Application that can stop automatic software upgrades?

[CraigB]

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

FYI, there is no such word as 'irregardless'
You must have meant "Regardless"

Or irrespective

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.

[lakrsrool]

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.

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:

3. 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. 

[bob3160]

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.

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.

[lakrsrool]

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

FYI, there is no such word as 'irregardless'
You must have meant "Regardless"

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.

[lakrsrool]

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

FYI, there is no such word as 'irregardless'
You must have meant "Regardless"

Or irrespective

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.

Good call, totally agree 

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

[lakrsrool]

Btw, I've always use the word "irregardless" as wrong as it might be, so it's probably not something at my age that I'm going to be able to change. 

One other point, I find it interesting that not only is the word in the on-line dictionary as I posted but my spell check actually recognizes it as well as I type in the word and I haven't added it folks (and as we know spell checks will often miss known words so the fact that it's there in the first place is interesting and perhaps arguably validating as well if nothing else)

[Eddy]

You should type less and read more.
See reply #14

[CraigB]

I don't know what you could use to block other than a firewall but then you'll be blocking the vps updates as well.

Concerning "Avast " program updates Avast have mentioned on this forum previously that only the final releases of the last two or three versions are supported, if you are not using a final release of one of those versions a forced update will be pushed.

[lakrsrool]

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.

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.

I'm confused Bob, was that in response to Eddy or me?

Eddy isn't inclined to "write novels" that you dislike so much apparently (although I would suggest to you that "reading" is your friend, especially if retired like myself that provides us folks with more time).

But it occurs to me that perhaps it is appropriate for Eddy on the basis that all I'm doing is actually "helping to improve Avast" simply because what I'm discussing here would do just that.  You would agree that abiding by settings would arguably be an improvement for Avast, RIGHT?

[lakrsrool]

You should type less and read more.
See reply #14

Now come on Eddy, I would be referring to "everyone" and not just you. 

You might consider the fact that just because you do not know, doesn't mean "everyone" does not know. 

[lakrsrool]

I don't know what you could use to block other than a firewall but then you'll be blocking the vps updates as well.

Concerning "Avast " program updates Avast have mentioned on this forum previously that only the final releases of the last two or three versions are supported, if you are not using a final release of one of those versions a forced update will be pushed.

I'm not so sure USER AGREEMENTS should be based on what is discussed in a forum, DO YOU?

Perhaps users should be able to actually rely on USER AGREEMENTS AS STIPULATED.

I would suggest to you that this would be the reasonable expectation that software manufacturers would abide by, just a novel concept. 

I had no idea so many people would get so worked up concerning all of this.... I've got to have some breakfast but I'll be back rest assured. 

[CraigB]

I'm not so sure USER AGREEMENTS should be based on what is discussed in a forum, DO YOU?

It was a statement from a senior member of the Avast staff so that's good enough for me ( I don't read eula's )

I had no idea so many people would get so worked up concerning all of this....

Who's getting worked up I just answered some questions

[bob3160]

@ larksrool,
I'll let you continue to debate this topic with yourself. I'm out of here. 

[lakrsrool]

I'm not so sure USER AGREEMENTS should be based on what is discussed in a forum, DO YOU?

It was a statement from a senior member of the Avast staff so that's good enough for me ( I don't read eula's )

I had no idea so many people would get so worked up concerning all of this....

Who's getting worked up I just answered some questions

I don't typically read EULA's either, who does, see we are in agreement there.  But the point is that an EULA by definition and any understanding as to what it represents should not only be the only word, but the last word on any debate such as this as opposed to a comment made in a blog or forum, seriously, wouldn't you agree that this makes perfect sense?

As to your 2nd point, my reference was not to you specifically, it's just a off handed comment not to be taken seriously and amounts to nothing more than a generalization obviously (or perhaps not so obvious). 

[lakrsrool]

I don't know what you could use to block other than a firewall but then you'll be blocking the vps updates as well.

Concerning "Avast " program updates Avast have mentioned on this forum previously that only the final releases of the last two or three versions are supported, if you are not using a final release of one of those versions a forced update will be pushed.

I thank you for staying with the topic (bolded part above).  On that note in regards to staying on topic, it is my understanding that WINPATROL will block updates.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I've mentioned this application in my initial post but also mentioned it has way too many bells and whistles that I would not be interested in.

If in fact it will monitor for updates or shall we say "attempted involuntary changes to the system" as I think it will then this would be an example.  I'm not sure, but if I recall correctly POPUP COP monitored for this kind of thing but this is a very old program that has long since not been supported and probably doesn't even work on anything past XP OS.

I would have thought there might be an application with a small footprint that would simply monitor for updates not initiated manually by the user, apparently I guess there are not, that is considering that the knowledgeably base on this widely used forum is not aware of any.  Just thought I'd ask and of course I couldn't help myself as far as the temptation to explain my opinion on why there actually should not be a need for such an application if in fact software were to abide by self imposed settings provided to their users in the first place (which unfortunately opened the door to "Pandora's Box").

On a side note, it seems to me this would be an application for someone to write and provide the user community (I'm too old and to far out of touch to want to tackle it, but I'm sure there are capable programmers out there who certainly could in no time)