5 ms·

Remember when we used to come to tech forums to find the new updates, rather than learn how to avoid them? It just occurred to me that I literally camped out fo

Remember when we used to come to tech forums to find the new updates, rather than learn how to avoid them? It just occurred to me that I literally camped out for some early OS updates. How things have changed.

barfbuttface 10y ago
I still feel excited about updates like that all the time with Linux.
- digi_owl 10y ago
  Having used a distro that expose me to the sausage making, i am not. One either have to rely on everything being updated in lockstep with everything else, or expect to do some massive backporting. This because outside of a few projects, the kernel being one of them (Qt being another, oddly enough), nobody can be bothered to actually adhere to API, never mind ABI, stability beyond their own use for them.
msarchet 10y ago
I mean up until recently the fervor over OSX updates was ridiculous. I understand that people want to not be bothered by updates, but not updating is the reason that we have so many security holes.
- digi_owl 10y ago
  The problem is that there is very little way to opt out of new/changed features. People hold up on doing updates because they do not know what will break, and they need the computer to work 24/7 these days to stay in contact not just with work but also with family and friends.
  - msarchet 10y ago
    I can't think of the last time something I was doing was broken by a Windows update.
    - digi_owl 10y ago
      Maybe not you or me personally, but MS has all too often pushed out updates that blow up on various computers. And it is not only the major updates. I have a laptop here, built around AMD parts. when AMD introduced their Crimson driver set, they also discontinued support for the APU part of this laptop. But still MS tries to be helpful and push out updated driver files, completely ignorant of the issue. Thus at random intervals i can expect my external monitor to stop working until i go into the device manager and roll back the driver for the APU. Edit: bah, scratch the part about "and me" up there. Thinking back i had to grab some tool at one point and actually blacklist a patch from MS because it would attempt to install, reboot, fail to come up a few times, then roll back, reboot, come back up, and then try to install again a day or two later.
    - ionised 10y ago
      The last two major updates have hosed a few things for me, which is why I'm deferring from now on.
- apostacy 10y ago
  The description of what an update contains is often dishonest. They don't mention the features they remove, even in small print. Also, they are highly deceptive in how they push them on us. Finally, my computer is important to me, and I can't afford to be their beta tester. My computer isn't a toy.
apostacy 10y ago
I miss those days. You used to be able to deinstall windows updates, and other updates as well. I would confidently install new updates, secure in the knowledge that if it broke something, I could roll it back. But Microsoft has so little faith in their updates that they know that they have to cram them down our throats. Of course the narrative now is that everything must be "evergreen", so that they can find new ways to insert ads into our desktops, and deprecate features we depend on.
- Nexxxeh 10y ago
  In fairness, uneducated update avoiders put themselves at risk and we all suffer the consequences. I think enforced updates are fine on Home systems. They're a piss-take on Pro though.
  - digi_owl 10y ago
    If there was a "security patches only" option in there, somewhat akin to a LTS distro option, i think there would be less complaining. That said, it is hard to find a good time to do updates, and not everyone notice that popup about "we are about to reboot for an update" while in the proverbial zone.
    - alushta 10y ago
      It's the Windows 10 LTS branch; Google for "Windows 10 Enterprise LTSB". The LTSB edition will have its feature set be updated semi-annually and ONLY receive critical updates or security fixes in the interim. Updated as Windows 7/8 was, using tools like Config Manager or WSUS, and can block updates. LTSB also lacks touch support, "modern apps", the app store, and doesn't ship with the Edge browser. The LTSB N edition doesn't even ship with the media player.
  - apostacy 10y ago
    I don't buy that anymore. In theory, it makes sense, but, the idea that it is ok to force users to update has been used to justify so much crap. Just off the top of my head, I've seen so many "home users" get burned. My grandmother's copy of Skype on her PPC OSX Leopard stopped working, so I had to nullroute ui.skype.com, and revert the update with Time Machine, and it started working again. When they said it was a "critical" update, they were lying. It worked just fine when I reverted it and disabled the updater. The update was purely there to deny service, and remove all functionality. Or my grandfather's Kindle updated itself to disable encryption. Don't even get me started on the "helpful" updates for the Kindle. My grandparents recognized it for the scam it is. And I'm pretty sure that "transparently" installing updates is not for convenience, it's because if you explicitly told users what you were doing, a lot of them would want to say no. If you simply had a dialog box detailing exactly what the update had just done, people would not be happy. So instead, your software landscape is just one where stuff shifts around and disappears at night, and you have to pray that the next update won't break something.

barfbuttface 10y ago

I still feel excited about updates like that all the time with Linux.

digi_owl 10y ago
Having used a distro that expose me to the sausage making, i am not. One either have to rely on everything being updated in lockstep with everything else, or expect to do some massive backporting. This because outside of a few projects, the kernel being one of them (Qt being another, oddly enough), nobody can be bothered to actually adhere to API, never mind ABI, stability beyond their own use for them.

msarchet 10y ago

I mean up until recently the fervor over OSX updates was ridiculous. I understand that people want to not be bothered by updates, but not updating is the reason that we have so many security holes.

digi_owl 10y ago
The problem is that there is very little way to opt out of new/changed features. People hold up on doing updates because they do not know what will break, and they need the computer to work 24/7 these days to stay in contact not just with work but also with family and friends.
- msarchet 10y ago
  I can't think of the last time something I was doing was broken by a Windows update.
  - digi_owl 10y ago
    Maybe not you or me personally, but MS has all too often pushed out updates that blow up on various computers. And it is not only the major updates. I have a laptop here, built around AMD parts. when AMD introduced their Crimson driver set, they also discontinued support for the APU part of this laptop. But still MS tries to be helpful and push out updated driver files, completely ignorant of the issue. Thus at random intervals i can expect my external monitor to stop working until i go into the device manager and roll back the driver for the APU. Edit: bah, scratch the part about "and me" up there. Thinking back i had to grab some tool at one point and actually blacklist a patch from MS because it would attempt to install, reboot, fail to come up a few times, then roll back, reboot, come back up, and then try to install again a day or two later.
  - ionised 10y ago
    The last two major updates have hosed a few things for me, which is why I'm deferring from now on.
apostacy 10y ago
The description of what an update contains is often dishonest. They don't mention the features they remove, even in small print. Also, they are highly deceptive in how they push them on us. Finally, my computer is important to me, and I can't afford to be their beta tester. My computer isn't a toy.

apostacy 10y ago

I miss those days. You used to be able to deinstall windows updates, and other updates as well. I would confidently install new updates, secure in the knowledge that if it broke something, I could roll it back. But Microsoft has so little faith in their updates that they know that they have to cram them down our throats. Of course the narrative now is that everything must be "evergreen", so that they can find new ways to insert ads into our desktops, and deprecate features we depend on.

Nexxxeh 10y ago
In fairness, uneducated update avoiders put themselves at risk and we all suffer the consequences. I think enforced updates are fine on Home systems. They're a piss-take on Pro though.
- digi_owl 10y ago
  If there was a "security patches only" option in there, somewhat akin to a LTS distro option, i think there would be less complaining. That said, it is hard to find a good time to do updates, and not everyone notice that popup about "we are about to reboot for an update" while in the proverbial zone.
  - alushta 10y ago
    It's the Windows 10 LTS branch; Google for "Windows 10 Enterprise LTSB". The LTSB edition will have its feature set be updated semi-annually and ONLY receive critical updates or security fixes in the interim. Updated as Windows 7/8 was, using tools like Config Manager or WSUS, and can block updates. LTSB also lacks touch support, "modern apps", the app store, and doesn't ship with the Edge browser. The LTSB N edition doesn't even ship with the media player.
- apostacy 10y ago
  I don't buy that anymore. In theory, it makes sense, but, the idea that it is ok to force users to update has been used to justify so much crap. Just off the top of my head, I've seen so many "home users" get burned. My grandmother's copy of Skype on her PPC OSX Leopard stopped working, so I had to nullroute ui.skype.com, and revert the update with Time Machine, and it started working again. When they said it was a "critical" update, they were lying. It worked just fine when I reverted it and disabled the updater. The update was purely there to deny service, and remove all functionality. Or my grandfather's Kindle updated itself to disable encryption. Don't even get me started on the "helpful" updates for the Kindle. My grandparents recognized it for the scam it is. And I'm pretty sure that "transparently" installing updates is not for convenience, it's because if you explicitly told users what you were doing, a lot of them would want to say no. If you simply had a dialog box detailing exactly what the update had just done, people would not be happy. So instead, your software landscape is just one where stuff shifts around and disappears at night, and you have to pray that the next update won't break something.