4 ms·

I think people implicitly trust Microsoft and Apple to not install anything dodgy on their computers, and it's no different for Linux users. As Mark Shuttlwort

I think people implicitly trust Microsoft and Apple to not install anything dodgy on their computers, and it's no different for Linux users. As Mark Shuttlworth said, regarding integrated Amazon search, "Don’t trust us? Erm, we have root. You do trust us with your data already. You trust us not to screw up on your machine with every update." (http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1182 http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1182)

taligent 14y ago
Excellent point. How about all those businesses that have their services hosted in the cloud e.g. Amazon EC2.
fierarul 14y ago
I don't see how can you compare the two. Trusting Canonical with their bits just assumes they are not malicious and data will only leak by some freak bugs. Trusting them with your every typed char in a search box is a totally different matter.
belorn 14y ago
There is a difference between having updates, and having updates you can't disable or turn down. Ubuntu has no updates that are forced onto the users after the users disable automatic updates, but Windows does it. Apple? I do not know if apple has ever pushed an update that has ignored the user setting, so I will put that down as a maybe. Iphone, doubtful if apple can't push updates regardless of any user settings.
- Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
  I can disable Windows updates, I can even say don't even bother checking for them. There have been a few instances of bugs that ignored the settings but that's not by design, that's by accident.
  - belorn 14y ago
    A few Web forums have already started to discuss the updated files, which bear the version number 7.0.6000.381. The only explanation found at Microsoft’s site comes from a user identified as Dean-Dean on a Microsoft Communities forum. In reply to a question, he states: “Windows Update Software 7.0.6000.381 is an update to Windows Update itself. It is an update for both Windows XP and Windows Vista. Unless the update is installed, Windows Update won’t work, at least in terms of searching for further updates. Normal use of Windows Update, in other words, is blocked until this update is installed.” Windows Secrets contributing editor Susan Bradley contacted Microsoft Partner Support about the update and received this short reply: “7.0.6000.381 is a consumer only release that addresses some specific issues found after .374 was released. It will not be available via WSUS [Windows Server Update Services]. A standalone installer and the redist will be available soon, I will keep an eye on it and notify you when it is available.” In what way is this implied to be a bug?
meaty 14y ago
Well Microsoft do install dodgy stuff. The poorly thought out MS11-100 patch broke everything for us.
zalew 14y ago
> it's no different for Linux users you meant Ubuntu users
- pretoriusB 14y ago
  No, he meant Linux users, just gave Ubuntu as an example. Not just because most distros are like Ubuntu, but also because the user base of the rest that are not like Ubuntu, Centos etc are statistical noise.
  - zalew 14y ago
    in the discussed context, Ubuntu is the only example.

taligent 14y ago

Excellent point. How about all those businesses that have their services hosted in the cloud e.g. Amazon EC2.

fierarul 14y ago

I don't see how can you compare the two. Trusting Canonical with their bits just assumes they are not malicious and data will only leak by some freak bugs. Trusting them with your every typed char in a search box is a totally different matter.

belorn 14y ago

There is a difference between having updates, and having updates you can't disable or turn down. Ubuntu has no updates that are forced onto the users after the users disable automatic updates, but Windows does it. Apple? I do not know if apple has ever pushed an update that has ignored the user setting, so I will put that down as a maybe. Iphone, doubtful if apple can't push updates regardless of any user settings.

Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
I can disable Windows updates, I can even say don't even bother checking for them. There have been a few instances of bugs that ignored the settings but that's not by design, that's by accident.
- belorn 14y ago
  A few Web forums have already started to discuss the updated files, which bear the version number 7.0.6000.381. The only explanation found at Microsoft’s site comes from a user identified as Dean-Dean on a Microsoft Communities forum. In reply to a question, he states: “Windows Update Software 7.0.6000.381 is an update to Windows Update itself. It is an update for both Windows XP and Windows Vista. Unless the update is installed, Windows Update won’t work, at least in terms of searching for further updates. Normal use of Windows Update, in other words, is blocked until this update is installed.” Windows Secrets contributing editor Susan Bradley contacted Microsoft Partner Support about the update and received this short reply: “7.0.6000.381 is a consumer only release that addresses some specific issues found after .374 was released. It will not be available via WSUS [Windows Server Update Services]. A standalone installer and the redist will be available soon, I will keep an eye on it and notify you when it is available.” In what way is this implied to be a bug?

meaty 14y ago

Well Microsoft do install dodgy stuff. The poorly thought out MS11-100 patch broke everything for us.

zalew 14y ago

> it's no different for Linux users you meant Ubuntu users

pretoriusB 14y ago
No, he meant Linux users, just gave Ubuntu as an example. Not just because most distros are like Ubuntu, but also because the user base of the rest that are not like Ubuntu, Centos etc are statistical noise.
- zalew 14y ago
  in the discussed context, Ubuntu is the only example.