4 ms·

> Honestly I don't have a problem with that. But if they don't give power user the option to opt out, this is just disrespectful The problem is that "power use

> Honestly I don't have a problem with that. But if they don't give power user the option to opt out, this is just disrespectful The problem is that "power users" can't be trusted to use this power responsibly, or they operate based on assumptions that won't always be true. Either way they end up hurting other people in enough situations that this becomes an ecosystem issue. Power users often help others set up their systems like they do, but those users can't manage them. Other times, power users will move on. When they were managing the systems, it wasn't a problem. Now that someone else is, the systems stop getting updated and someone has to clear up the mess. Yes, good power users help transition things properly, but don't kid yourself on the number of times this actually happens. This phenomenon is prevalent in software. Just looks at the defaults which "power users" frequently choose (cf. JWT).

Enginerrrd 6y ago
The arrogance in this comment astounds me. It's almost never appropriate to assume that people don't have the right to make decisions for themselves, even if you think those decisions harm them. People have different values and weigh their own decisions against their own values, not yours.
- zerkten 6y ago
  I'm sorry that this is uncomfortable reading for you, but not everyone shares your values. What you describe is nice conceptually, but is not actually true for most of society. You can have opinions that people might bucket as libertarian, or similar this doesn't mean that the world thinks the same.
- close04 6y ago
  > It's almost never appropriate to assume that people don't have the right to make decisions for themselves, even if you think those decisions harm them But when those decisions affect others? When your computer becomes part of a botnet and is used to attack a target then it's no longer just your problem anymore. The responsibility to prevent this must lie somewhere, either with the user or with the manufacturer. And Microsoft would rather force the updates on users and occasionally be in the news for a botched one than to constantly be in the news for botnets of hundreds of thousands of "abandoned" Windows PCs, or the constant complaint that Windows is insecure because people keep their PCs stuck on the same version they came with. To use some very current imagery, imagine if someone walked around coughing in your face saying the decision whether to wear a mask or not is theirs.
  - michaelmrose 6y ago
    It would be appropriate if you didn't try to misuse the present crisis to lend undue emotional weight to your argument. This is manipulative. Further your argument draws a connection but its spurious a sufficient difference in degree is a difference in kind. The way in which we comport ourselves while sick have the potential on net to kill millions of people where as the peril implied by users failing to update windows has never resulted in peril of that magnitude. Further one can reasonably suppose that one can with sufficient care design a system where updates are on by default and we don't create perverse situations which inspire many users to turn them off entirely. For example one in which applications are updated without disturbing or interrupting the users workflow, where updates aren't effective until the user reboots, where applications are isolated from their underlying environments where users can roll back and pin a particular version if a new version is buggy or undesirable. Where major changes to entire user interfaces are rare and opt in for years. How many are going to bother disabling updates?
    - close04 6y ago
      > It would be appropriate [...] This is manipulative. Please don't make unfounded accusations and personal attacks based on suppositions. It was just an easy to understand analogy of how your decisions can have consequences beyond yourself, and does the job without any hint of "emotional weight". The rest is in the eye of the beholder. > have the potential on net to kill millions of people Talk about manipulative and lending undue emotional weight to your argument. Nothing gives weight to your own words like not following them yourself. > one can reasonably suppose that one can with sufficient care design a system where updates are on by default and we don't create perverse situations which inspire many users to turn them off entirely. This supposition didn't fare well in reality because it's easy to suppose but hard to implement. Especially when talking about a very complex system that has to be put in the hands of ~87+% of computer users out there, and work with tens of thousands of combinations of hardware, software and different configurations. And perhaps the most critical aspect is that the perverse incentives are left to the judgement of users with little to no understanding of the system or the wider implications of misusing it. They are more likely to follow terrible advice because the explanation for the good advice is too complicated. This is why the easy to understand analogy was useful.
ashtonkem 6y ago
If I’ve got the technical know how to install Ubuntu, I should have full control over my machine; full stop. It’s my hardware, so it’s my rules. Of course, since it’s my hardware I just uninstalled Ubuntu and went with something that gave me more control.
- zerkten 6y ago
  It's your machine, but you are talking about software you don't control. This would imply that the software won't always follow your rules.
jlgaddis 6y ago
So because perhaps some '"power users" can't be trusted" (in your opinion), that makes it's okay to just take away their own control of their own computers? (That kinda reminds me of "trust us, we're the government and we know what's best for you".) Sorry, but that goes against everything that this whole "free software" thing stands for.
- zerkten 6y ago
  >> (That kinda reminds me of "trust us, we're the government and we know what's best for you".) Or, why we have regulations to protect workers. Everyone doesn't have to share your worldview. There are plenty of reasons why these changes are happening. The people making the changes are normally aware of their trade-offs. Change is the key word. If the world was better before from the perspective of the designer then they are unlikely to have changed anything, or introduced an approach you disagree with. The choice is for you: accept it, or find an alternative. That's they way of the market, no? >> Sorry, but that goes against everything that this whole "free software" thing stands for. I agree. Ubuntu is a particular vision of free software. They can do it the way they want. There are way that you can do free software the way that you want to have it.
  - jcelerier 6y ago
    > If the world was better before from the perspective of the designer then they are unlikely to have changed anything you vastly underestimate the amount of changes which are just done because people have to justify doing things in order to get a paycheck
cwyers 6y ago
There's a real Dunning-Kruger problem with "power users," where some people know just enough to get themselves into trouble. And I think these D-K power users outnumber the "real" ones.

Enginerrrd 6y ago

The arrogance in this comment astounds me. It's almost never appropriate to assume that people don't have the right to make decisions for themselves, even if you think those decisions harm them. People have different values and weigh their own decisions against their own values, not yours.

zerkten 6y ago
I'm sorry that this is uncomfortable reading for you, but not everyone shares your values. What you describe is nice conceptually, but is not actually true for most of society. You can have opinions that people might bucket as libertarian, or similar this doesn't mean that the world thinks the same.
close04 6y ago
> It's almost never appropriate to assume that people don't have the right to make decisions for themselves, even if you think those decisions harm them But when those decisions affect others? When your computer becomes part of a botnet and is used to attack a target then it's no longer just your problem anymore. The responsibility to prevent this must lie somewhere, either with the user or with the manufacturer. And Microsoft would rather force the updates on users and occasionally be in the news for a botched one than to constantly be in the news for botnets of hundreds of thousands of "abandoned" Windows PCs, or the constant complaint that Windows is insecure because people keep their PCs stuck on the same version they came with. To use some very current imagery, imagine if someone walked around coughing in your face saying the decision whether to wear a mask or not is theirs.
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  It would be appropriate if you didn't try to misuse the present crisis to lend undue emotional weight to your argument. This is manipulative. Further your argument draws a connection but its spurious a sufficient difference in degree is a difference in kind. The way in which we comport ourselves while sick have the potential on net to kill millions of people where as the peril implied by users failing to update windows has never resulted in peril of that magnitude. Further one can reasonably suppose that one can with sufficient care design a system where updates are on by default and we don't create perverse situations which inspire many users to turn them off entirely. For example one in which applications are updated without disturbing or interrupting the users workflow, where updates aren't effective until the user reboots, where applications are isolated from their underlying environments where users can roll back and pin a particular version if a new version is buggy or undesirable. Where major changes to entire user interfaces are rare and opt in for years. How many are going to bother disabling updates?
  - close04 6y ago
    > It would be appropriate [...] This is manipulative. Please don't make unfounded accusations and personal attacks based on suppositions. It was just an easy to understand analogy of how your decisions can have consequences beyond yourself, and does the job without any hint of "emotional weight". The rest is in the eye of the beholder. > have the potential on net to kill millions of people Talk about manipulative and lending undue emotional weight to your argument. Nothing gives weight to your own words like not following them yourself. > one can reasonably suppose that one can with sufficient care design a system where updates are on by default and we don't create perverse situations which inspire many users to turn them off entirely. This supposition didn't fare well in reality because it's easy to suppose but hard to implement. Especially when talking about a very complex system that has to be put in the hands of ~87+% of computer users out there, and work with tens of thousands of combinations of hardware, software and different configurations. And perhaps the most critical aspect is that the perverse incentives are left to the judgement of users with little to no understanding of the system or the wider implications of misusing it. They are more likely to follow terrible advice because the explanation for the good advice is too complicated. This is why the easy to understand analogy was useful.

ashtonkem 6y ago

If I’ve got the technical know how to install Ubuntu, I should have full control over my machine; full stop. It’s my hardware, so it’s my rules. Of course, since it’s my hardware I just uninstalled Ubuntu and went with something that gave me more control.

zerkten 6y ago
It's your machine, but you are talking about software you don't control. This would imply that the software won't always follow your rules.

jlgaddis 6y ago

So because perhaps some '"power users" can't be trusted" (in your opinion), that makes it's okay to just take away their own control of their own computers? (That kinda reminds me of "trust us, we're the government and we know what's best for you".) Sorry, but that goes against everything that this whole "free software" thing stands for.

zerkten 6y ago
>> (That kinda reminds me of "trust us, we're the government and we know what's best for you".) Or, why we have regulations to protect workers. Everyone doesn't have to share your worldview. There are plenty of reasons why these changes are happening. The people making the changes are normally aware of their trade-offs. Change is the key word. If the world was better before from the perspective of the designer then they are unlikely to have changed anything, or introduced an approach you disagree with. The choice is for you: accept it, or find an alternative. That's they way of the market, no? >> Sorry, but that goes against everything that this whole "free software" thing stands for. I agree. Ubuntu is a particular vision of free software. They can do it the way they want. There are way that you can do free software the way that you want to have it.
- jcelerier 6y ago
  > If the world was better before from the perspective of the designer then they are unlikely to have changed anything you vastly underestimate the amount of changes which are just done because people have to justify doing things in order to get a paycheck

cwyers 6y ago

There's a real Dunning-Kruger problem with "power users," where some people know just enough to get themselves into trouble. And I think these D-K power users outnumber the "real" ones.