Oh woot, another compulsory patch that I can't download :-((((
|
|
Hugh Perkins
Junior Member
Join date: 26 Nov 2003
Posts: 25
|
12-02-2003 13:51
If someone can figure out how to wrap the patch as a signed ActiveX it'd be much appreciated...
|
|
Bino Arbuckle
Registered User
Join date: 31 Dec 2002
Posts: 369
|
12-02-2003 23:49
Dare I ask how you initially downloaded Second Life if you're having so much trouble downloading newer versions?
|
|
Nicole Miller
Pixel Pervert
Join date: 10 Jan 2003
Posts: 185
|
12-03-2003 12:22
The software asks if you would like to download the newest version, but does nothing when you accept. You can get it from the website, but it is silly that you have to answer the dialog box and not get the patch only to end up going to the website anyway. It's just a simple bug that has been there for a bit.
_____________________
Asphalt is a great word because it is descriptive and it lays blame.
|
|
Ama Omega
Lost Wanderer
Join date: 11 Dec 2002
Posts: 1,770
|
12-03-2003 12:36
Hm, nicole, I have no such problems. The autopatcher works perfect for me. The problem for Hugh is that he plays at a cyber cafe. They recently locked down the computers so he can't download regular software - only signed activeX components. Which is why he is looking for a signed activeX SL-instlal wrapper. I don't have one. 
_____________________
--
010000010110110101100001001000000100111101101101011001010110011101100001
--
|
|
Camille Serpentine
Eater of the Dead
Join date: 6 Oct 2003
Posts: 1,236
|
12-03-2003 12:47
I get the same bug as Nicole so I always go to the website to download the newest version. Otherwise whatever is download is labeled as version 1.1.3 and not accepted.
loops!
|
|
Mezzanine Peregrine
Senior Member
Join date: 14 Nov 2003
Posts: 113
|
12-03-2003 12:59
Can anyone point me at information on ActiveX wrapping? I'm sure if I had the right docs I could do it.
|
|
Phoenix Zircon
Registered User
Join date: 6 Nov 2003
Posts: 67
|
12-03-2003 13:27
Only ActiveX?? So what happens to him if a website wants a java applet? Or a Flash movie? Or any of a dozen other technologies that run client-side? Sounds like I'd be heading to another cafe man, that's silly.
|
|
Carnildo Greenacre
Flight Engineer
Join date: 15 Nov 2003
Posts: 1,044
|
12-03-2003 13:30
Java runs in the (signed) Java virtual machine, so it's OK. Flash runs in the (signed) Flash virtual machine, so it's OK. Executables don't have a virtual machine, so they need to be signed individually.
|
|
Mad Chaos
Junior Member
Join date: 8 Nov 2003
Posts: 2
|
same issue
12-05-2003 19:31
I've had the same problem. When I tell it to get the latest version it just quits. Possibly it's because I run windows XP or because I have the Google Toolbar with popup blocking?
Then I just end up going to the website and downloading the newest full install instead.
|
|
Nicole Miller
Pixel Pervert
Join date: 10 Jan 2003
Posts: 185
|
12-10-2003 01:13
Yup, it happened again. I am also running XP.
_____________________
Asphalt is a great word because it is descriptive and it lays blame.
|
|
Mark Linden
Funky Linden Monkey
Join date: 20 Nov 2002
Posts: 179
|
12-11-2003 15:44
I guess I'll reply in two parts:
Hugh: I'd try and find another cafe, or get them to install SL on their machines; we have no plans to distribute the viewer as a signed ActiveX component anytime soon.
Other people with updater problems: Are you running a "personal firewall" application of some kind? Those often cause problems for us.
Just so you know, the autoupdater simply downloads the client from the website and runs the installer for you; it's exactly the same as downloading it by hand.
Folks who are having autoupdater problems should report them via the Bug Reporter so that we can look at them, though.
|
|
Eggy Lippmann
Wiktator
Join date: 1 May 2003
Posts: 7,939
|
12-12-2003 11:07
The autoupdater stopped working for me long ago. But since I'm running win98se I try not to complain too much  |