Edit: Guys I didn’t write the headline; the subtitle that I added, I’ve now fixed tho
Edit: Also, the information about there being no escape is out of date – here’s a quick guide to how to fix the problem in the modern day
Forced updates are a good thing for most people, though. The general population doesn’t know or care about infosec, so they’ll put off updates for months or years.
I’d be fine with what you describe in the second paragraph, but that’s not what’s meant by “forced.” That’s opt-out. Forced is what’s really objectionable, especially when it’s abused, as discussed in the article and elsewhere in these comments.
No.
A notification, in the tray and elsewhere across the OS, with a short description like “Updates are crucial to the security of you and your device, they also provide the freshest experience.” would get the point across. What would be even better is if there was a one-click NQA button to initiate the update, perhaps even included on the notification.
The problem is Microsoft have abused it. Now they claim an update is for security, but instead it just reverts settings to promote their other products.
In Windows’ case, this is the truth. But certified corporation momentos are not a required side-effect of this approach to updates.
Updates forced at inconvenient (or inapropriate) times aren’t a good thing though.
Don’t interrupt my work right bloody now.
You can update later when I’m done doing what I’m in the middle of.
Let’s have the authorities force us to eat salad and exercise while we’re at it, it’s better for us
Meh. You’re not just talking about just making it automatic or easy or recommended, but actually forcing everyone to have to go along with it and taking away the option to not do it.
Which part exactly are you disagreeing with? Do you think that we should force people to never be allowed to run an OS that enforces a strict update regimen? Because I think you probably actually think that the user should be allowed to choose how they update; whether that be mandatory and automatic, or manual and optional. The reality is, the vast majority of people will opt for the former, and I think we both agree that they should be allowed that choice.
The real issue is transparency: what is being installed and executed, why, and is any data being collected. As long as all that can be audited at will, I don’t see any issue with the existence of an OS that insists on being updated for the people who want that.
I don’t see any issue with the existence of an OS that insists on being updated for the people who want that.
Emphases mine, obviously. No OS (nor its vendor) should insist how I use it or force anything on me, the owner / administrator. If it wants to make an opt-in option to make certain things automatic for the lazy / technically-challenged, sure, whatever, but don’t make it mandatory or convoluted to opt out (if opt-in is a dealbreaker)
I don’t want my OS to treat me like an idiot, a child, a product to be data mined, a mark to sell stuff to, etc. Just handle I/O, render what I tell it, do what I tell it, and don’t take liberties or suggest things to me.
That’s their problem though. If they wanna get hacked, go for it.
But there should be a way to turn it off for us power users at least (without having to build a whole domain controller)
The problem is when those systems become part of a botnet.
Plus, you can just disable the update service if you want to leave your computer vulnerable to attacks.
