Slashdot Mirror
What's Really Broken with Windows Update - Trust
Be Cool writes "According to ZDNet, Microsoft has steered itself into a real trust tarpit with Windows Update: 'See, here's the problem. To feel comfortable with having an open channel that allows your OS to be updated at the whim of a third party (even/especially* Microsoft ... * delete as applicable) requires that the user trusts the third party not to screw around with the system in question. This means no fiddling on the sly, being clear about what the updates do and trying not to release updates that hose systems. While any and all updates have the potential to hose a system, there's no excuse for hiding the true nature of updates and absolutely no excuse for pushing sneaky updates down the tubes. Over the months vigilant Windows users have caught Microsoft betraying user trust on several separate occasions and this behavior is eroding customer confidence in the entire update mechanism.'"
I don't see the update mechanisms for the major Linux distros having the same kind of problems and their users are much more vocal and much less forgiving than Windows users.
The fact is Microsoft has been caught a few times implementing stealth fixes or trying to force major updates (eg. IE7).
Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
I'm not suprised. When looking at what is being downloaded (either automatically or manually) you have little idea of what you're actually downloading. All you get is a strange ID number for the update and an extremely generalized discription of what is being fixed (or unfixed). As the updates pile up, the process takes longer and longer. When there is an update it insists on interrupting whatever you are in the middle of. When it downloads it sucks up CPU time. And when it's finished it will not leave you alone until you restart the computer.
"Ice? You want ice? There's never been any ice! Ice is just a myth!"
Or, to put it differently, there already is very little trust in Windows Update anyway (even though, from a technical perspective, their track record is nothing but spectacular).
Let's go with this a minute. To have a comparison, I will use Synaptic on Ubuntu. Both are consumer oriented. Both allow you to do unattended. Both allow you to get user aproval before patching. (Other then the WGA update, point to Ubuntu)
Ubuntu has had several spectacular failures that have resulted in a system that will not boot to the desktop. Microsoft has had a few good ones that call you a pirate and shut off functionality. The Ubuntu fix was within hours. The Microsoft fix was within days. On paper they are quite close, but in the real world MS is hated. Why this is should be the first priority at MS before more people realize just how viable Ubuntu is for many people.
Wait - I don't understand... you have linux machines, you use linux machines, and you think PuTTY and WinSCP are great tools keeping you from using linux?
I assume you mean that there is a lack of graphical utilities under Linux for SCP/SSH? Konquerer has an scp agent built in (fish://user@host/path/to/dir), Gnome allows you to mount a server via ssh/scp, OSX has Fugu, and if you want a graphical SSH then kssh is pretty much identical to PuTTY (though personally, I like my shells to be simpler).
Now, the other arguments (number of sales/downloads etc) I can't argue. I have to admit in my own development I see far more OSX downloads than Windows, and more Linux than OSX. Of course, what I write is primarily server monitoring apps and dashboard/konfabulator stuff so that would be logical.
An operating system should be like a light switch... simple, effective, easy to use, and designed for everyone.
Windows update breaking healthy system? Virtually never, Linux on the other hand...
:( I've hand updates that just break gnomes "task bar" so bad I had to swtich to KDE to continue using that install till I could reinstall the entire thing. Functionality erodes at the rate that after 6-12 months any linux install I've ever had that I put updates too (some I do and some I don;t as required by my job pf maintaining some kernel and X drivers) THe install becomes so hosed it's useless and I have to reinstall from the latest didks for that distro. (Some merely cut off support completely after 12 months)
This happens with EVERY linux distro I have ever installed within 6-12 months of use. The only way to keep a linux install from breakign is to NEVER update after a clean install.
The updates come almost DAILY. Kernel updates come in "stable" kernel lines that break the ABI and cause perfectly installed and functioning hardware to stop working until you hand rebuild and hand re-install the drivers for them.
People complain about Windows version upgrades but Linux routinely breaks itself with point point releases in "stable" lines
I have ZERO trust in ANY update I do with Linux now, Microsoft has 100 times as much information about their updates than any Linux distro (even if it isn't 100% complete) and the non-breakage trust is about 100 times higher for Windows than Linux (pick any distro, I've installed moret of them).
An awful lot of these posts really seem more like freudian slips than anything informational. Unconsciously everyone KNOWS what a shabmbles the Linux update situation is so to try to stave off some kind of guilt about it they find ways of picking no their enemy for the same thing instead.
It's REALLY EMBARASSING GUYS!
Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
and if you want a graphical SSH then kssh is pretty much identical to PuTTY
Or they could just run the Unix version of PuTTY itself.
http://www.tecchannel.de/ueberblick/archiv/402064/index15.html
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
I originally trusted MS with Windows updates, but as usual with matters concerning Microsoft, it was a huge mistake.
The updater got greedy and decided to update my MS Office. I don't have outlook installed, since I never use it. The updater however somehow failed to detect that and started downloading a "critical update" for Outlook without permission. It then started asking me if it's ok to install, but naturally the install always fails, as the files are not where it thinks they are, so it cancels and later again asks me whether it's ok to try. I've been seeing that wizard ever since for a few months now. The solution? I can think of two actually:
1) Reinstall the OS (preferably to something Open Source)
or
2) Get used to the thing.
That's how it always is with Microsoft - the bug is there for so long that everyone knows about it, and then it's not a bug anymore. It's a "feature"...
There are two kinds of people - those who are radioactive and those who have already decayed..