4 ms·

Security updates ≠ version upgrades. Automatically installing security updates is fine. Upgrading users to a new major release that deprecates a shitton of wor

by creshal 10y ago

Security updates ≠ version upgrades. Automatically installing security updates is fine. Upgrading users to a new major release that deprecates a shitton of working hardware and software for no reason but to make life for MS easier, is not fine.

sametmax 10y ago
+1. What's more it's very clear the ugrade is all about control because Win 10 features: - ads in the OS (FFS!) - spywares - an app store to control the channel of user installs So it's not an upgrade to make people safer, it's just all about MS wanting more, and forcing people in the direction so they can get it. It's not about the customers at all. In no way it's for their own good. And fact you paid for it has no importance, you'll be forced to give more.
- kodfodrasz 10y ago
  This ads in the OS is a bullshit I keep hearing. Why is this not a problem with Android or iOS? I have not met much ads, apart from the install office stuff. Spyware? The telemetry enabled them to have faster feedback and the quality of Win10 improved before my very eyes. If you have developed an app and used a telemetry framework, you should know that it is not spying. If they were to spy they'd do it differently, not by asking you to please provide us some data for QoS. App store is bad? Is it not bad for the other major OS-es? It is good if it is called apt-get? The App store provides sandboxing and isolation, security to the users, where a single install of a software cannot break others. When the containerization arrives (as new features come to Win10 continously) this will be even cooler, as legacy apps can be packaged and spread through the app store. No more problems with installing stuff unattended, or having to accept EULAs, as those can be stored on an account level in the Store. No more installshield madness.
  - sametmax 10y ago
    > This ads in the OS is a bullshit I keep hearing. http://www.zdnet.com/article/how-to-disable-windows-10-start-menu-ads/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/how-to-disable-windows-10-start... > The telemetry enabled them to have faster feedback I know the commercial pitch. telemetry is a polite name for spywares. The fact one of the goal is the OS improvement doesn't change that. If I kick you in the face to scratch my hand, I still kick you in the face. > App store is bad I never said app store were bad. I just said MS was pushing 10 so they can get the app store in so they can improve their sales. Not because they wanted to help anybody. I like stores. Altough comparing app stores to package repo is like comparing a group of libraries and book clubs to the only book shops available in the city.
  - hudell 10y ago
    I had to hide the whole notification system because I kept getting office ads as notifications. I have never had anything like that in a mobile OS.
  - Piskvorrr 10y ago
    You are conflating "ad-supported programs" (remember Opera at version 9? That was ad-ware, on the desktop) with "advertisements in the OS itself". Let me assure you that I'm not seeing any ads on my Android devices. Rhetorical question: Do ad-supported apps have ad-free, paid versions? Answer: Yes, they do (and if not, too bad for them, not going to use). Should an OS that I have paid for (the Windows tax, never mind that it's not listed as a separate item on the invoice) be ad-supported on top of that? I'll leave that one open, as I don't see The One Correct Answer.
  - creshal 10y ago
    > This ads in the OS is a bullshit I keep hearing. Why is this not a problem with Android or iOS? Because neither iOS nor Android contain ads in the core OS. This is a different issue than ad-enabled third party apps. > I have not met much ads, apart from the install office stuff. And the Tomb Raider lock screen, and all that crap in the start menu, and… > If you have developed an app and used a telemetry framework, you should know that it is not spying The EULA states that they're selling your telemetry data to third parties. Sometimes opt-out, sometimes hardcoded (try to make the start menu search not connect to the internet). That's a tad different from just using opt-in (or even fully opt-out) telemetry for internal debugging purposes (which Microsoft has been doing since at least XP times, and which I don't mind). > Is it not bad for the other major OS-es? It is, which is why I don't use them, or don't use their app store. > It is good if it is called apt-get? A decentralized package manager and a centralized, heavily censored, tithed app store are two completely different concepts. > The App store provides sandboxing and isolation, security to the users, where a single install of a software cannot break others All features that are not inherently tied to the concept of an app store.
  - DanBC 10y ago
    > This ads in the OS is a bullshit I keep hearing. Why is this not a problem with Android or iOS? Here's what I get if I press the logo key. (Just now it's advertising "Sonic Dash".) http://imgur.com/ZO6z6x1 http://imgur.com/ZO6z6x1 The ads in iOS are a problem. But those ads are in the app store, they're not on my home screen. (The behaviour of a web page in chrome being able to switch me from chrome to the app store to show me an ad is baffling and terrible. If you're talking about sucky ads that's a great example of piss-poor experience on iOS.)
kodfodrasz 10y ago
Backporting security updates is a huge cost, as involves enormous amounts of tests on old platforms as well. Having one windows to support is a huge win for Microsoft, and the whining of the people seems to be a cost they are willing to take. (it has other benefits for them, and for the users as well apart from security) Also note: when people say they moved to Ubuntu, they do the same whining about systemd and every innovation they perceive as "breaking change". Ordinary people are the greatest burden of progress, because usually they cannot (or do not wish to put effort into) understand the greater picture and the benefits to them. Sidenote: GWX is broken. I had to do my update with manually downloaded installer media as windows update on win7 and GWX didn't work.
- ZanyProgrammer 10y ago
  Your callous attitude basically screws over computer illiterate users, I.e most home Windiws users.
- creshal 10y ago
  > Backporting security updates is a huge cost Boohoo. Maybe Microsoft should have priced that into the product before they sold it, instead of using borderline illegal methods to scam people out of providing the service they expect?
- Piskvorrr 10y ago
  Progress for the sake of progress - now that's what I'd call a cult: never mind that computers are tools that people buy to do other stuff (e.g. work): People Are Stupid, We Know Best. All Hail The Glorious Progress, Newer Is Always Better!
nailer 10y ago
> Security updates ≠ version upgrades. That's totally true, but some things blur the lines: - XP SP2 introduced an inbuilt, on by default firewall. It was a major new feature but necessary. - XP user accounts were admin by default, Vista added UAC: another major new feature but also necessary.

by creshal 10y ago

sametmax 10y ago

+1. What's more it's very clear the ugrade is all about control because Win 10 features: - ads in the OS (FFS!) - spywares - an app store to control the channel of user installs So it's not an upgrade to make people safer, it's just all about MS wanting more, and forcing people in the direction so they can get it. It's not about the customers at all. In no way it's for their own good. And fact you paid for it has no importance, you'll be forced to give more.

kodfodrasz 10y ago
This ads in the OS is a bullshit I keep hearing. Why is this not a problem with Android or iOS? I have not met much ads, apart from the install office stuff. Spyware? The telemetry enabled them to have faster feedback and the quality of Win10 improved before my very eyes. If you have developed an app and used a telemetry framework, you should know that it is not spying. If they were to spy they'd do it differently, not by asking you to please provide us some data for QoS. App store is bad? Is it not bad for the other major OS-es? It is good if it is called apt-get? The App store provides sandboxing and isolation, security to the users, where a single install of a software cannot break others. When the containerization arrives (as new features come to Win10 continously) this will be even cooler, as legacy apps can be packaged and spread through the app store. No more problems with installing stuff unattended, or having to accept EULAs, as those can be stored on an account level in the Store. No more installshield madness.
- sametmax 10y ago
  > This ads in the OS is a bullshit I keep hearing. http://www.zdnet.com/article/how-to-disable-windows-10-start-menu-ads/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/how-to-disable-windows-10-start... > The telemetry enabled them to have faster feedback I know the commercial pitch. telemetry is a polite name for spywares. The fact one of the goal is the OS improvement doesn't change that. If I kick you in the face to scratch my hand, I still kick you in the face. > App store is bad I never said app store were bad. I just said MS was pushing 10 so they can get the app store in so they can improve their sales. Not because they wanted to help anybody. I like stores. Altough comparing app stores to package repo is like comparing a group of libraries and book clubs to the only book shops available in the city.
- hudell 10y ago
  I had to hide the whole notification system because I kept getting office ads as notifications. I have never had anything like that in a mobile OS.
- Piskvorrr 10y ago
  You are conflating "ad-supported programs" (remember Opera at version 9? That was ad-ware, on the desktop) with "advertisements in the OS itself". Let me assure you that I'm not seeing any ads on my Android devices. Rhetorical question: Do ad-supported apps have ad-free, paid versions? Answer: Yes, they do (and if not, too bad for them, not going to use). Should an OS that I have paid for (the Windows tax, never mind that it's not listed as a separate item on the invoice) be ad-supported on top of that? I'll leave that one open, as I don't see The One Correct Answer.
- creshal 10y ago
  > This ads in the OS is a bullshit I keep hearing. Why is this not a problem with Android or iOS? Because neither iOS nor Android contain ads in the core OS. This is a different issue than ad-enabled third party apps. > I have not met much ads, apart from the install office stuff. And the Tomb Raider lock screen, and all that crap in the start menu, and… > If you have developed an app and used a telemetry framework, you should know that it is not spying The EULA states that they're selling your telemetry data to third parties. Sometimes opt-out, sometimes hardcoded (try to make the start menu search not connect to the internet). That's a tad different from just using opt-in (or even fully opt-out) telemetry for internal debugging purposes (which Microsoft has been doing since at least XP times, and which I don't mind). > Is it not bad for the other major OS-es? It is, which is why I don't use them, or don't use their app store. > It is good if it is called apt-get? A decentralized package manager and a centralized, heavily censored, tithed app store are two completely different concepts. > The App store provides sandboxing and isolation, security to the users, where a single install of a software cannot break others All features that are not inherently tied to the concept of an app store.
- DanBC 10y ago
  > This ads in the OS is a bullshit I keep hearing. Why is this not a problem with Android or iOS? Here's what I get if I press the logo key. (Just now it's advertising "Sonic Dash".) http://imgur.com/ZO6z6x1 http://imgur.com/ZO6z6x1 The ads in iOS are a problem. But those ads are in the app store, they're not on my home screen. (The behaviour of a web page in chrome being able to switch me from chrome to the app store to show me an ad is baffling and terrible. If you're talking about sucky ads that's a great example of piss-poor experience on iOS.)

kodfodrasz 10y ago

Backporting security updates is a huge cost, as involves enormous amounts of tests on old platforms as well. Having one windows to support is a huge win for Microsoft, and the whining of the people seems to be a cost they are willing to take. (it has other benefits for them, and for the users as well apart from security) Also note: when people say they moved to Ubuntu, they do the same whining about systemd and every innovation they perceive as "breaking change". Ordinary people are the greatest burden of progress, because usually they cannot (or do not wish to put effort into) understand the greater picture and the benefits to them. Sidenote: GWX is broken. I had to do my update with manually downloaded installer media as windows update on win7 and GWX didn't work.

ZanyProgrammer 10y ago
Your callous attitude basically screws over computer illiterate users, I.e most home Windiws users.
creshal 10y ago
> Backporting security updates is a huge cost Boohoo. Maybe Microsoft should have priced that into the product before they sold it, instead of using borderline illegal methods to scam people out of providing the service they expect?
Piskvorrr 10y ago
Progress for the sake of progress - now that's what I'd call a cult: never mind that computers are tools that people buy to do other stuff (e.g. work): People Are Stupid, We Know Best. All Hail The Glorious Progress, Newer Is Always Better!

nailer 10y ago

> Security updates ≠ version upgrades. That's totally true, but some things blur the lines: - XP SP2 introduced an inbuilt, on by default firewall. It was a major new feature but necessary. - XP user accounts were admin by default, Vista added UAC: another major new feature but also necessary.