3 ms·
To point out the obvious: run auto-update before doing the "crucial thing" and that won't occur. Or pay for the non-consumer oriented editions of Windows that
by ThrowawayR2 3y ago
To point out the obvious: run auto-update before doing the "crucial thing" and that won't occur. Or pay for the non-consumer oriented editions of Windows that allow full administrative control; they exist.
Anybody who could not figure that out is probably not capable of managing Linux properly either.
- Brian_K_White 3y agoIf a thing sucks, or even merely has some little blemish, the fault is in the thing, and it's entirely fair and rational to say so.
- ThrowawayR2 3y agoAll the moaning and groaning over something trivial to avoid with even a modicum of common sense is neither fair nor rational. Even more so since it's an intentional design decision and it's already well known to be an intentional design decision.
- Brian_K_White 3y agoWhat common sense is your own moaning and groaning exhibiting? It is a useful ability to be able to deal with something that isn't as you would wish. But that is orthoganol to another fact which is that in the entire history of the world, not one thing ever got better by accepting things as they are.
- butlike 3y agoIDK, it's a can of worms. COMs, Services, HKEYs, Group Policies (local and forest), AD. I wouldn't fault someone for eschewing all that.
- rolph 3y agoforcing shit updates by tying them to security updates, had to be the most effective method for ensuring noncompliance. security updates should stand alone from vanity, and shit updates.