Hacker News Reader

Comment by acqq | Hacker News Reader

Maybe the way to block it is still:

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/3080351

    Subkey: HKLM\SOFTWARE\Policies\Microsoft\Windows\WindowsUpdate
    DWORD value: DisableOSUpgrade = 1

The MSFT decision to perform forced updates is covered, for example, by Extreme Tech, February 2:

"Look out: Microsoft shifts Windows 10 to ‘Recommended’ update, automatic download"

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/222326-look-out-microso...

I still believe they shouldn't have done that and I hope they get sued, heavily. Even if nobody dies, it's not OK. People had fully working computer and some of them wont. I have one such computer, which works on Windows 7 but doesn't on Windows 10.

View on HN

I'm really hoping this crap badly affects the computers of some large justice/gov systems around the world (and/or the home computers of senior judges).

That should get the right people involved for sticking the boots in.

If the IT staff for any large organization hasn't reviewed their inventory for affected systems and taken appropriate steps... that's outright incompetence. The writing has been on the wall for years and MS clearly documents unaffected systems (which includes Windows 7 Enterprise) and the required Group Policy to block the update[1].

[1] https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/3080351

Senior judges often don't operate that way. ;)

It's the same link I've already given above? And fascinatingly for you, "the writing was on the wall," and for some other commenters, it's unimaginable that it even happens. The perceptions of individuals are really hugely different.

The difference in context is important. If you're working in IT, the writing was on the wall.

This is exactly what I was getting at. For individuals and small organizations that often have no dedicated IT staff at all, they're the ones who'll get hit by Microsoft's forced-upgrade policy.

But for any large organization with deployed Windows systems, that absolutely requires a managed Windows environment for an ocean of reasons. That means a competent Windows IT staff that handles all those things, including: security configuration and updates, controlled testing and release of updates, data retention and deletion policies, and on and on.

For such shops, handling a change like this from Microsoft is already day-in-the-life. They already have to vet updates that may (and do) break business-critical software, while also ensuring that critical security updates are pushed out in a timely manner, etc.

There are literally millions of businesses with no IT department who bought consumer workstations or laptops running outside of a domain. There are millions of small businesses who literally don't have the expertise (or frankly, the need) to run a domain controller, and who certainly don't have enough money to justify purchasing a server and a Windows server license to do so.

I'm genuinely curious as to whether I'll be down voted for this. It's completely the case, and I'm not asking not to be downvote do, but could folks at least explain why they don't like the comment?

Not sure why someone would downvote this.

Incompetence is pretty much a constant in IT in varying degrees, but I'd expect IT professionals to know about kb3080351.

It's certainly not "news" given the media attention this subject has had ever since the "explosion" in June/July, when Microsoft chose to ignore that opt out setting, and even re-enabling telemetry prior to the upgrade.

Edit: I can take a downvote defending a factually correct point, which was originally posted by saidajigumi (who was downvoted, which is why I posted my somewhat cheeky (in retrospect) response, and why I upvoted his post). I don't think most people disagree about it being unfortunate for normal users to be upgraded, but that wasn't what our comments were about.

If the sys admin is doing there jobs correctly than system updates should be coming from a Windows update server using group policy rather than directly over the Internet. Nothing kills productivity like 1000 PCs trying to download the same files simultaneously.

What about a lot of computers which aren't in the possession of huge enterprises?

"the computers of some large justice/gov systems around the world"

For example, the computers important guys use at home, and somebody still dies because the computer isn't available when it should have been? I know, EULA.

That EULA is a "wild card" is the main problem now.

the computers important guys use at home

Hillary's email-gate?

So, no, important guys should not be using home computers that control/decide life or death situations.

> Hillary's email-gate?

I'm failing to see how the topic you mention helps to understand better the issue discussed here, that people can and should be able to depend on their own personal computers even for some life-influencing situations, and that it's bad (in my opinion) having EULAs which absolve in this case MSFT from absolutely everything. You really believe the proper use of personal computers is just for playing games? OK then, I don't, but no need for further discussion.

"I'm really hoping this crap badly affects the computers of some large justice/gov systems around the world"

Enterprise editions are not eligible for free upgrade to W10, so it's not likely. Also, there are additional safeguards, for example, you must get upgrades directly from MS, not WSUS (as per standard business practice). I'm sure MS thought that well and chose targets that are not likely to defend themselves in courts (home users and small business).

It's unfortunate, but that's probably correct. :(

Kind of wondering if this action by MS would count as abusive behaviour by a monopolist.

Reading that KB article and Microsoft are being total dicks with such complicated instructions when they could have offered a download to a tiny program which simply allows the user to opt-out of all upgrade prompts for N months.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com