click and select my last entry and it’s back and I don’t have to type all of this over again (I got tired of using copy just in case for longer posts).

OK, finally I’m back with this post, that BUG clearing out text and leaving a blank area is a real problem and very persistent. Just trying to get back to the blank page kept giving me “connection errors”, so I finally gave up and “reported” the error and started over with a “new post”. Again thank goodness however all of this was saved (absent this paragraph of course (addendum to post) as a result of my “Form History Control” add-on. (Here I go again with another “post” attempt). >:(

Addendum: post finally worked obviously.

2

avast has the right to perform a forced update of the application.
If you want to use avast, you just have to accept it because you agreed with the EULA/terms.

3

Then what’s the point of the “manual update” setting?

It is my experience that most if not all software applications will abide by that setting.

4

There are always exceptions to every rule. :slight_smile:

5

Definitely not all as you have found out.

And there can be a very good reason to force a update.
Let’s say a security flaw is found in avast.
You want to be protected, but have the update(s) set to manual.
That would mean your system/data is at risk until you decide to update.
And that can be days, weeks, months, years after avast has fixed the flaw.
You have installed avast and use it to be protected.
It would not make sense if avast wouldn’t enroll a forced update and leave your system vulnerable.

6

There should never be an exception to the rule when it comes to software settings. Bottom line, it is not the prerogative of any software application to take it upon themselves to override a users settings. Otherwise the setting is virtually meaningless hence do not offer the setting in the first place.

A setting should mean what it says, PERIOD!!!

It would be like the manufacturer of a device that offers parental controls based on an understood criteria decides that those parental controls are to restrictive as to the understood criteria established hence unilaterally decides to change the criteria thus ignoring their obligation to the user that depends upon the criteria as established when the device was installed.

If the manufacturer wants to change the rules then don’t break the covenant with the user, inform the user that there will be a change to the criteria thus allowing the user the option to decide as to whether they want to continue to use the device at the point that the change was instituted.

bob3160 - I’ve noticed that you like analogies so I thought I’d provide one for you. I’m certain that you now see the point.

7

It should simply not be the prerogative of some Avast decision maker to change what a setting is intended to do. The user should have the expectation that any and all settings do what it is expected to do without exception otherwise you’re going to a place where there is no point in having settings available to the user in the first place. It’s simple, if a user is provided an option to use a prescribed settings then software should abide by the setting. Or to put even more simply, don’t provide it if you don’t mean it.

Your approach is based on the theory that a person is basically unable to decide anything for himself thus needs to ultimately be supervised which is becoming a problem in today’s society as to the idea there is an apparent need for a governing force over all of us in so many aspects of life. We are slowly loosing our freedoms to decide for ourselves any more.

The point your making can be a selling point so to speak as far as suggesting it is far better to leave the update setting to “automatic”. That so called “selling” point should not however override a persons personal choice as long as a choice is provided to them. If a person wants to take a “risk” to whatever extent that might be, and obviously the risk is clearly an “known” factor why shouldn’t that person be able to exercise their right to use the option provided to them to expect the “manual” setting be honored for what it says it is supposed to do?

A user installs Avast with the expectation that the software will abide by the settings as prescribed, whether doing this increases the element of risk is irrelevant to the point. Which btw, is what makes your point erroneous that a user who wants to be protected then should expect settings to not be what they mean simply on the basis they “want to be protected”. The users are adults, and as such they know the risk to the miniscule extent there is a risk if the elect to use the “manual” update setting.

The way you put it, the setting should say the following: “Manual Update” unless Avast decides otherwise or if you like “Manual Update” unless Avast decides that is unsafe (I think you’ll like that one better). The problem here is that this is NOT what the setting says or is understood to do by any stretch of the imagination.

Look, when a person installs software on to their computer (keep in mind that the computer is personal property bought and paid for by the owner) they should have the expectation and absolute right to expect that that software do exactly what it is expected to do. And if the setting says “Manual Update” then regardless of any perceived risk by using this setting the owner of that private property (computer) should be able to expect this setting to do what it says. This has nothing to do with unintended or unexpected consequences, this setting is for a reason and there is no rationale that would suggest it should mean anything else.

You may not mind losing your freedom to choose for yourself what you want to do in your life, but for me I would suggest to you that we really do need to dial it back to when more responsibility was given to people to make up their own minds instead of some other unknown entity making our decisions for us.

This is analogous to the Mayor of NY limiting the size of soda because people can’t make decisions for themselves. I say this idea that someone else knows better is a dangerous slippery slope and we’ll all eventually be horrified where we end up if it doesn’t stop.

8
The user should have the expectation that any and all settings do what it is expected to do without exception
The user should also read the license terms/EULA.
9
bob3160 - I've noticed that you like analogies so I thought I'd provide one for you. I'm certain that you now see the point.
I also like short stories. Are you ever going to write one ??? :)
10

You’ve mentioned that before as part of your other comment “avast has the right to perform a forced update of the application.” that I shot down.

There is nothing in the EULA that applies to this discussion. If your trying to say the “as is” conditional statement applies you’d be wrong.

We are talking about an action taken by Avast management of their own volition that represents a willful act not something that is unexpected or unintended.

11

Here’s one for you Bob.

Beth was new to the skydiver club so waited until all the other members jumped.

As she raced past all the others on the way down because her chute failed to work, she said “why me”?

All the others said, “well, there are always exceptions to every rule.”.

A short story by lakrsrool dedicated to the following post:

12

The only thing you are doing is shooting yourself in your feet.

If you like it or not, avast has it mentioned in the EULA/Terms/Policy.
They have the right to force a update and can do so whenever they want.

13

What I find interesting is that on a board the purpose of which is presumably to help people and I ask the simple question: “Does anyone know of an application that can be setup to stop resident applications from doing automatic application installs?” and all I get are arguments as to why it’s OK with them that software does automatic installs that are in conflict to a user setting as opposed to helping out with an answer to the question.

People, try and not be so defensive. I’m not attaching Avast!! I’m well aware of all of the inadequate excuses that can be made to try and explain why something occurs that really should not have occurred.

All I’m doing is asking a simple question is all.

I like Avast too guys, irregardless of the fact that in this case Avast did not do what would have been the right thing to do which is to notify the user that the software is no longer supported (assuming that was the case) and with that warning the option to do something about it as opposed to taking it upon themselves to install software that was in direct conflict with a setting that in no uncertain terms should mean what it says, that is “manual update” ONLY.

I’m still a supporter of Avast folks regardless, don’t get your panties in a bunch.

But it would be nice if anyone actually has an answer to my question as opposed to trying to correct me somehow with weak and irrelevant narratives that have nothing to do with the question posed.

14

Snip> “I like Avast too guys, irregardless of the fact”

FYI, there is no such word as ‘irregardless’
You must have meant “Regardless” 8)

15
"Does anyone know of an application that can be setup to stop resident applications from doing automatic application installs?"
No.
16

Or irrespective :wink:

Irregardless means the same as regardless, but the negative prefix ir- merely duplicates the suffix -less, and is unnecessary. The word dates back to the 19th century, but is regarded as incorrect in standard English.

17

Sorry, but just as I said before and I will once again reiterate “There is nothing in the EULA that applies to this discussion.”

I welcome you to try and provide otherwise: AVAST USER END AGREEMENT (FREE VERSION)

Please don’t try and use the following:

  1. Upgrades and Updates
    Upgrades and updates of the Software shall be provided to you by AVAST as long as and to the extent in
    which AVAST in its exclusive discretion makes such upgrades and updates available to the users
    of the free version of the Software.

There is simply no ambiguity here, all that is stated is that it is the discretion of Avast to provide upgrades which is to say Avast has the right to deny them but clearly there is no stipulation that they have the right to install upgrades on a person’s private property without permission of the owner of that property. Give it up Eddy, there is simply no stipulation that Avast has the option to override settings to accomplish this, on the contrary the user should have the expectation that settings will work accordingly.

18

You have the right to choose what ever you like to protect your system.
If you aren’t happy, you have choices. Helping to improve Avast is one of them.
Writing novels really doesn’t help in that task. :slight_smile:

19

I’ve heard this debate before, and I’m not unsympathetic to your point actually. But again, your premise is actually still debatable.

LINK DICTIONARY.COM

irregardless
adverb, Nonstandard.

  1. regardless.

Admittedly it is “nonstandard” so again is why I’m sympathetic to your point and I would ad that I actually agree for the most part, it is preferential to actually use the word “regardless” as you suggest.

At least I see some are apparently actually interested enough to read what I have to say regardless that presumably most if not all apparently classify it as nothing other than drivel unfortunately.

20

Good call, totally agree :wink:

But wait, does anyone have an answer to my question? ??? :wink: