6 ms·

Since the first release of W10 several registry keys and policies have changed in very confusing ways. I can't remember what exactly but I had to change my pers

Since the first release of W10 several registry keys and policies have changed in very confusing ways. I can't remember what exactly but I had to change my personal scripts several times based on the changelog of other tools. Privacy and settings like default apps were also reverted (reset to default) when you updated. They installed some apps like Candy Crush Saga on Enterprise. I don't see that much of a problem here, it's understandable since they are letting go of legacy stuff, bugs happens (even more after you cut your QA department). Now it's time to stop with all the excuses. Get your shit together. From: https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/itpro/windows/manage/configure-windows-telemetry-in-your-organization https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/itpro/windows/manage/con... > Security. Information that’s required to help keep Windows, Windows Server, and System Center secure, including data about the Connected User Experience and Telemetry component settings, the Malicious Software Removal Tool, and Windows Defender. I have all the possible settings configured, from registry to policies and I still see random connections everywhere. But it's ok because it's not telemetry, right? > What is NOT telemetry? > Telemetry can sometimes be confused with functional data. Is anyone taking legal actions against Microsoft about all of this? Does anyone care? Not everybody can switch all their machines to Linux/VMs, this whole situation makes me angry.

DonkeyChan 9y ago
I can't agree with this more. A client straight up failed a PCI compliance audit, replete with daily fines, for using 10 Enterprise. They decided to pursue legal measures against MS for false claims. I really hope this gets elevated because reverting to win 7 is a solution with a short life span. The other solution is to rebuild infrastructure on top of a different platform but that's prohibitively expensive.
- DoofusOfDeath 9y ago
  > The other solution is to rebuild infrastructure on top of a different platform but that's prohibitively expensive. The more Microsoft degrades their viability for enterprise computing, the more market pressure will build (I think) for a different platform infrastructure. If / when the market reaches that tipping point, the schadenfreude will be overwhelming.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > They decided to pursue legal measures against MS for false claims. Do you have a court case or docket you can point to?
  - DonkeyChan 9y ago
    No. The client and his lawyer talked to me for about an hour and that was the last I heard of it. But I'll ask if he'll give me the info. That's all public anyways right? I don't know very much about legal jazz.
- flukus 9y ago
  > The other solution is to rebuild infrastructure on top of a different platform but that's prohibitively expensive. I really don't have a lot of sympathy for companies that lock themselves in to a proprietary platform.
  - pjmlp 9y ago
    Do you at least pay those that give you the free one?
    - flukus 9y ago
      Yes, Mozilla and FSF in particular. They don't try to gouge me with new versions or price discrimination either, unlike "oh you need the pro version for that" windows.
  - cm2187 9y ago
    How do you achieve that? You can't run everything off the web. And even then very few technologies will be truly cross platform on the server side.
    - flukus 9y ago
      Heaps of server side tools are truly cross platform, but I was talking about avoiding proprietary platforms in the first place, which means no windows, or at least no windows tech that doesn't conform to open standards. Typically business will build there own software on top of MS (or oracle, or <insert cloud platform>) tech as well, locking them in further to several years of "investment".
  - mikegerwitz 9y ago
    To preface to avoid what might otherwise seem like a bias toward defending use of Windows: I'm a free software activist, a GNU maintainer, and do extensive volunteer work for GNU and the FSF. It's not fair blame. Many companies simply go for what works and throw money at the problem. Windows historically has excellent support from a large number of third parties. The other problem is third-party software. I work for an insurance company. The system that they use for managing everything---policies, accounting, brokers, etc---is tied to Windows. This is a specialized program---there are only a few of them that exist, and none as sophisticated as the one this company uses. This system has been responsible for not only tying the office to Windows, but holding us back from upgrading---for the longest time we couldn't even get off of IE6 because it didn't support anything higher. I'm able to do 99% of my work within a GNU/Linux VM. But on rare occasion, I need to use that system, and it requires Windows. Everyone else in the office---the majority of the company---requires Windows. This is a system that the company has invested many millions of dollars into. So while we can do our best to inform others, perhaps before they make these critical business decisions, it ultimately comes down to practicality for most businesses. Yes, they may pay for it. Yes, they're taken advantage of, have issues with vendor lockin, etc, but unless you travel upstream and liberate those systems or provide suitable replacements _that the business is confident will have support for years to come_, there's not much to do. I'm not defending the situation; it's terrible. But sympathy _should_ be had, because there's much to lament, and much room to help.
- pionar 9y ago
  Wait, why was your client running a desktop OS in-scope? Every PCI zone I've seen is just servers (Windows Server and Linux). Does the client store card data on desktop machines? Generally, you'll have a locked-down portion of your infrastructure be PCI-compliant, and that's the only place card data is stored or entered. That reduces your scope and costs.

DonkeyChan 9y ago

I can't agree with this more. A client straight up failed a PCI compliance audit, replete with daily fines, for using 10 Enterprise. They decided to pursue legal measures against MS for false claims. I really hope this gets elevated because reverting to win 7 is a solution with a short life span. The other solution is to rebuild infrastructure on top of a different platform but that's prohibitively expensive.

DoofusOfDeath 9y ago
> The other solution is to rebuild infrastructure on top of a different platform but that's prohibitively expensive. The more Microsoft degrades their viability for enterprise computing, the more market pressure will build (I think) for a different platform infrastructure. If / when the market reaches that tipping point, the schadenfreude will be overwhelming.
JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> They decided to pursue legal measures against MS for false claims. Do you have a court case or docket you can point to?
- DonkeyChan 9y ago
  No. The client and his lawyer talked to me for about an hour and that was the last I heard of it. But I'll ask if he'll give me the info. That's all public anyways right? I don't know very much about legal jazz.
flukus 9y ago
> The other solution is to rebuild infrastructure on top of a different platform but that's prohibitively expensive. I really don't have a lot of sympathy for companies that lock themselves in to a proprietary platform.
- pjmlp 9y ago
  Do you at least pay those that give you the free one?
  - flukus 9y ago
    Yes, Mozilla and FSF in particular. They don't try to gouge me with new versions or price discrimination either, unlike "oh you need the pro version for that" windows.
- cm2187 9y ago
  How do you achieve that? You can't run everything off the web. And even then very few technologies will be truly cross platform on the server side.
  - flukus 9y ago
    Heaps of server side tools are truly cross platform, but I was talking about avoiding proprietary platforms in the first place, which means no windows, or at least no windows tech that doesn't conform to open standards. Typically business will build there own software on top of MS (or oracle, or <insert cloud platform>) tech as well, locking them in further to several years of "investment".
- mikegerwitz 9y ago
  To preface to avoid what might otherwise seem like a bias toward defending use of Windows: I'm a free software activist, a GNU maintainer, and do extensive volunteer work for GNU and the FSF. It's not fair blame. Many companies simply go for what works and throw money at the problem. Windows historically has excellent support from a large number of third parties. The other problem is third-party software. I work for an insurance company. The system that they use for managing everything---policies, accounting, brokers, etc---is tied to Windows. This is a specialized program---there are only a few of them that exist, and none as sophisticated as the one this company uses. This system has been responsible for not only tying the office to Windows, but holding us back from upgrading---for the longest time we couldn't even get off of IE6 because it didn't support anything higher. I'm able to do 99% of my work within a GNU/Linux VM. But on rare occasion, I need to use that system, and it requires Windows. Everyone else in the office---the majority of the company---requires Windows. This is a system that the company has invested many millions of dollars into. So while we can do our best to inform others, perhaps before they make these critical business decisions, it ultimately comes down to practicality for most businesses. Yes, they may pay for it. Yes, they're taken advantage of, have issues with vendor lockin, etc, but unless you travel upstream and liberate those systems or provide suitable replacements _that the business is confident will have support for years to come_, there's not much to do. I'm not defending the situation; it's terrible. But sympathy _should_ be had, because there's much to lament, and much room to help.
pionar 9y ago
Wait, why was your client running a desktop OS in-scope? Every PCI zone I've seen is just servers (Windows Server and Linux). Does the client store card data on desktop machines? Generally, you'll have a locked-down portion of your infrastructure be PCI-compliant, and that's the only place card data is stored or entered. That reduces your scope and costs.