Woohoo STEAM update

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

"Peter Lykkegaard" <polonline@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:37lil1F57umhiU1@individual.net
> Ladies and Gentleman
>
> Choose your weapons
>
> Half-Life 2: Deathmatch:
> - Added SLAM, Stunstick and Crowbar
>
> http://www.steampowered.com/index.php?area=news
>
> - Peter

YEP! Steam updated itself when I started it up a while ago, and I got
the news page too :) Hey, the following is for the Steam-Haters.... you
just don't GET this stuff without Steam :)
Thursday, February 17 2005

At approximately 4:00 pm PST we'll be releasing an update that primarily
focuses on Half-Life 2: Deathmatch. This update will include the
addition of the Stunstick, SLAM, and the Crowbar. It will also include a
new original map made by Valve, called Steamlab.

Along with the update to the game, we'll be releasing the source code
for Half-Life 2: Deathmatch in an update to the Source SDK, which should
give our MOD community a wide range of functionality they can use to
build their games. We're all excited to see what is built based off of
it. The update to the SDK will also allow MOD developers to write their
own custom shaders, which will lead to some unique visuals in their
games.

Looking ahead to next week, we're still on track for the Counter-Strike
update, which will include a new map called cs_compound, along with a
number of smaller changes and bug fixes.

We get the SOURCE CODE for the HL2😀M!!!! Gee whiz. This is cool
stuff!
McG.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

"McGrandpa" <McGrandpaNOT@NOThotmail.com> wrote in message
news😱3uRd.9600$cW2.8277@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> YEP! Steam updated itself when I started it up a while ago, and I got the
> news page too :) Hey, the following is for the Steam-Haters.... you just
> don't GET this stuff without Steam :)




there are a lot of other ways to get updates besides steam. I have never
had any problems downloading a patch and then clicking on the .exe that was
downloaded ;op

--

Margolis
http://web.archive.org/web/20030215212142/http://www.agqx.org/faqs/AGQ2FAQ.htm
http://www.unrealtower.org/faq
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

"McGrandpa" wrote

> We get the SOURCE CODE for the HL2😀M!!!! Gee whiz. This is cool stuff!

And included is part of TF2 sourceode according to rumours

- Peter
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

"Peter Lykkegaard" <peter.aghl@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:37n9vpF5fpkrsU1@individual.net
> "McGrandpa" wrote
>
>> We get the SOURCE CODE for the HL2😀M!!!! Gee whiz. This is cool
>> stuff!
>
> And included is part of TF2 sourceode according to rumours
>
> - Peter

Aw man! I'm already drowning in stuff to dig through! :)
McG.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 23:02:47 -0600, "Margolis" <someone@somewhere.org>
wrote:

>"McGrandpa" <McGrandpaNOT@NOThotmail.com> wrote in message
>news😱3uRd.9600$cW2.8277@fe2.texas.rr.com...
>> YEP! Steam updated itself when I started it up a while ago, and I got the
>> news page too :) Hey, the following is for the Steam-Haters.... you just
>> don't GET this stuff without Steam :)
>
>
>
>
>there are a lot of other ways to get updates besides steam. I have never
>had any problems downloading a patch and then clicking on the .exe that was
>downloaded ;op

God no! Right-click that exe and scan for viruses first, then
right-click and 'extract with winrar or winzip'.....

--
steve <AT> steveevans <DOT> org
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

>
> Aw man! I'm already drowning in stuff to dig through! :)
> McG.

Does that include Joan Rivers' wise and beautiful woman boogers?
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

"SpammersDie" wrote

> Tell me again why Steam is a superior patch-management scheme.
>
Do you wanna bet $1000 that you're going to get a virus via a Steam update?

- Peter
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

"Peter Lykkegaard" <peter.aghl@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:37pscmF5eli8uU1@individual.net...
> "SpammersDie" wrote
>
>> Tell me again why Steam is a superior patch-management scheme.
>>
> Do you wanna bet $1000 that you're going to get a virus via a Steam
> update?

*I* won't get one because I'm not using Steam and won't be either.

And this "do you wanna bet $1000" is a spectacularly dumb response. The fact
that the odds are less than 50% that something bad will happen if you let
your guard down is no reason to do so so when a perfectly workable
alternative exists (or *should* exist) that doesn't require you to do that.

Restricting updates through Steam prevents you from doing your own virus
checks on executables delivered from a company that couldn't even keep its
own source code secure from theft. There is no way you can spin that as an
advantage of Steam over standard browser-based download.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

The only thing I don't like about Steam is the fact that you have to
reauthenticate after so many months (I believe). So say you've got not
internet connection (living in a rural area etc...) and you pop to your
mates with an internet connection, get it authenticated, then go back home.
Then you decide to move house to another rural area, and haven't played the
game in months, then go to play it and it needs an internet connection to
reauthenticate, how are you meant to reauthenticate it when you've got no
internet connection.

That's the only thing I don't like about it. Fair enough, when you first
install the game when you've first bought it and it asks for authentication
then yes I believe that is fine, just proving that you have a legal copy.
But the "ticket" or whatever it's called should never expire at all, you've
already proved you own a legit copy, why should you have prove yourself
again???

Just my pennies worth.
"SpammersDie" <xx@xx.xx> wrote in message
news:zjQRd.56801$Th1.38425@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Peter Lykkegaard" <peter.aghl@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:37pscmF5eli8uU1@individual.net...
>> "SpammersDie" wrote
>>
>>> Tell me again why Steam is a superior patch-management scheme.
>>>
>> Do you wanna bet $1000 that you're going to get a virus via a Steam
>> update?
>
> *I* won't get one because I'm not using Steam and won't be either.
>
> And this "do you wanna bet $1000" is a spectacularly dumb response. The
> fact that the odds are less than 50% that something bad will happen if you
> let your guard down is no reason to do so so when a perfectly workable
> alternative exists (or *should* exist) that doesn't require you to do
> that.
>
> Restricting updates through Steam prevents you from doing your own virus
> checks on executables delivered from a company that couldn't even keep its
> own source code secure from theft. There is no way you can spin that as an
> advantage of Steam over standard browser-based download.
>
>
>
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

WannaPieceOfme wrote:
> The only thing I don't like about Steam is the fact that you have to
> reauthenticate after so many months (I believe).

AFAIK you never have to re-authenticate. There was a re-authenticate
type bug when the game was released that was fixed with an update.
Others will correct me if I'm wrong.


--
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always
so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts"

Bertrand Russell
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

SpammersDie wrote:
> "Peter Lykkegaard" <peter.aghl@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:37pscmF5eli8uU1@individual.net...
>
>>"SpammersDie" wrote
>>
>>
>>>Tell me again why Steam is a superior patch-management scheme.
>>>
>>
>>Do you wanna bet $1000 that you're going to get a virus via a Steam
>>update?
>
>
> *I* won't get one because I'm not using Steam and won't be either.
>
> And this "do you wanna bet $1000" is a spectacularly dumb response. The fact
> that the odds are less than 50% that something bad will happen if you let
> your guard down is no reason to do so so when a perfectly workable
> alternative exists (or *should* exist) that doesn't require you to do that.
>
> Restricting updates through Steam prevents you from doing your own virus
> checks on executables delivered from a company that couldn't even keep its
> own source code secure from theft. There is no way you can spin that as an
> advantage of Steam over standard browser-based download.
>
>

So from a risk point of view what do you think is more likely Valve
screw up and deleivery a virus via Steam or someone manages to modiy a
'patch' with a new virus, put it on a web-site and get people to
download it?
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

"SpammersDie" wrote

> Restricting updates through Steam prevents you from doing your own virus
> checks on executables delivered from a company that couldn't even keep its
> own source code secure from theft.

But nevertheless you go outside everyday, drive by bus, by train, even have
a flight occasionally hmmm, oh well
Having a virus attack is just annoying, real life gives you real threats

And btw for the 10 years I have been in the business I haven't experienced
got a severe SW problem caused by viruses or trojans

Plenty of HW problems though but that's another story

- Peter
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

"JAB" wrote

> So from a risk point of view what do you think is more likely ...

Nahh don't bother as it's a "spectacularly dumb response"

- Peter
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

"JAB" <nothanks@nohope.net> wrote in message
news:j4%Rd.74$OY4.1@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
> SpammersDie wrote:
>> "Peter Lykkegaard" <peter.aghl@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:37pscmF5eli8uU1@individual.net...
>>
>>>"SpammersDie" wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>>Tell me again why Steam is a superior patch-management scheme.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Do you wanna bet $1000 that you're going to get a virus via a Steam
>>>update?
>>
>>
>> *I* won't get one because I'm not using Steam and won't be either.
>>
>> And this "do you wanna bet $1000" is a spectacularly dumb response. The
>> fact that the odds are less than 50% that something bad will happen if
>> you let your guard down is no reason to do so so when a perfectly
>> workable alternative exists (or *should* exist) that doesn't require you
>> to do that.
>>
>> Restricting updates through Steam prevents you from doing your own virus
>> checks on executables delivered from a company that couldn't even keep
>> its own source code secure from theft. There is no way you can spin that
>> as an advantage of Steam over standard browser-based download.
>>
>>
>
> So from a risk point of view what do you think is more likely Valve screw
> up and deleivery a virus via Steam or someone manages to modiy a 'patch'
> with a new virus, put it on a web-site and get people to download it?

That's one reason I don't take patches from anywhere but the vendor's own
site.

And patches can be digitally signed so I can be sure that no virus or trojan
was added after the vendor finalized the patch.

So at worst, a vendor can provide a manual patch option that's no riskier
than Steam. Plus in the manual scenario, the user has the choice to submit
the patch to as many other probes as he wishes to before he runs it. Most
other vendors are considerate enough to do this. But not Valve.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

"SpammersDie" <xx@xx.xx> wrote in message
news:EZ1Sd.248802$w62.153178@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>
> That's one reason I don't take patches from anywhere but the vendor's own
> site.
>

that has no bearing on anything. Corporate sites get hacked also. So
getting it directly from the vendor is no guarantee. Hell, just look at
valve ;o)


> And patches can be digitally signed so I can be sure that no virus or
> trojan was added after the vendor finalized the patch.
>

digital signatures don't mean squat either. I am not saying they are
useless, but they can be spoofed also.


--

Margolis
http://web.archive.org/web/20030215212142/http://www.agqx.org/faqs/AGQ2FAQ.htm
http://www.unrealtower.org/faq
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

"Margolis" <someone@somewhere.org> wrote in message
news:gRkSd.15367$3o3.14613@fe06.lga...
> "SpammersDie" <xx@xx.xx> wrote in message
> news:EZ1Sd.248802$w62.153178@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>
>>"JAB" <nothanks@nohope.net> wrote in message
>>news:j4%Rd.74$OY4.1@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
>>>
>>> So from a risk point of view what do you think is more likely Valve
>>> screw up and deleivery a virus via Steam or someone manages to modiy a
>>> 'patch' with a new virus, put it on a web-site and get people to
>>> download it?
>>
>> That's one reason I don't take patches from anywhere but the vendor's own
>> site.
>>
>
> that has no bearing on anything. Corporate sites get hacked also. So
> getting it directly from the vendor is no guarantee. Hell, just look at
> valve ;o)
>
>
>> And patches can be digitally signed so I can be sure that no virus or
>> trojan was added after the vendor finalized the patch.
>>
>>So at worst, a vendor can provide a manual patch option that's no riskier
>>than Steam. Plus in the manual scenario, the user has the choice to submit
>>the patch to as many other probes as he wishes to before he runs it. Most
>>other vendors are considerate enough to do this. But not Valve.
>
> digital signatures don't mean squat either. I am not saying they are
> useless, but they can be spoofed also.

Since reading comprehension clearly isn't your strong suit, I'll spell it
out one more time in nice short words, then that's it.

Nobody here said manual patching was guaranteed risk free, idiot. This was
about the comparative risks between Steam and manual patching and Steam
carries all the risks above plus more.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

"SpammersDie" <xx@xx.xx> wrote in message
news:16mSd.254675$w62.179603@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>
> Nobody here said manual patching was guaranteed risk free, idiot.


that is a very good self description of yourself since apparently you
apparently have big problems with reading comprehension. Plus you have a
short memory.


quote from earlier post:
>>"And patches can be digitally signed so I can be sure that no virus or
>>trojan was added after the vendor finalized the patch"

If you are SURE there is no virus added, where is the risk??


All I did was comment on what you said, there was no need for name calling.
But now there is. Apparently you are an uneducated wet behind the ear
pimple faced 12 year old that can't stand it when somebody comments on
something you say, even when it wasn't even critical of your posting.

idiot. ;o(

--

Margolis
http://web.archive.org/web/20030215212142/http://www.agqx.org/faqs/AGQ2FAQ.htm
http://www.unrealtower.org/faq
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom