4 ms·

The article is a bit of rage-bait. You can already disable it via Group Policy and users can turn it off. They're trying to get clicks because they're trying to

by Spivak 2y ago

The article is a bit of rage-bait. You can already disable it via Group Policy and users can turn it off. They're trying to get clicks because they're trying to make it seems like uninstalling it is some meaningful difference. If you don't trust that the settings on your computer work what in gods name are you using windows for.

Smar 2y ago
Microsoft has a history of re-enabling privacy violating settings after a while, so I would be concerned too.
LeonB 2y ago
> If you don't trust that the settings on your computer work what in gods name are you using windows for Most people don’t get any choice at all about what operating system they use. And those that do get a choice have extremely limited options.
JohnMakin 2y ago
> If you don't trust that the settings on your computer work what in gods name are you using windows for. gaming and for sandboxes. It became obvious to me a while ago with the slow integration of ads where this was going, and that I could never treat windows as a serious work station, unfortunately. I don’t even do banking on windows machines anymore, and it sucks because I greatly prefer WSL 2 and windows tools for my work environment compared to something you typically see in a corporate setting like a Mac.
giancarlostoro 2y ago
I don't trust them not to turn it back on (as happens to all sorts of features after a Windows update), and continue to install garbage I don't need or even wanted. I'm happy on POP_OS! and I'm not going back. Been on POP since January 18th of this year. I gave up on Microsoft when I realized Windows Defender will send over files to Microsoft it thinks are suspicious, and there's 0 audit trail for the files. For all I know it could be just about anything personal or even proprietary company files. I had other reasons, but that one set me off as the final straw. The other one was not being able to make offline accounts by default from installation, without using hacks.
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  >I don't trust them not to turn it back on Microsoft respects Group Policy because enterprise uses Group Policy.
  - giancarlostoro 2y ago
    That is fair, I did not know that, I thought this was only respected if you were an enterprise licensed user, but that might be my misunderstanding. Even so, I've gotten so used to Linux, I can't go back. Whenever I use Windows I wind up missing Linux. The only thing holding me on Windows was games, but Steam's Proton has gotten insanely well.
    - Dalewyn 2y ago
      Group Policy is available in any version of Windows from Professional and up and doesn't require joining into a domain or a special license. A standalone Windows Professional install can effect Group Policy for itself and the policies thereof will be respected. Home also technically has Group Policy, but it's not supposed to and most workarounds to that effect are very janky.
  - croutonwagon 2y ago
    Thats not always true. Just today my team was investigating why windows updates didnt install on server 2016 despite deadlines and specific updates GPO's set. We did have some tweaks as an outcome. But overall these policies have been in place for years. And since 2012R2 and later there have been multiple instances where windows updates policies wont apply in lieu of say... "maintenance windows" features being added to windows, so it ignores policies centered around deadlines etc.
- spartanatreyu 2y ago
  I was with you right up until you said you didn't like Windows Defender sending a file to Microsoft. I want my file system to have metadata that (along with things like name, last edited, checksum, etc...) puts all files into one of three buckets: 1. Pre-installed 2. User generated 3. External sources (e.g. Downloaded, transferred from network, transferred from device) If a file from an external source becomes executable then starts affecting my pre-installed/user-generated files and it's checksum isn't already on microsoft's whitelist, then I want microsoft to quarantine that executable and look inside it to figure out what the heck it's doing to my computer. Consider this: No one is uploading your personal files, they don't do anything and trying to look into them wouldn't help anyone avoid viruses. Only executables are worth looking at. Every single executable that was generated from an external source has been checked by microsoft. That is how microsoft, apple, google, and every anti-virus provider out there gets new virus definitions added to their virus lists. If those executables weren't sent, then every single virus definition would be empty.
shakna 2y ago
The only officially supported way is disabling via Group Policy - but only for Enterprise systems. Whilst users can turn it off today, Microsoft's history and lack of straightforward responses, suggests that won't be the case tomorrow. Besides: Some of the concerns are that it can be utilised by people such as home abusers to track those who might be looking for help to leave that situation. It's a new, very powerful, avenue of control for people stuck there. Being able to opt-out does not fix that. They've created a new way for people to be harmed.
arp242 2y ago
I don't really use Windows, And just have a Windows VM I use for testing or compiling some things. The amount of effort I had to spend to turn off things like Search Indexer and Windows Defender is insane. You can disable things in the control panel but it's still not really disabled and you have to play tricks to really disable it somewhere else. And then sometimes it would come back on because ... reasons? I have zero faith that if I disable something (anything!) on Windows that 1) I've actually disabled it, and 2) that it will stay off. Current Windows is absolutely horrible giving any control over the internals – even more so than the old XP/7 systems were. Before my VM I hadn't touched Windows at all for more than ten years, and I was shocked just how difficult some of these things had become.

by Spivak 2y ago

Smar 2y ago

Microsoft has a history of re-enabling privacy violating settings after a while, so I would be concerned too.

LeonB 2y ago

> If you don't trust that the settings on your computer work what in gods name are you using windows for Most people don’t get any choice at all about what operating system they use. And those that do get a choice have extremely limited options.

JohnMakin 2y ago

> If you don't trust that the settings on your computer work what in gods name are you using windows for. gaming and for sandboxes. It became obvious to me a while ago with the slow integration of ads where this was going, and that I could never treat windows as a serious work station, unfortunately. I don’t even do banking on windows machines anymore, and it sucks because I greatly prefer WSL 2 and windows tools for my work environment compared to something you typically see in a corporate setting like a Mac.

giancarlostoro 2y ago

I don't trust them not to turn it back on (as happens to all sorts of features after a Windows update), and continue to install garbage I don't need or even wanted. I'm happy on POP_OS! and I'm not going back. Been on POP since January 18th of this year. I gave up on Microsoft when I realized Windows Defender will send over files to Microsoft it thinks are suspicious, and there's 0 audit trail for the files. For all I know it could be just about anything personal or even proprietary company files. I had other reasons, but that one set me off as the final straw. The other one was not being able to make offline accounts by default from installation, without using hacks.

Dalewyn 2y ago
>I don't trust them not to turn it back on Microsoft respects Group Policy because enterprise uses Group Policy.
- giancarlostoro 2y ago
  That is fair, I did not know that, I thought this was only respected if you were an enterprise licensed user, but that might be my misunderstanding. Even so, I've gotten so used to Linux, I can't go back. Whenever I use Windows I wind up missing Linux. The only thing holding me on Windows was games, but Steam's Proton has gotten insanely well.
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    Group Policy is available in any version of Windows from Professional and up and doesn't require joining into a domain or a special license. A standalone Windows Professional install can effect Group Policy for itself and the policies thereof will be respected. Home also technically has Group Policy, but it's not supposed to and most workarounds to that effect are very janky.
- croutonwagon 2y ago
  Thats not always true. Just today my team was investigating why windows updates didnt install on server 2016 despite deadlines and specific updates GPO's set. We did have some tweaks as an outcome. But overall these policies have been in place for years. And since 2012R2 and later there have been multiple instances where windows updates policies wont apply in lieu of say... "maintenance windows" features being added to windows, so it ignores policies centered around deadlines etc.
spartanatreyu 2y ago
I was with you right up until you said you didn't like Windows Defender sending a file to Microsoft. I want my file system to have metadata that (along with things like name, last edited, checksum, etc...) puts all files into one of three buckets: 1. Pre-installed 2. User generated 3. External sources (e.g. Downloaded, transferred from network, transferred from device) If a file from an external source becomes executable then starts affecting my pre-installed/user-generated files and it's checksum isn't already on microsoft's whitelist, then I want microsoft to quarantine that executable and look inside it to figure out what the heck it's doing to my computer. Consider this: No one is uploading your personal files, they don't do anything and trying to look into them wouldn't help anyone avoid viruses. Only executables are worth looking at. Every single executable that was generated from an external source has been checked by microsoft. That is how microsoft, apple, google, and every anti-virus provider out there gets new virus definitions added to their virus lists. If those executables weren't sent, then every single virus definition would be empty.

shakna 2y ago

The only officially supported way is disabling via Group Policy - but only for Enterprise systems. Whilst users can turn it off today, Microsoft's history and lack of straightforward responses, suggests that won't be the case tomorrow. Besides: Some of the concerns are that it can be utilised by people such as home abusers to track those who might be looking for help to leave that situation. It's a new, very powerful, avenue of control for people stuck there. Being able to opt-out does not fix that. They've created a new way for people to be harmed.

arp242 2y ago

I don't really use Windows, And just have a Windows VM I use for testing or compiling some things. The amount of effort I had to spend to turn off things like Search Indexer and Windows Defender is insane. You can disable things in the control panel but it's still not really disabled and you have to play tricks to really disable it somewhere else. And then sometimes it would come back on because ... reasons? I have zero faith that if I disable something (anything!) on Windows that 1) I've actually disabled it, and 2) that it will stay off. Current Windows is absolutely horrible giving any control over the internals – even more so than the old XP/7 systems were. Before my VM I hadn't touched Windows at all for more than ten years, and I was shocked just how difficult some of these things had become.