3 ms·

> security patches You have fallen victim to Microsoft intentionally blurring the line between security patching and software changes. A security fix should ne

by mike_d 2y ago

> security patches You have fallen victim to Microsoft intentionally blurring the line between security patching and software changes. A security fix should never be bundled with or uninstallable without a UI/feature change unless that change is critical to fixing the vulnerability.

ryandrake 2y ago
Yea, I would almost be OK with security patches being automatically applied by default (as long as there was a clear way to turn them off). I'd grumble about it, because ultimately I should be in charge of what gets installed and run on my computer, and I feel my computer should not do things that I have not deliberately commanded it to do. But just force-feeding me software simply because the manufacturer wants me to run it? No bueno.
gruez 2y ago
>A security fix should never be bundled with or uninstallable without a UI/feature change unless that change is critical to fixing the vulnerability. That's a nice thought but in practice it's infeasible to keep different branches for different UI/feature sets around in perpetuity. Consumer of Windows only gets 2 years of support, which is short compared to Ubuntu's 5 years of support for LTS (10 years if you pay them), but you can get similar support periods through enterprise contracts. It's also longer than mobile platforms, which only offer 1 year (if that).
- hulitu 2y ago
  > That's a nice thought but in practice it's infeasible to keep different branches for different UI/feature sets around in perpetuity. So fixing a big here, introducing a bug there. /s
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- mike_d 2y ago
  > That's a nice thought but in practice it's infeasible to keep different branches for different UI/feature sets around in perpetuity. They have been doing exactly that since Windows 98. Windows Update used to only auto install security/bug patches and features were optional installs. Microsoft also has an entire line of POSReady/WEI that gets only critical security fixes with zero other changes. This version of Windows is what runs on ATMs and self checkout machines.

by mike_d 2y ago

ryandrake 2y ago

Yea, I would almost be OK with security patches being automatically applied by default (as long as there was a clear way to turn them off). I'd grumble about it, because ultimately I should be in charge of what gets installed and run on my computer, and I feel my computer should not do things that I have not deliberately commanded it to do. But just force-feeding me software simply because the manufacturer wants me to run it? No bueno.

gruez 2y ago

>A security fix should never be bundled with or uninstallable without a UI/feature change unless that change is critical to fixing the vulnerability. That's a nice thought but in practice it's infeasible to keep different branches for different UI/feature sets around in perpetuity. Consumer of Windows only gets 2 years of support, which is short compared to Ubuntu's 5 years of support for LTS (10 years if you pay them), but you can get similar support periods through enterprise contracts. It's also longer than mobile platforms, which only offer 1 year (if that).

hulitu 2y ago
> That's a nice thought but in practice it's infeasible to keep different branches for different UI/feature sets around in perpetuity. So fixing a big here, introducing a bug there. /s
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
mike_d 2y ago
> That's a nice thought but in practice it's infeasible to keep different branches for different UI/feature sets around in perpetuity. They have been doing exactly that since Windows 98. Windows Update used to only auto install security/bug patches and features were optional installs. Microsoft also has an entire line of POSReady/WEI that gets only critical security fixes with zero other changes. This version of Windows is what runs on ATMs and self checkout machines.