4 ms·

How is disabling OS updates a sensible decision?

Dalewyn 3y ago
It gives me a known, unchanging environment that I can rely on to serve my needs day in and day out. My computers are tools, and the operating system is subservient to its administrator who is absolutely not Microsoft. I do not appreciate my computers reinstalling their operating systems every damn week without my knowledge nor permission. Been working this way since Windows Update has been a thing, and I've never been let down. Judging by the many tales of people getting grief from Windows Update, I'm perfectly content to continue as I have. I will run system updates when it pleases me, and no sooner.
- gchamonlive 3y ago
  What locks you in to windows? Programs? Corporate compliance? Familiarity?
  - eimrine 3y ago
    1. Bigger battery life 2. Decent PDF reader such as STDU, music player such as foobar2000 - if running all of these under Wine the battery life is going to become even less 3. If the computer is not needed to be connected to the Internets even occationally, there is no better option than W7.
    - smoldesu 3y ago
      > if running all of these under Wine the battery life is going to become even less Citation? Running a Wineserver should use less resources than a complete Win32 runtime.
      - w0m 3y ago
        In my experience, even a 'light' linux distro isn't optimized enough to match Win or osx battery life on the same hardware. Maybe things have changed since my last test (Ubuntu on my ~2011 MBA installed ~12mo ago)
        smoldesu 3y ago
        Frankly, I think that's more of a Linux problem than a Wine one. You're right that Linux is overall worse at power management than OSX or Windows, but Wine itself is extremely light on any OS it supports. On a resource-constrained machine (eg. >2gb RAM), I'd imagine that Wine would be less resource-intensive than native modern Windows would.
  - Dalewyn 3y ago
    >Programs? Yup. I use my computer to achieve things, whether extraordinary or mundane. I could run most of my software through WINE or some form of virtualization on Linux, but at the cost of jank. Why would I bother with inferior experience for sake of dogma? It's not even all my software either. >Corporate compliance? While compliance doesn't apply in my case, doing business dictates my computer be generally compatible with the other party's computer. So that means Windows and Office. >Familiarity? Yup. Windows is reliable, MacOS is limited and Linux just wastes my time.
- fauigerzigerk 3y ago
  >My computers are tools, and the operating system is subservient to its administrator who is absolutely not Microsoft. And you think this administrator is you rather than some botnet master taking advantage of your unpatched system? :-)
  - pritambaral 3y ago
    That Microsoft refuses to separate security updates from feature updates, so they can treat regular users as beta testers (and worse), is not your parent's fault. Your gripe is with the wrong party here.
    - fauigerzigerk 3y ago
      I wouldn't say that. If party A creates a problem for party B, does that mean I have to agree with every possible response from party B? Can I not disagree with both of them? Potentially letting criminals control my machine in order to avoid giving slightly more control over my machine to Microsoft than they already have seems like the wrong choice to me. If I was so concerned about Microsoft's updates that I would even consider this option, I would be urgently looking to replace Microsoft as my OS vendor. And if that wasn't an option (because lock-in) I would hold my nose and choose Microsoft over organised crime.
  - Dalewyn 3y ago
    Considering there is no such traffic seen: No. :P

It gives me a known, unchanging environment that I can rely on to serve my needs day in and day out. My computers are tools, and the operating system is subservient to its administrator who is absolutely not Microsoft. I do not appreciate my computers reinstalling their operating systems every damn week without my knowledge nor permission. Been working this way since Windows Update has been a thing, and I've never been let down. Judging by the many tales of people getting grief from Windows Update, I'm perfectly content to continue as I have. I will run system updates when it pleases me, and no sooner.

gchamonlive 3y ago
What locks you in to windows? Programs? Corporate compliance? Familiarity?
- eimrine 3y ago
  1. Bigger battery life 2. Decent PDF reader such as STDU, music player such as foobar2000 - if running all of these under Wine the battery life is going to become even less 3. If the computer is not needed to be connected to the Internets even occationally, there is no better option than W7.
  - smoldesu 3y ago
    > if running all of these under Wine the battery life is going to become even less Citation? Running a Wineserver should use less resources than a complete Win32 runtime.
    - w0m 3y ago
      In my experience, even a 'light' linux distro isn't optimized enough to match Win or osx battery life on the same hardware. Maybe things have changed since my last test (Ubuntu on my ~2011 MBA installed ~12mo ago)
      - smoldesu 3y ago
        Frankly, I think that's more of a Linux problem than a Wine one. You're right that Linux is overall worse at power management than OSX or Windows, but Wine itself is extremely light on any OS it supports. On a resource-constrained machine (eg. >2gb RAM), I'd imagine that Wine would be less resource-intensive than native modern Windows would.
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  >Programs? Yup. I use my computer to achieve things, whether extraordinary or mundane. I could run most of my software through WINE or some form of virtualization on Linux, but at the cost of jank. Why would I bother with inferior experience for sake of dogma? It's not even all my software either. >Corporate compliance? While compliance doesn't apply in my case, doing business dictates my computer be generally compatible with the other party's computer. So that means Windows and Office. >Familiarity? Yup. Windows is reliable, MacOS is limited and Linux just wastes my time.
fauigerzigerk 3y ago
>My computers are tools, and the operating system is subservient to its administrator who is absolutely not Microsoft. And you think this administrator is you rather than some botnet master taking advantage of your unpatched system? :-)
- pritambaral 3y ago
  That Microsoft refuses to separate security updates from feature updates, so they can treat regular users as beta testers (and worse), is not your parent's fault. Your gripe is with the wrong party here.
  - fauigerzigerk 3y ago
    I wouldn't say that. If party A creates a problem for party B, does that mean I have to agree with every possible response from party B? Can I not disagree with both of them? Potentially letting criminals control my machine in order to avoid giving slightly more control over my machine to Microsoft than they already have seems like the wrong choice to me. If I was so concerned about Microsoft's updates that I would even consider this option, I would be urgently looking to replace Microsoft as my OS vendor. And if that wasn't an option (because lock-in) I would hold my nose and choose Microsoft over organised crime.
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  Considering there is no such traffic seen: No. :P