3 ms·
> The "forced" you so easily dismiss is entirely the point. I think it's you that missed my point. > people choose when (and if) they upgrade, for a variety o
by gambiter 11y ago
> The "forced" you so easily dismiss is entirely the point.
I think it's you that missed my point.
> people choose when (and if) they upgrade, for a variety of complex reasons
If they're running Gentoo, or maybe a small group of other distros, sure. Otherwise, people (on all operating systems) don't really do a lot of choosing at all. If updates are available, they generally run them. The only picking and choosing I've ever seen from the vast majority of people (including technical folks) is if they don't have the bandwidth/time to update a particularly large piece of software at the moment. Of course, they'll update it later when they are able.
> The problem of inspecting the code itself is a separate issue entirely, though at least in the area of Free Software that inspection is possible
Yes, it's possible, but it isn't done in practice, which is why I said it. That's the reason I said it's 'basically the same thing'. Whether you receive updates automatically or choose when to download them, you are still accepting what the distribution method gives you. There are FAR too many software packages out there for the average person to work out the logistics of reading accounts from early adopters of every single point release.
> Now you're simply resorting to either insults (and/or wilful ignorance).
It's not an insult. It's a factual statement. You claimed in your comment that a multi-billion dollar corporation who has a vested interest in keeping the good will of their customers (some of whom are corporate, some government, but the vast majority are consumers who look to them for help) would willfully send compromised software through forced updates in the future. If that isn't a conspiracy theory, I'd love to know what is.
- pdkl95 11y ago> The only picking and choosing I've ever seen Apparently you need to get out more, because you seem to have missed that "not upgrading" is so incredibly common that some major software packages (web browsers) and at least one operating systems have decided to force upgrades. Also, do you really believe that all the IT departments in the world are running current versions of anything? There are entire industries that run "last year's" versions, who only upgrade after extensive testing. > I'd love to know what is Did you even read the thread you're replying to? You're knee-jerk application of the paranoid-style[1] ignores the fact that "It's in the privacy policy." There is not secret. MS is telling everyone they will send forced updates (which have already cause stability issues for some people). As for MS keeping "the good will of their customers", again, did your read this thread? Windows 10 has already forced various professionals to drop windows. Also, "compromised" is your term, not mine. I'm sure any future update they push out will be buzzword compliant. The point is we don't know what future updates will bring, but you agree to run those future versions anyway. -- Meh. I have better things to do than waste any more time on your distractions. If you want to be the apparatchik that refuses to believe MS would do anything malicious, that's your business. [1] http://harpers.org/archive/1964/11/the-paranoid-style-in-american-politics/ http://harpers.org/archive/1964/11/the-paranoid-style-in-ame...
- innerspirit 11y ago> "not upgrading" is so incredibly common Honestly it does not look like you wasted much time at all, you seem to have missed his point again.