You may be interested in this older documentary: https://youtu.be/DfsK6DuNhnc?t=2208 about the psychology of conspiracy theorists. The psychologists claim that they can predict who will believe in conspiracy theories, and they use as a dividing test the following question to separate conspiracy theorists from healthy trustful people:
"The government is using mobile phone technology to track people all the time. Yes/No."
Also includes an interview with David Icke.
I don't think that question is decisive anymore...
I thought my comment above would have played better to the crowd here, who always seemed to be strongly anti-conspiracy theory since they always wanted to mis-apply things like Occam's Razor and other such heuristics, in a debate. Maybe the tide has finally turned. I just like Microsoft and don't get all the hate for them, so I tried branding someone as a conspiracy theorist to see what would happen. Interesting results...
I actually fall into the group of people who can see the possibility of conspiracy everywhere. While I don't believe in lizard people, I do believe in the strong possibility that the US gov't was at least partly behind 9/11. Matter of fact - I believe the lizard people story was put out there to make conspiracy theorists look ridiculous. I also believe, for instance, that the CIA runs the illicit drug trade...and I believe that Mao Zedong was a controlled assets of the western elite, just like China is today and that this will all culminate into a really scary new world order with China as the only superpower. My favorite thing about being a conspiracy theorist is that it has actually freed my mind up a bit because I don't sweat the small stuff so much anymore and I have fully accepted the fact that I am going to die one day since I have spent so much time thinking about all the ways I'm going to get killed by the Illuminati :)
I think you got downvoted not so much because HN believes in conspiracy theories, but because the lizard people remark was a bit of a rude put-down.
I very much like Microsoft too, but I also get the hate. Even this move of nagging you to update to Win10 seems to come out of the brain of marketeers, not engineers. When companies get big enough, they often lose some of their engineering/academic spirit to commercial thinking. Understandable, but annoying, as it becomes less about building a great product, but more about building great profits.
I do not think the US gov had anything to do with 9/11. I think they just didn't share information correctly and it could have been avoided (dropped the ball). I am always a bit mystified when Americans say that 9/11 was an inside job. If true, their government would be directly responsible for the deaths of 1000s. That should cause riots, not conspiracy theory forums. I think 9/11 conspiracy theories are interesting, because I have a conspiracy theory that most of these theories are propagated by the Middle East (shift the blame) and Russia (destabilize US politics, comparable to Operation INFEKTION, where they tried to paint the US as creating AIDS).
I think the lizard people are the product of a troubled mind and plain old antisemitism. In an allegorical sense it may hold some truths though. The crack cocaine flights of the CIA are no theory anymore, these have been pretty much confirmed, culminating in the "suicide" of Gary Webb by two(!) bullets to the head.
I like Robert Anton Wilson when he says that belief in the Illuminati is driven by our current information overload: The brain wants to make sense of it all, and that is easier when you picture an evil force behind the curtains pulling the strings. But also that there simply are a lot of people conspiring to do evil things (for instance the P2 lodge). So it is a balance between reality and psychology.
My favorite thing about conspiracy theories is that it allows you to draw all sorts of connections. It's a form of data analysis to occupy the mind with, only bounded by your imagination.
I think the China-themed conspiracy theories are very US-centric. Europe seems less afraid of China as a competitor, decreasing the popularity and adoption of such theories.
Thus far I have been spared the plague because my Boot Camp partition has less than a gigabyte of free space, so Microsoft can't install Windows 10 for me even if they want to.
On the one hand, Microsoft gets criticized for abandoning millions of machines by dropping support for XP. Then, Microsoft gets criticized for not letting that happen with Windows 7 and 8 by keeping them up to date.
Do people tend to complain about Chrome's auto updates?
OS upgrades aren't directly comparable to automatically-updating software. They bring big changes and break compatibility. In the case of Windows 10, it merges two UI paradigms together. When software updates itself, it doesn't typically hop to the next major version, anyway. Chrome and evergreen software like it are exceptions.
This is especially true for Windows, which doesn't have a seamless upgrade process.
Not only is there an issue of the user interface changing significantly, but there are also driver issues when manufacturers are slow to release updated drivers (big problems for older devices). Anecdotal, but I have heard many people complain of increased blue screens.
Do people tend to complain about Chrome's auto updates?
I'd bet most of those are minor bugfixes which don't change behaviour drastically, but fix things like exploits. Most people won't even notice any changes and they can keep using the software like they used to.
And when Chrome and such do add stuff, any changes are gradual and unobtrusive. In a sense there is only one "major version" of Chrome and it is continually subtly changing.
On the other hand, operating systems and most software have distinct major versions and automatic updates only happen within those versions.
Chrome's updates have always been like this, whereas people bought Windows 7/8/8.1 machines with the expectation that they would be able to keep using those versions unless they chose to upgrade.
Yes, especially when they seem to affect their applications.
Automatic updates are easy (mostly). Healthy software and vulnerability management that doesn't damage productivity needlessly can be a lot of work. What do you test?
The classic simplified use case for this is Java runtimes:
Your organization needs:
a) A specific Java version to run a critical application
b) Not to have workstations compromised though weak Java versions.
As a technology and security professional in this space your objective is to meet both of these goals. As the application developer you may have totally different goals (release date, market share, sales, renewals) and may not have these on your map at all...
I'm assuming this didnt apply to enterprise customers? The move from xp to 7 was a big deal for IT departments everywhere. I cant imagine them moving on from 7 anytime soon.
While switching to a new OS, especially Windows 10 is definitely a good move
Microsoft would certainly promote that view, but is it really? Am I one of the minority of users who prefers a stable environment customised exactly as I want it, instead of "latest and greatest"?
I was lucky enough to be around when my parents had to upgrade their computer, because it took a long time to customize everything in such a way they could find what they need without drowning in a sea of useless icons.
I don't even want to think what would happen if they called me out of the blue because that upgrade happened without their knowledge, and they can't find anything anymore.
I had to buy a shovel a few years ago. It was so nice with the modern construction and materials. Much better than what my dad and I used when I was a kid helping him with chores.
But you know what? I didn't have to re-learn anything! It just worked. It was a cool new color, felt better, actually helped me dig better, but the functionality it provided and the user experience was largely the same.
Modern software companies will "have" to understand this and tell their designers to go for a long walk. Software is too important to simply say, "Everything has changed! Surprise!"
Most people don't care about software "changes" about like I don't care how the engine in my car works. Just make it go. Fix it, improve it, make it safer, blah blah ... but don't make me do something different because your designers are bored with consistency.
There have been some pretty significant under-the-hood security upgrades in each new version of Windows. So while the UI changes are what users notice, the new security features are probably the more important reason to upgrade.
That's a fundamental architecture problem with a lot of software: it's not possible to get most useful upgrades without accepting the rest of the changes.
This is sad for security because people see things like "stupid UI changes" and they make upgrade decisions based on the parts of the change that are most visible instead of the parts that are most valuable.
Software should probably be designed so that it can be distributed in a layered fashion. I shouldn't want "git cherry-pick" every time I click an Update button.
The security features seem to be more about protecting users from themselves and other users on the same machine than remote exploits though, which may be OK for "average users" and terminal-server type environments but definitely a negative for advanced users/developers who don't want the OS thinking it knows better than them, and are probably the only user.
Remote exploits that don't require any user action (i.e. simply be connected to the network and get pwned) are the really important ones to worry about, but are thankfully very rare. Newer versions of Windows come with more network services that only add more, unknown, attack area; and they are seldom actually needed because I have no use for those features.
Even power users are still vulnerable to exploits that are executed by a site you're visiting or image/video you're viewing. And exploits that take advantage of privilege escalation don't just protect multi-user systems, they protect you if you're running as a limited user or if you're using UAC. It's a scary world out there for everyone, even if you don't run plugins in your browsers.
From a security standpoint advanced users are the worst. Most think they know how to protect their PC and they can handle the typical malware exploit. Then they get completely taken because some productivity tool they downloaded from the Internet gets hijacked (no code signing, no verification, no identification of the author). And these idiots want to run in privileged mode all the time.
Could you imagine the outcry from Linux users if someone wanted to run as root all the time? Hell no!
When I switched from programmer to admin I was basically handed binders of various laws (US, UK, EU
primarily) on data security and the penalties when you screw up. Now I sit at the other side of the table and inform developers what they can and can't do with user data. I've never had to walk into the bosses office and say we have to call the police, someone has walked off with our users PIDs.
> While switching to a new OS, especially Windows 10 is definitely a good move
Who is claiming this? Maybe for hardware known to have good Windows 10 support it's a good move. For me, I've had more blue screens in the last month than I had in the 10 years before that. Lots of poor driver support (fingerprint reader doesn't work, touchpad reverts settings after every boot, crashes).
The user experience is an upgrade from my perspective, but the upgrade has been anything but painless.
* Send contact, calendar and input data to Microsoft
* Send typing and inking data to Microsoft
* Let apps use your Advertising ID for "experiences across apps" (I'm not making this shit up)
* Send microsoft and "trusted partners" location data
* Turn on SmartScreen (Admittedly I don't know exactly how it works but seeing as it's in those options I can take a horrifying guess on the implications)
* Send your browsing data to Microsoft to "make your overall experience better" (WTF wording)
* Autoconnect to shared networks
* Autoconnect to suggested open hotspots
Damn. And then, one that's not in there which you have to find for yourself, if you even know about it: P2P share windows updates with any windows computer on the internet.
Ho-ly-crap. I like W10 as an OS so far but this stuff is just insane.
BTW, the only reason I went with W10 was that W7 doesn't support GPT.
I think you're missing the point of concern here. That would be one, but let's just hope that Microsoft is smart enough to validate the data gotten from P2P updates.
That still brings up the issue that Microsoft is leveraging my broadband connection, my power and my computer(s) that I pay for to issue updates to their customers without even asking. That's not ok.
Would you still want to delay updating if Microsoft stopped all security updates for the previous version of Windows after releasing the new one? I think only supporting one version at a time has a lot of benefits like being able to focus on development and security for just one version. And I think we might all be better off collectively if everyone just upgraded straight away.
I want to point out that this logic is based on the implication that newer is more secure, and that isn't always True, especially in closed source products. Many apps have gone from generally-good software to adware in a coupe of auto-updates. Similar things could happen to Windows - in fact, the privacy issues I pointed out in the post below are a facet of that.
No that's not what I said. I didn't imply that newer is more secure. I said if Microsoft spent its efforts on securing just Windows 10, instead of Windows 10, 8, 7, Vista and XP all the same time the results might be better. That's not newness - it's resourcing. The same would be true if they put everyone onto Windows XP instead.
Most people only want the security updates. You can tout the new features of Windows 10 all you like, but most people don't actually need them and the short-term value of the new features is less than the retraining cost of learning how to use them. Incurring that up-front retraining cost on a frequent basis causes you to never come out ahead. This is why everyone kept using Windows XP until it was completely unsupported and Windows 7 is the new Windows XP.
If anything what people want are less frequent releases with longer support periods. Or at least designate specific infrequent releases like Windows 7 for multi-decade long-term support -- if they would do that then they could reduce the support period for the non-LTS releases and end up supporting fewer versions at once.
If anything what people want are less frequent releases with longer support periods.
I wish the big name software vendors would understand this, but the hype train has a lot of momentum right now and it seems like everyone is trying to jump on board.
The reality is that stability and reliability in your software bring huge benefits. Big changes can bring big benefits too, but usually any improvements are more modest. And the kicker is that even quite small changes can make something work worse from the user's personal, subjective point of view, and this is actively bad.
My standard policy on our Win7 machines at work has been security updates only for quite a while now. I don't see anything pushing us to install Win10 on any of those machines right now. In fact this whole farcical exercise has been a great demonstration of why we shouldn't: the more Microsoft try to abuse the update process in older versions of Windows, the clearer it becomes that a version of Windows where updates are mandatory shouldn't be trusted.
Dell,Lenovo and HP have completely dropped the ball with drivers for Windows 10. Its not horrible but at the same time not perfect. I will be ordering as many Surface book's as I can get once they are available. I think an office with 50% Surface Books and 50% Macbook Pros is progress. Not saying it will fix it for sure , but a bios update and complete format/re-install (after you already activated Windows 10 from an upgrade) remedies the blue screens for the Dell/HP/Lenovo laptops we have onsite.
> The user experience is an upgrade from my perspective, but the upgrade has been anything but painless.
Especially the spying experience is an upgrade. Thanks to the excellent relationship between the NSA and Microsoft. Nice try, Nadella, to make us believe Microsoft has changed.
I don't even bother upgrading Windows on laptops. It's better to wait until all of the drivers are fully supported by the manufacturer then do a clean install. I don't know what Microsoft is thinking. Laptops are incredibly fragile from a driver perspective because of all the non-standard and model specific things they do.
Actually, most things laptops do are pretty generic, but manufacturers seem obsessed about owning the "experience" of doing the most basic things.
My ThinkPad T430 runs Windows 10 without any Lenovo crapware, and it's such a smooth experience. No more invisible windows randomly popping up in the taskbar, stealing my keyboard focus, no more dozens of TPCRAP.EXE in my autostart.
Do you use TrackPoint? If you do, these drivers are inevitable. Considering how fragile and inconsistent across models and versions they are I'd say good luck.
I did install device software that came via Windows Update (mostly unobtrusive stuff), and you're right, I did install the "UltraNav"-branded Synaptics drivers manually from lenovo.com. They are abysmal [1], but still less so than the Synaptics driver that came via WU.
On a new ASUS X205ta ("Windows 8.1 with Bing") the audio drivers are broken, and which don't have Linux drivers yet. (at least, the websites I read from July suggest that.)
Microsoft has been pushing to put himself back into the stage lights (open source, surface pro|book engineering). If they were willing to really give users help and resources, maybe deals for hardware upgrade so customers have the smoothest upgrade possible it would make a difference. Musk have been doing this with Tesla, every time something caused troubles, he gave it for "free".
Personally after KB3035583 that I had hidden before, was re-enabled and installed automatically, I started feeling bothered by that fact. That was the final push that led me to nuking my Windows 7 partition and jumping to Xubuntu GNU/Linux.
I'm getting _so_ bored of having to click on every knowledge base article to see exactly what each of the updates do, in order to hide (week after week) the two or three that try and sneak Get Windows 10 in. I'm getting less and less likely to install _any_ updates.
My concern with Windows 10, and I expect it to get addressed, is having a platform underneath me keep changing. I don't want to get in my car one day and find out that the gas pedal has changed positions with the brake. I expect my OS to be just as consistent in this regard.
So, for me, I need a way to say, "I don't ever want to upgrade automatically. I'll upgrade when I'm ready".
In this specific instance, it sounds like an "extra" and not a "change". So, I would be okay with that. However, I don't own a Tesla so I can't say for sure. For me personally, I don't want upgrades that throw away all my muscle memory in the name of "design". As more and more people enter the software development ecosystem, they're going to need to learn (the hard way) that sometimes "boring" is the right thing to do.
Despite the totality of his radical opinions, this to me seems like one of RMS's more valid arguments against non-Libre software. Especially when it comes to something fundamental like an OS, being at the mercy of a corporation is highly problematic.
On one hand, your wish prevents IT from advancing: Many companies are still stuck with... IE6. Chrome triggered leaps in the evolution of IT by using automatic upgrades.
On the other hand, auto-upgrading software gives the US diplomacy a lot of leverage over the rest of the world. A country in negotiation with US could have all GPS, mobiles and computers shut down at the flick of a switch.
Up until 2013 or so, I was always a PC guy. I wanted to be a PC guy. But Microsoft did, and continues to do, everything in their power to change my mind about that. I still have one old laptop running Windows 7, the instant they force-upgrade that is the instant I bid adieu to the last remnant of Microsoft in my home computing life.
Speaking of which, using the term "PC" to describe x86 Windows machines somewhat compatible with IBM PC standards (a.k.a. "Wintel") desperately needs to die.
I wonder if the license allows this. "We can arbitrarily change the OS version that you are running."
Since you bought (a license) for Windows 7, I would think if Windows 10 degrades your experience sufficiently, you might prevail in small claims court.
I may have some of the facts wrong here, but I think this means that upgraded systems will also start to run Microsoft's evergreen browser Edge, in place of IE, as the default browser.
It seems like this aspect, at least, could be a very good thing. Thinking about the very non-technical and casual user who uses the default IE and doesn't upgrade/switch for no particular reason other than some mixture of doesn't know it'll be better/afraid of breaking something/doesn't know how.
It'll just kill all those IE 8s/9s/10s still running out there that, really, should be replaced. Yes, it's a little brute force, but I can't see this being anything other than a good thing for (the vast majority of) these users and for developers.
...Except that Edge is the new IE, in some bad ways. Sure, many bugs and missing features will be fixed and added in the coming months/years, but there are already a number of hacks that need to be made to properly support Edge with similar functionality as FF, Chrome and Safari. All that's old is new.
> I can't see this being anything other than a good thing for (the vast majority of) these users and for developers.
For developers? I think they are quite capable of deciding for themselves.
For users? Here I can see where you're coming from, but let's think this through:
- Some users know how stuff works. They'll upgrade when they want to, no need to force them.
- Some users have no clue about how stuff works, but they know someone who does (e.g. my grandma and me). If there would be an opt-out of this forced upgrade, that someone (me) could perform that on their computer and upgrade them when they're ready. But there is no opt out, so instead they (me) will have a hell of an explaining job on their hands. It might actually be the perfect excuse to install Ubuntu since the only reason not to is because they're "used to Windows now". And remember, this group didn't need a forced upgrade in the first place since they have someone who helps them stay up to date and does stuff that needs doing.
- Some users have no clue and have nobody to help them. There's no point trying to get them the latest updates when they'll click accept on anything their screen tells them to accept (e.g. fake flash update). Some protection is better than none and thus Edge is better than IE8, I agree on that, but I'm not sure there is that much of a point. And they may become unable to use a computer altogether with a disruptive change like this.
In other words, nobody benefits. Maybe not even Microsoft, but I can't tell yet.
> For developers? I think they are quite capable of deciding for themselves.
Sorry, to be clear on this I mean devs building the stuff users use, as in no more need to support older, less standards-compliant, less fully-featured browsers. It saves an incredible amount of effort, time, money and stress.
I'm not even saying Edge is good, I'm just saying it's evergreen and regardless of its current state you'd hope it will only improve in these areas over time, and getting users on it removes the upgrade issue now and forevermore.
As for the three categories, I'm emphatically talking about the last one, which is absolutely massive. I used to work at a company where a significant proportion of our userbase was composed of this type of person. Lots of money is wasted on this problem, which is so easy to fix. It's a hugely important consideration, unless your market is developers or technologists, in which case this isn't an issue at all.
> I'm emphatically talking about the last [category], which is absolutely massive. I used to work at a company where a significant proportion of our userbase was composed of this type of person. Lots of money is wasted on this problem, which is so easy to fix.
I see what you mean but still, an opt-out button would pretty much solve everything. Forcing everyone is just a bad move I think.
This article seems to be light on specifics and completely devoid of verifiable sources.
If Microsoft actually did force an involuntary upgrade this, it seems likely they would be on the receiving end of real lawsuits or even facing criminal charges for unauthorised access to computer systems (particularly if they did it to anyone who had actively avoided installing or keeping earlier updates related to Windows 10), not to mention any later formal data protection complaints over Windows 10's privacy implications, opening the floodgates to complaints under consumer protection legislation, and other risks. Even given that I wouldn't trust Microsoft as far as I could throw it at this point, I still doubt they're arrogant/naive enough to go that far.
Is this just a vaguely rehashed story about one of the optional updates being ticked by default from the other day?
"[...] since whenever you restart or shut down your PC, the next time you use it, the machine will start installing Windows 10".
This is absolutely false on at least 2 PCs I manage (one Win7 home, one Win8.1 home, both have had the tray icon offering the free upgrade for months). They have both been restarted in the past couple days and neither has upgraded itself to Win10.
This would run afoul of the European 'cookie law' (the name is a bit of a misnomer as it applies to more than just cookies). In short: Microsoft needs express permission to store/modify files on my computer.
It will probably be spun like Windows 10 is a security update to old OS's, but that is simply not sincere. Given the problematic privacy/sharing/phone-home settings on Windows 10 one can hardly call it a security improvement.
You must tell people if you set cookies, and clearly
explain what the cookies do and why. You must also get
the user’s consent. Consent can be implied, but must be
knowingly given.
The same rules also apply if you use any other type of
technology to store or gain access to information on
someone’s device.
Article 5.3) Member States shall ensure that the use
of electronic communications networks to store
information or to gain access to information stored in
the terminal equipment of a subscriber or user is only
allowed on condition that the subscriber or user
concerned is provided with clear and comprehensive
information in accordance with Directive 95/46/EC,
inter alia about the purposes of the processing, and
is offered the right to refuse such processing by the
data controller.
The total of fines Microsoft has already faced from the European Commission is €2bn. It's mostly for forgetting to give the browser choice in Vista, if I remember well, after doing it properly in XP, and for not publishing the documentation of an API. On the other hand, given automatic upgrades are now a habit, and given Microsoft's monopoly is on a very narrower market (so, not sure it's a monopoly), I'm not sure they can be pursued, if the story is confirmed. Unless we also pursue Chrome's automatic updates.
Most users will (rightly so) view this as an OS upgrade, not as an update. You already gave MS permission to provide you with security updates. You did not give MS permission to upgrade your OS. I feel the difference is of importance as updates are often necessary, while upgrades are not.
This update installs the Get Windows 10 app, which
helps users understand their Windows 10 upgrade options
and device readiness.
One type of update is fixing a defect in the original product -- closing a security vulnerability that should never have been there, fixing some function that didn't work as advertised because of a bug, that kind of thing.
Another type of update changes to the product in ways that are not necessary for the original product to be used as intended. They may be desirable for the customer and/or the developer, and there's nothing wrong with that. However, from the point of view of things like consumer protection law that says you should get what you paid for and it should work as advertised, these two cases look qualitatively different to me.
I've been very happy with Windows 10, it has completely revitalised some 9 year old hardware I still have. But I've been very lucky, I can't expect manufacturers to keep writing drivers for free for a decade. Seems that if Microsoft wants to keep consumers upgrading, they also need to continue driver compatibility so the old hardware still runs.
I run Windows 8 inside Virtual Box but the Windows 10 upgrade won't install due to a graphics driver issue. Hoping that is fixed so I don't get left out in the cold.
I'm glad I waited. Perhaps I am one of the few who is ..ok with using Windows 8. I don't feel the need to upgrade, and I'm deeply hesitant to upgrade for fear of something like this. I am taking risks with security, but it's either this or go Linux; I'm terrible with the command line.
I'm skeptical. If it's true then Microsoft's legal department dropped the ball: lawsuits of the class-action and anti-trust variety would promptly follow such a move.
This must be false, or a mistake on MS' part. For example, what about the users who have perfectly valid full Win 7 licenses (that you can move from a PC to another) would be forced to upgrade to a partial Win 10 license that invalidates as soon as they do major hardware upgrades?
112 comments
[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 177 ms ] threadMicrosoft has said the force push was a mistake. I suppose you could argue their sincerity on that, but the fact remains that they did remove it.
The OP is about GWX removing the option to delay the upgrade.
What do you know about lizard people?
"The government is using mobile phone technology to track people all the time. Yes/No."
Also includes an interview with David Icke.
I don't think that question is decisive anymore...
I actually fall into the group of people who can see the possibility of conspiracy everywhere. While I don't believe in lizard people, I do believe in the strong possibility that the US gov't was at least partly behind 9/11. Matter of fact - I believe the lizard people story was put out there to make conspiracy theorists look ridiculous. I also believe, for instance, that the CIA runs the illicit drug trade...and I believe that Mao Zedong was a controlled assets of the western elite, just like China is today and that this will all culminate into a really scary new world order with China as the only superpower. My favorite thing about being a conspiracy theorist is that it has actually freed my mind up a bit because I don't sweat the small stuff so much anymore and I have fully accepted the fact that I am going to die one day since I have spent so much time thinking about all the ways I'm going to get killed by the Illuminati :)
I very much like Microsoft too, but I also get the hate. Even this move of nagging you to update to Win10 seems to come out of the brain of marketeers, not engineers. When companies get big enough, they often lose some of their engineering/academic spirit to commercial thinking. Understandable, but annoying, as it becomes less about building a great product, but more about building great profits.
I do not think the US gov had anything to do with 9/11. I think they just didn't share information correctly and it could have been avoided (dropped the ball). I am always a bit mystified when Americans say that 9/11 was an inside job. If true, their government would be directly responsible for the deaths of 1000s. That should cause riots, not conspiracy theory forums. I think 9/11 conspiracy theories are interesting, because I have a conspiracy theory that most of these theories are propagated by the Middle East (shift the blame) and Russia (destabilize US politics, comparable to Operation INFEKTION, where they tried to paint the US as creating AIDS).
I think the lizard people are the product of a troubled mind and plain old antisemitism. In an allegorical sense it may hold some truths though. The crack cocaine flights of the CIA are no theory anymore, these have been pretty much confirmed, culminating in the "suicide" of Gary Webb by two(!) bullets to the head.
I like Robert Anton Wilson when he says that belief in the Illuminati is driven by our current information overload: The brain wants to make sense of it all, and that is easier when you picture an evil force behind the curtains pulling the strings. But also that there simply are a lot of people conspiring to do evil things (for instance the P2 lodge). So it is a balance between reality and psychology.
My favorite thing about conspiracy theories is that it allows you to draw all sorts of connections. It's a form of data analysis to occupy the mind with, only bounded by your imagination.
I think the China-themed conspiracy theories are very US-centric. Europe seems less afraid of China as a competitor, decreasing the popularity and adoption of such theories.
Do people tend to complain about Chrome's auto updates?
This is especially true for Windows, which doesn't have a seamless upgrade process.
They didn't give that option to people with xp, and they aren't giving that option to people with windows 7.
I'd bet most of those are minor bugfixes which don't change behaviour drastically, but fix things like exploits. Most people won't even notice any changes and they can keep using the software like they used to.
On the other hand, operating systems and most software have distinct major versions and automatic updates only happen within those versions.
Automatic updates are easy (mostly). Healthy software and vulnerability management that doesn't damage productivity needlessly can be a lot of work. What do you test?
The classic simplified use case for this is Java runtimes: Your organization needs: a) A specific Java version to run a critical application b) Not to have workstations compromised though weak Java versions.
As a technology and security professional in this space your objective is to meet both of these goals. As the application developer you may have totally different goals (release date, market share, sales, renewals) and may not have these on your map at all...
Needless to say a few macs and centos boxes have made an appearance and everyone suddenly knows python.
I'm making the jump when 7.2 drops and moving to windows in a VM.
Microsoft would certainly promote that view, but is it really? Am I one of the minority of users who prefers a stable environment customised exactly as I want it, instead of "latest and greatest"?
I don't even want to think what would happen if they called me out of the blue because that upgrade happened without their knowledge, and they can't find anything anymore.
The "but your whole security will break down if you miss a year of security updates" argument is lazy and counterfactual.
But you know what? I didn't have to re-learn anything! It just worked. It was a cool new color, felt better, actually helped me dig better, but the functionality it provided and the user experience was largely the same.
Modern software companies will "have" to understand this and tell their designers to go for a long walk. Software is too important to simply say, "Everything has changed! Surprise!"
Most people don't care about software "changes" about like I don't care how the engine in my car works. Just make it go. Fix it, improve it, make it safer, blah blah ... but don't make me do something different because your designers are bored with consistency.
This is sad for security because people see things like "stupid UI changes" and they make upgrade decisions based on the parts of the change that are most visible instead of the parts that are most valuable.
Software should probably be designed so that it can be distributed in a layered fashion. I shouldn't want "git cherry-pick" every time I click an Update button.
Remote exploits that don't require any user action (i.e. simply be connected to the network and get pwned) are the really important ones to worry about, but are thankfully very rare. Newer versions of Windows come with more network services that only add more, unknown, attack area; and they are seldom actually needed because I have no use for those features.
Could you imagine the outcry from Linux users if someone wanted to run as root all the time? Hell no!
When I switched from programmer to admin I was basically handed binders of various laws (US, UK, EU primarily) on data security and the penalties when you screw up. Now I sit at the other side of the table and inform developers what they can and can't do with user data. I've never had to walk into the bosses office and say we have to call the police, someone has walked off with our users PIDs.
Who is claiming this? Maybe for hardware known to have good Windows 10 support it's a good move. For me, I've had more blue screens in the last month than I had in the 10 years before that. Lots of poor driver support (fingerprint reader doesn't work, touchpad reverts settings after every boot, crashes).
The user experience is an upgrade from my perspective, but the upgrade has been anything but painless.
During the installation, Windows uses weasel words to present the user with privacy settings hiding the option to change them at all. Take a look:
https://jonathan.porta.codes/images/posts/2015/07/window-10-...
In "express settings":
* Send contact, calendar and input data to Microsoft
* Send typing and inking data to Microsoft
* Let apps use your Advertising ID for "experiences across apps" (I'm not making this shit up)
* Send microsoft and "trusted partners" location data
* Turn on SmartScreen (Admittedly I don't know exactly how it works but seeing as it's in those options I can take a horrifying guess on the implications)
* Send your browsing data to Microsoft to "make your overall experience better" (WTF wording)
* Autoconnect to shared networks
* Autoconnect to suggested open hotspots
Damn. And then, one that's not in there which you have to find for yourself, if you even know about it: P2P share windows updates with any windows computer on the internet.
Ho-ly-crap. I like W10 as an OS so far but this stuff is just insane.
BTW, the only reason I went with W10 was that W7 doesn't support GPT.
Sources:
http://www.howtogeek.com/224352/what%E2%80%99s-the-differenc...
http://www.howtogeek.com/224981/how-to-stop-windows-10-from-...
Edit: Yikes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_SmartScreen#SmartScr...
I'm not sure that concerns me since they're doing signature verification on the data before doing anything with it.
That still brings up the issue that Microsoft is leveraging my broadband connection, my power and my computer(s) that I pay for to issue updates to their customers without even asking. That's not ok.
Fuck them for even daring to do this. It's authoritarian arrogance, nothing more.
--
PSA: For people with Windows 10 installed, I've found the following tool quite useful in shutting down the large amount of information collected.
http://www.oo-software.com/en/shutup10
If anything what people want are less frequent releases with longer support periods. Or at least designate specific infrequent releases like Windows 7 for multi-decade long-term support -- if they would do that then they could reduce the support period for the non-LTS releases and end up supporting fewer versions at once.
I wish the big name software vendors would understand this, but the hype train has a lot of momentum right now and it seems like everyone is trying to jump on board.
The reality is that stability and reliability in your software bring huge benefits. Big changes can bring big benefits too, but usually any improvements are more modest. And the kicker is that even quite small changes can make something work worse from the user's personal, subjective point of view, and this is actively bad.
My standard policy on our Win7 machines at work has been security updates only for quite a while now. I don't see anything pushing us to install Win10 on any of those machines right now. In fact this whole farcical exercise has been a great demonstration of why we shouldn't: the more Microsoft try to abuse the update process in older versions of Windows, the clearer it becomes that a version of Windows where updates are mandatory shouldn't be trusted.
Especially the spying experience is an upgrade. Thanks to the excellent relationship between the NSA and Microsoft. Nice try, Nadella, to make us believe Microsoft has changed.
My ThinkPad T430 runs Windows 10 without any Lenovo crapware, and it's such a smooth experience. No more invisible windows randomly popping up in the taskbar, stealing my keyboard focus, no more dozens of TPCRAP.EXE in my autostart.
Nice coinage: "TPCRAP.EXE"
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10303162
On a new ASUS X205ta ("Windows 8.1 with Bing") the audio drivers are broken, and which don't have Linux drivers yet. (at least, the websites I read from July suggest that.)
So, for me, I need a way to say, "I don't ever want to upgrade automatically. I'll upgrade when I'm ready".
On the other hand, auto-upgrading software gives the US diplomacy a lot of leverage over the rest of the world. A country in negotiation with US could have all GPS, mobiles and computers shut down at the flick of a switch.
If anything like this happens on those versions a lot of business might get into trouble.
Since you bought (a license) for Windows 7, I would think if Windows 10 degrades your experience sufficiently, you might prevail in small claims court.
It seems like this aspect, at least, could be a very good thing. Thinking about the very non-technical and casual user who uses the default IE and doesn't upgrade/switch for no particular reason other than some mixture of doesn't know it'll be better/afraid of breaking something/doesn't know how.
It'll just kill all those IE 8s/9s/10s still running out there that, really, should be replaced. Yes, it's a little brute force, but I can't see this being anything other than a good thing for (the vast majority of) these users and for developers.
For developers? I think they are quite capable of deciding for themselves.
For users? Here I can see where you're coming from, but let's think this through:
- Some users know how stuff works. They'll upgrade when they want to, no need to force them.
- Some users have no clue about how stuff works, but they know someone who does (e.g. my grandma and me). If there would be an opt-out of this forced upgrade, that someone (me) could perform that on their computer and upgrade them when they're ready. But there is no opt out, so instead they (me) will have a hell of an explaining job on their hands. It might actually be the perfect excuse to install Ubuntu since the only reason not to is because they're "used to Windows now". And remember, this group didn't need a forced upgrade in the first place since they have someone who helps them stay up to date and does stuff that needs doing.
- Some users have no clue and have nobody to help them. There's no point trying to get them the latest updates when they'll click accept on anything their screen tells them to accept (e.g. fake flash update). Some protection is better than none and thus Edge is better than IE8, I agree on that, but I'm not sure there is that much of a point. And they may become unable to use a computer altogether with a disruptive change like this.
In other words, nobody benefits. Maybe not even Microsoft, but I can't tell yet.
Sorry, to be clear on this I mean devs building the stuff users use, as in no more need to support older, less standards-compliant, less fully-featured browsers. It saves an incredible amount of effort, time, money and stress.
I'm not even saying Edge is good, I'm just saying it's evergreen and regardless of its current state you'd hope it will only improve in these areas over time, and getting users on it removes the upgrade issue now and forevermore.
As for the three categories, I'm emphatically talking about the last one, which is absolutely massive. I used to work at a company where a significant proportion of our userbase was composed of this type of person. Lots of money is wasted on this problem, which is so easy to fix. It's a hugely important consideration, unless your market is developers or technologists, in which case this isn't an issue at all.
I see what you mean but still, an opt-out button would pretty much solve everything. Forcing everyone is just a bad move I think.
If Microsoft actually did force an involuntary upgrade this, it seems likely they would be on the receiving end of real lawsuits or even facing criminal charges for unauthorised access to computer systems (particularly if they did it to anyone who had actively avoided installing or keeping earlier updates related to Windows 10), not to mention any later formal data protection complaints over Windows 10's privacy implications, opening the floodgates to complaints under consumer protection legislation, and other risks. Even given that I wouldn't trust Microsoft as far as I could throw it at this point, I still doubt they're arrogant/naive enough to go that far.
Is this just a vaguely rehashed story about one of the optional updates being ticked by default from the other day?
"[...] since whenever you restart or shut down your PC, the next time you use it, the machine will start installing Windows 10".
This is absolutely false on at least 2 PCs I manage (one Win7 home, one Win8.1 home, both have had the tray icon offering the free upgrade for months). They have both been restarted in the past couple days and neither has upgraded itself to Win10.
It will probably be spun like Windows 10 is a security update to old OS's, but that is simply not sincere. Given the problematic privacy/sharing/phone-home settings on Windows 10 one can hardly call it a security improvement.
https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-pecr/cookies-a... http://www.justitia.nl/cookiewet.html http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:...Another type of update changes to the product in ways that are not necessary for the original product to be used as intended. They may be desirable for the customer and/or the developer, and there's nothing wrong with that. However, from the point of view of things like consumer protection law that says you should get what you paid for and it should work as advertised, these two cases look qualitatively different to me.
TP-Link i'm looking at you
Guess some can never be satisfied no matter what.
Switching to osx at the end of year anyway, never realized how linux-like the back-end was, I would have switched sooner.