3 ms·

It's not a joke, ransomware for example is real, and it's a huge problem. If you know anything about security you know that ransomware is on the rise and it's

It's not a joke, ransomware for example is real, and it's a huge problem. If you know anything about security you know that ransomware is on the rise and it's getting worse each year. Malware infecting an insecure computer is not a "worst case scenario", this happens to millions of computers each year. "Only" 6 million car accidents happen per year in the US, even though there were ~10 billion car trips over that same set of people and area, which makes the incidence rate 0.06%, so why bother with a seatbelt? It's "beyond a joke" to think you're going to get into an accident today! This isn't a debate; keeping your system up to date is, by far, the best way to stay safe from a real threat. You can pretend it's not there all you want, but the rest of us are going to take care, and would appreciate if you didn't contribute to the sea of botnets. You make everyone less safe.

exodust 8y ago
> This isn't a debate Be advised that you don't get to decide on whether this is or isn't a debate. You are attempting to re-frame the debate to suit your precarious position. This debate as specified in the parent discussions, is about Microsoft enforcing updates on people without choice. This causes annoyance and even loss of work. The top comment describes Windows as an "an update engine that will sometimes also do computation for you". This is a significant and legitimate criticism that trumps your arm-flailing about malware (which as I said would be better defended with virus protection). As the parent poster said, many of the vulnerabilities discovered are exploitable only locally, or under very specific and rare circumstances, yet are still flagged as "critical" and bundled with user interface updates. Then you rode in on your horse, citing car accidents and seat belts, which really doesn't help in the context of having control over when system updates are performed. Nobody said "never update". It's about control over when those updates happen. > ...but the rest of us are going to take care, and would appreciate if you didn't contribute to... You're having a hard enough time speaking for yourself, please don't branch out to speaking for others.

exodust 8y ago

> This isn't a debate Be advised that you don't get to decide on whether this is or isn't a debate. You are attempting to re-frame the debate to suit your precarious position. This debate as specified in the parent discussions, is about Microsoft enforcing updates on people without choice. This causes annoyance and even loss of work. The top comment describes Windows as an "an update engine that will sometimes also do computation for you". This is a significant and legitimate criticism that trumps your arm-flailing about malware (which as I said would be better defended with virus protection). As the parent poster said, many of the vulnerabilities discovered are exploitable only locally, or under very specific and rare circumstances, yet are still flagged as "critical" and bundled with user interface updates. Then you rode in on your horse, citing car accidents and seat belts, which really doesn't help in the context of having control over when system updates are performed. Nobody said "never update". It's about control over when those updates happen. > ...but the rest of us are going to take care, and would appreciate if you didn't contribute to... You're having a hard enough time speaking for yourself, please don't branch out to speaking for others.