4 ms·

Most things that were "once an accepted standard in IT" are horribly insecure. The end user wanting a system he/she controls is very much one of them. Microsof

by 794CD01 10y ago

Most things that were "once an accepted standard in IT" are horribly insecure. The end user wanting a system he/she controls is very much one of them. Microsoft taking away control from users, especially when it came to forcing them to take updates, is probably the biggest change they could possibly have made to improve the overall security of the internet.

unprepare 10y ago
are you under the impression that automatic security updates is what people dislike about windows 10? Its mostly the: telemetry openended ToS poor upgrade/reinstall behavior resulting in lost licenses overly complicated licensing structure (with articles like this showing the professional license feature set degrading over time) forced integration of unrelated products (cortana, bing) integration of advertising into the OS (lockscreen and wallpapers) lessening control enterprises have over their systems
- mynameisvlad 10y ago
  Full disclosure: I work at Microsoft but outside of Windows. > poor upgrade/reinstall behavior resulting in lost licenses I have never experienced this. If you bought Windows 10 straight up (or your computer came with one) then you have a product key you can use, just like before. If you upgraded from 7/8 or are in the Insider Program, then you get a digital entitlement to your Microsoft account which gets restored automatically when you next sign on. http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-10/activation-in-windows-10 http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-10/activation-in-... > overly complicated licensing structure There are two editions for consumers: Home, and Pro. With the differentiator being fairly clear from the name alone (home is for home users, pro gives you things you aren't going to ever use at home but might at work, like AD join). There are other editions like Enterprise and Education, but an end user will never even see them. > forced integration of unrelated products Cortana is a part of Windows. It started as a Windows Phone feature, and got brought over to desktop. There's nothing unrelated about it. Bing is integrated to Cortana because that's the backend powering it. It's like how Ok Google uses Google on Android. Using a third party provider would not give nearly the amount of insight it currently has, since the two teams can work together to improve results and the overall experience. > integration of advertising into the OS (lockscreen and wallpapers) Spotlight has shown one ad that I am aware of (Tomb Raider). Otherwise, it gives you curated images rotated every so often. Your wallpaper does not change, that is not a feature of Spotlight. It's also completely disableable; you just set your own image.
  - tdkl 10y ago
    > It's also completely disableable How about being opt-in? Can we please just give you money and have a edition of Windows 10 LTSB for consumers where you don't have to wrestle with all this crap? Also will this "surprise motherfucker" style of updates continue when the free update period runs out in July 2016 and MS starts charging money? Because if it won't, get prepared for some heavy legal action.
    - mynameisvlad 10y ago
      I believe Windows 8 introduced the group policy to set a default lock screen image (https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/itpro/windows/whats-new/windows-spotlight https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/itpro/windows/whats-new/...). Since Enterprise is the only LTSB SKU, I would assume some sort of group policy is also being deployed. Wouldn't be too hard to set that policy up, which disables Spotlight automatically.
  - cm2187 10y ago
    And ads in the start menu http://www.zdnet.com/article/how-to-disable-windows-10-start-menu-ads/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/how-to-disable-windows-10-start... Why would I want this in a software I am paying for? Particularly the Pro version!
  - jzwinck 10y ago
    I upgraded three computers to Windows 10 a few months ago. One each from Vista, 7, and 8. All three had showstopper problems. One would never again resume from sleep and had to be downgraded (HP laptop). One encountered a permanent boot error on the second boot into 10, and had to be completely wiped to make it work (Lenovo desktop, only a year old). And the third required purchase of a new graphics card, because acceleration which worked in Win7 does not work in Win10 if you have older Intel integrated graphics. These free upgrades cost me about 15 hours of lost time, $80 in hardware, and a lot of goodwill. Or I guess I should say, two upgrades, since one had to be undone.
- cm2187 10y ago
  Frequent forced reboots Windows overriding user settings Playing whack-a-mole with the privacy settings Bloated with unwanted softwares Two control panels And most important: loss of trust in Microsoft. This is the one thing that will be hard for them to reverse.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- 794CD01 10y ago
  I am not. I am under the impression that some people believe "I control my own machine" is a point in favor of security. And that those people are wrong. Perhaps not for themselves specifically, but in turning that philosophy into a general rule to apply to consumer products.
  - hasdrubal 10y ago
    Care to offer any arguments to support your claim?
    - 794CD01 10y ago
      The entire history of Windows.
pdkl95 10y ago
> taking away control from users If you don't control something, you de facto don't own it. You're advocating for a future without personal property. If you doubt this, see John Deere. > improve the overall security of the internet When someone else has remote control over your system, your system is - by definition - insecure. The recent drama involving the FBI and an iphone is a perfect example: the phone is insecure if the OS can be forcibly updated by the manufacturer. Remote control of the OS may improve the security of the internet, but it happens at the expense of user security. > The end user wanting a system he/she controls [is insecure] This attitude is incredibly insulting. Instead of providing more secure products that people cant successfully maintain, or spending the time and effort to properly educate users, you're claiming they cannot be trusted with complicated tools. > taking away control "Freedom" necessarily includes the freedom to make bad decisions. You want to take away that choice. You might want to consider the long-term effects of advocating against freedom.
- 794CD01 10y ago
  I'm not advocating. I am pointing out that user control is fundamentally anti-security. Bad security may very well be worth the tradeoff if you value other things like freedom, fashion, backwards compatibility, fewer restarts, price, etc.
  - MereInterest 10y ago
    User control is, by definition, security. The goal of security is to keep control in the hands of the owner. To remove control in the name of security is at best deceptive and self-defeating.
    - Hondor 10y ago
      No. The user might use his control to make his computer less secure. Then it does't have security. And in real life, most user do exactly this when they have the option easily available. Most viruses spread through user control. Users choose to run programs which are viruses. Users choose to not upgrade their insecure software. Those are pretty much the main ways viruses spread.
cm2187 10y ago
Rather to force their users to see their ads and push their apps down their throat. Security? Really?
hackuser 10y ago
> Microsoft taking away control from users, especially when it came to forcing them to take updates, is probably the biggest change they could possibly have made to improve the overall security of the internet. Shouldn't the end user get to decide for themselves whether Microsoft can control the computer the user paid for, that sits in their home or office, and that contains their private and otherwise confidential information?
- 794CD01 10y ago
  They used to, and they decided to download and execute random malware, and never take security updates.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    Isn't that their choice?
    - setyfse4 10y ago
      Not being confounded by choices they dont understand or care is also what they want. Chrome and Firefox auto updating without user intervention by default is a good thing. If Chrome were to ask permission before downloading updates, many of them will just cancel it and get on with whatever they wanted to browse. If the system is compromised by malware because of an unpatched security issue, it is the vendor who takes the blame.
      - tdkl 10y ago
        Chrome is a browser, not an OS. I don't run my software under Chrome, so I'm not as affected if it had issues with auto-updating (there rarely was anything, which is another point). If Google were playing beta testers with Chromebooks and messing around like MS does, you'd think there would be anything positive written about them ?
        setyfse4 10y ago

by 794CD01 10y ago

unprepare 10y ago

are you under the impression that automatic security updates is what people dislike about windows 10? Its mostly the: telemetry openended ToS poor upgrade/reinstall behavior resulting in lost licenses overly complicated licensing structure (with articles like this showing the professional license feature set degrading over time) forced integration of unrelated products (cortana, bing) integration of advertising into the OS (lockscreen and wallpapers) lessening control enterprises have over their systems

mynameisvlad 10y ago
Full disclosure: I work at Microsoft but outside of Windows. > poor upgrade/reinstall behavior resulting in lost licenses I have never experienced this. If you bought Windows 10 straight up (or your computer came with one) then you have a product key you can use, just like before. If you upgraded from 7/8 or are in the Insider Program, then you get a digital entitlement to your Microsoft account which gets restored automatically when you next sign on. http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-10/activation-in-windows-10 http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-10/activation-in-... > overly complicated licensing structure There are two editions for consumers: Home, and Pro. With the differentiator being fairly clear from the name alone (home is for home users, pro gives you things you aren't going to ever use at home but might at work, like AD join). There are other editions like Enterprise and Education, but an end user will never even see them. > forced integration of unrelated products Cortana is a part of Windows. It started as a Windows Phone feature, and got brought over to desktop. There's nothing unrelated about it. Bing is integrated to Cortana because that's the backend powering it. It's like how Ok Google uses Google on Android. Using a third party provider would not give nearly the amount of insight it currently has, since the two teams can work together to improve results and the overall experience. > integration of advertising into the OS (lockscreen and wallpapers) Spotlight has shown one ad that I am aware of (Tomb Raider). Otherwise, it gives you curated images rotated every so often. Your wallpaper does not change, that is not a feature of Spotlight. It's also completely disableable; you just set your own image.
- tdkl 10y ago
  > It's also completely disableable How about being opt-in? Can we please just give you money and have a edition of Windows 10 LTSB for consumers where you don't have to wrestle with all this crap? Also will this "surprise motherfucker" style of updates continue when the free update period runs out in July 2016 and MS starts charging money? Because if it won't, get prepared for some heavy legal action.
  - mynameisvlad 10y ago
    I believe Windows 8 introduced the group policy to set a default lock screen image (https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/itpro/windows/whats-new/windows-spotlight https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/itpro/windows/whats-new/...). Since Enterprise is the only LTSB SKU, I would assume some sort of group policy is also being deployed. Wouldn't be too hard to set that policy up, which disables Spotlight automatically.
- cm2187 10y ago
  And ads in the start menu http://www.zdnet.com/article/how-to-disable-windows-10-start-menu-ads/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/how-to-disable-windows-10-start... Why would I want this in a software I am paying for? Particularly the Pro version!
- jzwinck 10y ago
  I upgraded three computers to Windows 10 a few months ago. One each from Vista, 7, and 8. All three had showstopper problems. One would never again resume from sleep and had to be downgraded (HP laptop). One encountered a permanent boot error on the second boot into 10, and had to be completely wiped to make it work (Lenovo desktop, only a year old). And the third required purchase of a new graphics card, because acceleration which worked in Win7 does not work in Win10 if you have older Intel integrated graphics. These free upgrades cost me about 15 hours of lost time, $80 in hardware, and a lot of goodwill. Or I guess I should say, two upgrades, since one had to be undone.
cm2187 10y ago
Frequent forced reboots Windows overriding user settings Playing whack-a-mole with the privacy settings Bloated with unwanted softwares Two control panels And most important: loss of trust in Microsoft. This is the one thing that will be hard for them to reverse.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
794CD01 10y ago
I am not. I am under the impression that some people believe "I control my own machine" is a point in favor of security. And that those people are wrong. Perhaps not for themselves specifically, but in turning that philosophy into a general rule to apply to consumer products.
- hasdrubal 10y ago
  Care to offer any arguments to support your claim?
  - 794CD01 10y ago
    The entire history of Windows.

pdkl95 10y ago

> taking away control from users If you don't control something, you de facto don't own it. You're advocating for a future without personal property. If you doubt this, see John Deere. > improve the overall security of the internet When someone else has remote control over your system, your system is - by definition - insecure. The recent drama involving the FBI and an iphone is a perfect example: the phone is insecure if the OS can be forcibly updated by the manufacturer. Remote control of the OS may improve the security of the internet, but it happens at the expense of user security. > The end user wanting a system he/she controls [is insecure] This attitude is incredibly insulting. Instead of providing more secure products that people cant successfully maintain, or spending the time and effort to properly educate users, you're claiming they cannot be trusted with complicated tools. > taking away control "Freedom" necessarily includes the freedom to make bad decisions. You want to take away that choice. You might want to consider the long-term effects of advocating against freedom.

794CD01 10y ago
I'm not advocating. I am pointing out that user control is fundamentally anti-security. Bad security may very well be worth the tradeoff if you value other things like freedom, fashion, backwards compatibility, fewer restarts, price, etc.
- MereInterest 10y ago
  User control is, by definition, security. The goal of security is to keep control in the hands of the owner. To remove control in the name of security is at best deceptive and self-defeating.
  - Hondor 10y ago
    No. The user might use his control to make his computer less secure. Then it does't have security. And in real life, most user do exactly this when they have the option easily available. Most viruses spread through user control. Users choose to run programs which are viruses. Users choose to not upgrade their insecure software. Those are pretty much the main ways viruses spread.

cm2187 10y ago

Rather to force their users to see their ads and push their apps down their throat. Security? Really?

hackuser 10y ago

> Microsoft taking away control from users, especially when it came to forcing them to take updates, is probably the biggest change they could possibly have made to improve the overall security of the internet. Shouldn't the end user get to decide for themselves whether Microsoft can control the computer the user paid for, that sits in their home or office, and that contains their private and otherwise confidential information?

794CD01 10y ago
They used to, and they decided to download and execute random malware, and never take security updates.
- hackuser 10y ago
  Isn't that their choice?
  - setyfse4 10y ago
    Not being confounded by choices they dont understand or care is also what they want. Chrome and Firefox auto updating without user intervention by default is a good thing. If Chrome were to ask permission before downloading updates, many of them will just cancel it and get on with whatever they wanted to browse. If the system is compromised by malware because of an unpatched security issue, it is the vendor who takes the blame.
    - tdkl 10y ago
      Chrome is a browser, not an OS. I don't run my software under Chrome, so I'm not as affected if it had issues with auto-updating (there rarely was anything, which is another point). If Google were playing beta testers with Chromebooks and messing around like MS does, you'd think there would be anything positive written about them ?
      - setyfse4 10y ago