4 ms·

Telemetry is bad, forced updates is not.

by gsich 8y ago

lev99 8y ago
Forced updates are bad. 1. Updates can introduce breaking changes. 2. Windows will restart the computer to update, potentially interrupting processes. 3. Users should have freedom to use software in the way that they choose, and not have actions forced on them by the software. I understand that many windows users are far from power users and the forced updates provide security updates. My point of view is anyone willing to give up liberty for security will receive neither.
- orf 8y ago
  There are literally billions of Windows users. Less than 5% understand why keeping your computer up to date is important. Forced updates may suck for you, but understand that it is you they suck for, not the vast, vast majority.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
  > I understand that many windows users are far from power users and the forced updates provide security updates I think this largely was only true of the period between the internet becoming a thing and the smartphone becoming a thing. Nowadays there's phones, tablets, and chromebooks that serve the needs of those people better and in a more convenient form factor. Desktops are for people who do work, create stuff, or are hobbiests. I think a lot of the reasons computers suck today is because of this idea that they need to cater to some strawman drooling moron of a user.
  - gsich 8y ago
    Those devices only take you so far. They are consuming devices only, similar to a television. People still have and use normal PCs and will do so in the future. (Notebooks included of course)
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
      That's kinda my point though. The strawman user these kinds of arguments prop up as the reason everything needs to suck is pretty much 100% consumer. There might be a few things, like typing documents and printing that aren't entirely covered by smartphones, tablets, and chromebooks, but that's a rapidly shrinking set of things.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - gsich 8y ago
        >but that's a rapidly shrinking set of things Doubt that. "Desktop" is defined by mouse, keyboard and display. A chromebook satisfies this. I have yet to meet a user who uses a smartphone instead of a PC to do stuff that are notably easier to do on a PC. (while having both) I would also bet that every user would chose a keyboard over a touch interface to type text.
        AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
        Maybe you have a point, but I don't feel like connecting a bluetooth keyboard and mouse to a smartphone makes it a desktop. Regardless, I don't think those OSs are good desktop OSs either. I still maintain that this is a poor excuse for having shitty tools.
        lev99 8y ago
        Using keyboard/mouse/monitor with smartphones is very uncommon.
- gsich 8y ago
  2. Can be delayed. 3. I agree. I don't give a shit about what users do to their machine, but when they launch a DDos to my servers, I blame them for not updateing their OS. In Windows XP history, there were many viruses/trojanes/whatever that were only possible because people didn't update.
  - philipov 8y ago
    I wouldn't mind forced updates if they were only used for critical security updates. They are not; Microsoft abuses the privilege, and therefore may not be trusted to have it at all.
    - gsich 8y ago
      Feature updates can be delayed for up to a year.
      - Maarten88 8y ago
        On Pro and up. Not on Home.
- jakebasile 8y ago
  2. Can only be updated so many times until Daddy Microsoft knows best and will forcibly shut down your computer. 3. "Users have freedom to do what they choose unless it makes more work for me"?
- AsyncAwait 8y ago
  > Users should have freedom to use software in the way that they choose, and not have actions forced on them by the software. Agreed, but this had only ever actually been true with free software.
amag 8y ago
Playing the devil's advocate here, but some of the forced updates come as a result of problems found in telemetry data... But I generally agree, I want my OS to ask me every time it wants to send a crashdump (or anything else).
xioxox 8y ago
Updates are ok when they're bug fixes and security patches. They're not when they're forced feature and UI changes and often break installations.
morganvachon 8y ago
Forced updates can be bad, for example I narrowly missed having a bricked workstation when the April update was released and it borked machines using Intel 600p SSDs. I hadn't used that machine for a few weeks and it had been powered off; by the time I finally started using it again Microsoft had blocked the update for machines with that hardware. Anyway, I can manage the limited telemetry via hosts and I can defer updates (which I will do from now on), but my biggest gripe is forced installation/reinstallation of previously removed apps and games. I run Windows 10 Pro and I end up with a few variations of Candy Crush games, Minecraft, Autodesk drawing apps, and others after initial OS installation and after every major update so far. This is while using an offline account, and even if I used my Microsoft account on this workstation I've never purchased/downloaded any of those apps in the past. I get that "Pro" at this point means home power user, and companies should be using Enterprise, but Microsoft shouldn't be pushing any software back onto the machine once the user has uninstalled it. That's user-hostile and takes control out of the hands of the one person who should be in complete control of the system. Once full, non-buggy support for Ryzen APUs arrives in Linux, I'm switching Windows 10 to a VM and going back to Linux on this machine as the daily driver OS.
pmontra 8y ago
I saw one happening on a PC in a conference room two weeks ago at the very moment a talk should begin. Nobody could do anything with the pc until the update was over. Great user experience.
- gsich 8y ago
  Fault from the admin I would say. Updates can be delayed or scheduled. I know that this won't help in the moment.
- amf12 8y ago
  Enterprise versions are updated based on the admin policy.
discordance 8y ago
I recently had to do the forced April Windows 10 update, and not only did it take 10 hours, the UX was horrific... e.g. Random CMD prompt windows popping up etc. If that is allowed to pass QA in Microsoft, then it kind of scares me what can happen if they were to acquire GitHub.
- philliphaydon 8y ago
  10 hours? You on a dinosaur computer or something???
jakebasile 8y ago
No, forced updates are also bad. I own my computer, I built it, and I paid for Windows. Microsoft shouldn't get to decide how I run it (I can't turn off Windows Defender permanently) or when it updates (you can only delay them so long before it forces you to update). If their updates were stable it would maybe help the argument, but they routinely break my system such that I lose time that was intended to be spent on playing a game. They also conveniently reset some of my settings which always tends to favor the way Microsoft would like for me to use my computer. Or they reinstall fucking Candy Crush. For god's sake, even Apple, the prime example of knows-better-than-you lets you never update, if that's what you really want.

Telemetry is bad, forced updates is not.

by gsich 8y ago

Telemetry is bad, forced updates is not.

Forced updates are bad. 1. Updates can introduce breaking changes. 2. Windows will restart the computer to update, potentially interrupting processes. 3. Users should have freedom to use software in the way that they choose, and not have actions forced on them by the software. I understand that many windows users are far from power users and the forced updates provide security updates. My point of view is anyone willing to give up liberty for security will receive neither.

orf 8y ago
There are literally billions of Windows users. Less than 5% understand why keeping your computer up to date is important. Forced updates may suck for you, but understand that it is you they suck for, not the vast, vast majority.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
> I understand that many windows users are far from power users and the forced updates provide security updates I think this largely was only true of the period between the internet becoming a thing and the smartphone becoming a thing. Nowadays there's phones, tablets, and chromebooks that serve the needs of those people better and in a more convenient form factor. Desktops are for people who do work, create stuff, or are hobbiests. I think a lot of the reasons computers suck today is because of this idea that they need to cater to some strawman drooling moron of a user.
- gsich 8y ago
  Those devices only take you so far. They are consuming devices only, similar to a television. People still have and use normal PCs and will do so in the future. (Notebooks included of course)
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
    That's kinda my point though. The strawman user these kinds of arguments prop up as the reason everything needs to suck is pretty much 100% consumer. There might be a few things, like typing documents and printing that aren't entirely covered by smartphones, tablets, and chromebooks, but that's a rapidly shrinking set of things.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - gsich 8y ago
      >but that's a rapidly shrinking set of things Doubt that. "Desktop" is defined by mouse, keyboard and display. A chromebook satisfies this. I have yet to meet a user who uses a smartphone instead of a PC to do stuff that are notably easier to do on a PC. (while having both) I would also bet that every user would chose a keyboard over a touch interface to type text.
      - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
        Maybe you have a point, but I don't feel like connecting a bluetooth keyboard and mouse to a smartphone makes it a desktop. Regardless, I don't think those OSs are good desktop OSs either. I still maintain that this is a poor excuse for having shitty tools.
        lev99 8y ago
        Using keyboard/mouse/monitor with smartphones is very uncommon.
gsich 8y ago
2. Can be delayed. 3. I agree. I don't give a shit about what users do to their machine, but when they launch a DDos to my servers, I blame them for not updateing their OS. In Windows XP history, there were many viruses/trojanes/whatever that were only possible because people didn't update.
- philipov 8y ago
  I wouldn't mind forced updates if they were only used for critical security updates. They are not; Microsoft abuses the privilege, and therefore may not be trusted to have it at all.
  - gsich 8y ago
    Feature updates can be delayed for up to a year.
    - Maarten88 8y ago
      On Pro and up. Not on Home.
jakebasile 8y ago
2. Can only be updated so many times until Daddy Microsoft knows best and will forcibly shut down your computer. 3. "Users have freedom to do what they choose unless it makes more work for me"?
AsyncAwait 8y ago
> Users should have freedom to use software in the way that they choose, and not have actions forced on them by the software. Agreed, but this had only ever actually been true with free software.

amag 8y ago

Playing the devil's advocate here, but some of the forced updates come as a result of problems found in telemetry data... But I generally agree, I want my OS to ask me every time it wants to send a crashdump (or anything else).

xioxox 8y ago

Updates are ok when they're bug fixes and security patches. They're not when they're forced feature and UI changes and often break installations.

morganvachon 8y ago

Forced updates can be bad, for example I narrowly missed having a bricked workstation when the April update was released and it borked machines using Intel 600p SSDs. I hadn't used that machine for a few weeks and it had been powered off; by the time I finally started using it again Microsoft had blocked the update for machines with that hardware. Anyway, I can manage the limited telemetry via hosts and I can defer updates (which I will do from now on), but my biggest gripe is forced installation/reinstallation of previously removed apps and games. I run Windows 10 Pro and I end up with a few variations of Candy Crush games, Minecraft, Autodesk drawing apps, and others after initial OS installation and after every major update so far. This is while using an offline account, and even if I used my Microsoft account on this workstation I've never purchased/downloaded any of those apps in the past. I get that "Pro" at this point means home power user, and companies should be using Enterprise, but Microsoft shouldn't be pushing any software back onto the machine once the user has uninstalled it. That's user-hostile and takes control out of the hands of the one person who should be in complete control of the system. Once full, non-buggy support for Ryzen APUs arrives in Linux, I'm switching Windows 10 to a VM and going back to Linux on this machine as the daily driver OS.

pmontra 8y ago

I saw one happening on a PC in a conference room two weeks ago at the very moment a talk should begin. Nobody could do anything with the pc until the update was over. Great user experience.

gsich 8y ago
Fault from the admin I would say. Updates can be delayed or scheduled. I know that this won't help in the moment.
amf12 8y ago
Enterprise versions are updated based on the admin policy.

discordance 8y ago

I recently had to do the forced April Windows 10 update, and not only did it take 10 hours, the UX was horrific... e.g. Random CMD prompt windows popping up etc. If that is allowed to pass QA in Microsoft, then it kind of scares me what can happen if they were to acquire GitHub.

philliphaydon 8y ago
10 hours? You on a dinosaur computer or something???

jakebasile 8y ago

No, forced updates are also bad. I own my computer, I built it, and I paid for Windows. Microsoft shouldn't get to decide how I run it (I can't turn off Windows Defender permanently) or when it updates (you can only delay them so long before it forces you to update). If their updates were stable it would maybe help the argument, but they routinely break my system such that I lose time that was intended to be spent on playing a game. They also conveniently reset some of my settings which always tends to favor the way Microsoft would like for me to use my computer. Or they reinstall fucking Candy Crush. For god's sake, even Apple, the prime example of knows-better-than-you lets you never update, if that's what you really want.