Hacker News Reader

Comment by some_account | Hacker News Reader

Is it your computer or Microsofts? Because I really think the language in Windows speaks to you as just the guest, while Microsoft is taking care of your needs like a parent.

I guess I'm very hostile to that idea since I grew up in a time when my computer was my computer, not the property of an American software organization to decide for me what is best.

View on HN

No one is forcing you to keep using Windows. Plenty of people are happy enough with Linux.

But Microsoft is saying that they wont push updates without user's consent.

And that’s fine, but you should keep that up to date too.

But I can do at my own choosing. And that's what I do.

I am sympathetic to your stance - I don't like Microsoft overriding my decisions. My worry is that this stance will eventually lead to harsh penalties for operating unpatched software and getting hacked, and I feel that's not something most users would want. How do we reconcile these two competing problems? It doesn't seem fair to me to have all the power of ownership with none of the responsibility.

> eventually lead to harsh penalties for operating unpatched software and getting hacked

People have been saying this for years and there's never been any sign of it getting anywhere near a legislature. If someone's going to be made responsible it's going to be those that produced the product.

Are they really competing problems ? Most users don't care, they get their updates when Microsoft decides to.

The users that do care, and want or need to opt out of the updates know what they are doing and can take responsibility for their actions to block updates.

It is akin to not getting your kid vaccinated based on rights to freedom. Your freedom ends where mine begins. And if your botnet infused Windows PC is going to fuck up my network, I'd say either get off the internet or get your Windows patched.

It's akin to not getting your kid vaccinated because when they give them the vaccine they also change the kid's clothes, haircut and hair color, paint their nails pink and give them a pair of MS smart glasses which record everything you do in your home for vaccination program improvement purposes.

Until your kid becomes outdated, and they stop making vaccines for her, sure. (I'd have no problems keeping up to date if Microsoft's support periods were as long as the medical industry's are for my child).

At this point, Windows is going to end up just being my mostly-disconnected gaming OS when they stop releasing security updates in a little under 2 years.

Windows 10 needs to dump the animated ad tiles and allow complete removal of their remote-processed speech API. If they're going to continue with forced reboots, there needs to be some tech where apps run in suspendable containers, or something. I'm tired of picking up the computer in the morning and trying to remember everything I had open to work on whatever I was doing before the reboot.

> when they stop releasing security updates in a little under 2 years.

Not going to happen unless MS itself shuts down or they decide to exit the desktop OS market.

Are you saying that you think they'll re-extend the Windows 7 extended support period, or did you assume that I was talking about Windows 10?

I am assuming you are talking about Win10. Because you should not be using deprecated software on the internet.

Until January 2020, Microsoft is producing security patches for Windows 7. I'll continue using it until that time. Past that point, it'll be a fallback for software that I can't get running under Linux (similar to the positions that XP, 98, and DOS fill for me).

If Microsoft only wants to support new software, they should make new software that people want to switch to without being tricked, forced, and coerced into it.

Have you ever been infected like that? I was in 2001 with Code Red, in a perfectly updated Windows 2000 based network. The lessons learned helped me to get to know what I'm doing if I want to use unsupported software in parts of the internet. The thing is it can be done with a reasonable hope of success. Reversing polio, not really.

BTW, I'm hiding KB2976978 (still can do it) as I write this. If I can't block any update I don't like I'm not interested in your product. Life's too short for this kind of BS.

Except this "vaccine" really does cause autism, or the digital equivalent thereof.

Oh, and the doctor administers it by sneaking into your kid's bedroom with a needle in the middle of the night, coming in through a window if you locked the front door.

Other than that, yeah, perfect analogy.

It may not be Microsoft's right to decide when or how to patch your computer but from a public health point of view, sane policies already dictate mandatory vaccination. Perhaps you would be happier with the government enforcing mandatory patching to be able to connect to the internet?

If software updates/upgrades can be cleanly separated into security fix vs new features/removal of old features, then I think it may be reasonable for governments to enforce mandatory patching.

Unfortunately, software doesn't work like that. It's hard (if not completely impossible) to separate security from feature updates.

You'll likely need to cherry pick git commits and build the software yourself. I don't know of any sane person who would spend the time to do that.

The main issue is that MS is forcing full updates not only security updates, you won't like it if your computer can't boot or for some reason MS changed the GUI,broke something you depended on.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com