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.'"
This may have been a bad move, but Microsoft knows that in actuality there's nothing the users (corporate and private alike) are really going to do about this. They may complain a bit; write some unpleasant articles in some online sites/blogs, but at the end of the day you're still going to be using their stuff. Effectively saying "just suck it down and shut up". And in reality, this is what 99.999999% of Windows users are going to do.
If you have an effective monopoly, trust really doesn't matter.
-USR1
In order to break trust, you must first have trust.
Anyone who trusts Microsoft after the past two decades of dirty behavior is a fool.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
I don't think 95% of Windows users care if Microsoft is untrustworthy or not as long as they feel it keeps their computer from getting hacked.
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
Even without TPM, even without CPU serial numbers, if the update software has to change my computer without telling me, it is operating out of bounds. I can't trust it in enterprise; I can't trust it at home; I can't trust it as an install or development environment.
kris_lang
as long as you've got powerpoint and can read the Word documents you're sent in the mail?
* Fast
* Cheap
* Good
So when is MS going to offer any of these?
How about full disclosure about what's changing on YOUR PC? There's no reason why MS can't provide that in a timely, good, cheap manner. The real problem is that MS is a monopoly, and they can do whatever they want, and there's no other product that users can easily switch to.
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 was working as as PC tech for a university at one point, and it was policy to install all critical Windows updates on the university-owned computers. On one computer, I accidentally checked the hardware updates as well as the critical updates. For some reason, Windows update decided that the video card (an Nvidia TNT2-based card) needed to be updated with the old, Microsoft-provided, French-language video drivers. This computer was using English Windows XP, and there were no language packs installed or anything. Anyway, Windows blue-screened when coming back up. I had to start it in safe-mode and remove the drivers to get it to work again. I remember thinking that if a "normal" user had installed that update, they would have been screwed into having to pay $100 for a "professional" to fix Windows. After that, I started paying attention to the hardware updates. And I noticed that on approximately 5/100 of their computers, Microsoft listed the French-language Nvidia driver as an appropriate hardware update.
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!"
I totally agree with the tag that reads "editorsdontgetit". The problem with having this stealth update capability in the first place is that it's a clear and obvious vector for attack and p0wn4g3.
If somebody figures out how to hack these stealth updates (and now that people know the capability exists they will definitely try), then we can all look forward to the time when a rootkit or other exploit is pushed down to machines and installed with the blessing of the OS and the complete ignorance of the person whose machine just got screwed. And it'll look like a legitimate update as far as all parties are concerned after the fact.
The author claims that it's a "Bad Thing(tm)" when people eventually decide to pull the plug on Windows Update, and I agree given all the legitimate patches that have been made available this way. But on the other hand, what choice do we have? Do we leave a door open that has been proven to be used in an untrustworthy fashion by the very people that are telling us to trust them and that they're making our machines better/safer/++?
Will somebody please start writing games for Linux so I can be free of this nonsense?
C
The Sun is proof that we can't even do fire properly.
That has nothing to do with it... the problem with Windows Update recently is not that they aren't pushing out updates in a timely matter or that they are pushing out buggy updates too quickly, it's that they are being sneaky about updates. There's no reason that they couldn't be up front in disclosing everything about what components of your system will be changed with any given update. It's when they say an update fixes a specific problem, and then also install windows genuine advantage behind the scenes that we have a problem.
Blindly trusting a third party, especially one with a track record like Microsoft, with updating your production systems may be an unwise move.
How long it will take to someone to figure how to make they own updates using the door open by Microsoft in they OS ?
If I was a hacker, I have begun to work on this door as soon has the "feature" has been released.
Imagine, using Microsoft Update to update your virii or you Troy, that a nice "feature".
Ceci n'est pas une Signature !
Linux sites have a far wider array of configuration differences than Windows systems do: Not the least of which being multiple cpus and generations of systems, Windows in the enterprise is kept solely single-use because Windows admins know maintainability is hard, but Linux in the enterprise tends to have a larger number of functions because the Linux admins know maintainability is a solved problem.
The reason both is true is a social effect of getting software from "third parties"- that is, a cloud of developers that do not communicate with eachother. Whenever one of them does something "tricky" or "wrong", generally speaking nobody else in the cloud knows that they are doing it (When they do, it's called a "known incompatibility").
Linux distributions don't have "third parties"- most Linux admins get all of their software from the distribution itself. That means there's no cloud where "that's a problem with your other vendor", or "that's a problem with running Microsoft Exchange on the same server as IIS", and so on. The buck stops immediately, it gets resolved and everyone benefits.
Historically, other unix suppliers have had the same problem, and a lot of people just assumed it was (practically) unsolvable until groups like Debian and Red Hat- looking to solve a particular technical problem (of managing the necessary modularity of a GNUish system) also built up the social framework necessary to solve this very social problem.
Microsoft simply cannot do this. It's not a matter of "just making better patches", they need to be the sole supplier of software in order to solve this problem, and their users need to be able to patch and redistribute that software. Not just legally, but actually encouraged to do so.
I call bullshit on this alarmist blog. 99% of the world's Windows users don't give a shit about the updates, and will click anything that pops up on their PC. Most of them likely have no clue what "Windows update" is. The 1% that know what their doing have likely never trusted Windows/Microsoft for anything in the first place. To say that "Trust in windows update is eroding" is just a bit fud-dish.
I guess I can see why they made this a 'stealth' update on Windows XP/Server 2003. I had to perform a fresh install of Windows Vista last week, and the first time I fired up Windows Update, it gave me a prompt which ran something along the lines of:
"Windows Update needs to download an update so that it can update to provide you with updates".
I felt so dizzy trying to comprehend that, I just clicked 'OK'.
The monopoly is part of it, but the other part of it is the whole notion of software licensing, which convinces companies like Microsoft that not only do they own the software you're running, but the computer it's running on.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
It may be obvious to us, but not to the general population. Remember that this is a ZDNet article. People reading ZDNet are in the majority, Windows users who don't know Microsoft's evil tricks as much as we do. I'm glad that columnists write these articles once in a while, to make people realize Microsoft is not the "quality assured" company they pretend to be.
If we want to evangelize about open source/gnu linux, articles from "relatively neutral" parties such as this one are a very good resource.
You forgot about the firstborn
1) Didn't even think about rebooting my box by itself, regardless of configuration
2) Installed updates when I turned my computer on, not off - if I'm turning it off, then any second I'm going to be slinging the machine in my backpack, and jumping on my motorbike. Last I heard, Microsoft didn't possess the magical mystical powers required to ensure a hard drive works perfectly in these conditions.
3) Fucked off when I press the "I don't want to reboot now" button, instead of pestering me every 30 seconds like a bloody 4 year old.
None of these should require registry tweaks or policy hacks - they should all be *defaults*.
...that developers from MS Gold partners are telling you to shut down automatic updates because they can/may/will ruin the $1 mill. .NET based project they are developing for you.
I have heard this from several different MS partners in the past years.
People can easily switch to Linux, right? Right?
Nope.
Hell, I've been coding for 7 years, and although I rely exclusively on my linux boxen for any large scale modeling or EA work, I wouldn't like to go without my windows machine. I like a lot of windows software. Winscp (http://winscp.net) alone is one of the greatest open source applications I have ever encountered, and it's windows only. I'm also a fan of putty, ssh session saving is great, and putty and winscp integrate nicely. I find it extremely easy to inspect progress of experiments on all machines using these two programs together, transferring files between machines is so easy its silly. This alone would encourage me to keep a copy of windows on one machine.
Anyway, in spite of my initial lack of interest in windows versions of my software, the mob has spoken, downloads of my software for windows (though still still tiny) outnumber those for Linux. So I couldn't drop windows if I wanted to
Not perhaps the most impressive list of reasons, but I suspect I'm not alone.
Not to forget there's also games, but everyone say that one.
For certain very small values of easily.
And before anyone starts telling me about how they gave [insert distro of choice] to their 84 yr old gran/4 yr old neice/dog (*delete as appropriate) and they could work it fine within minutes, we are talking about comparitive ease for Mr and Mrs J Public between switching to Linux and staying with Windows. Linux is improving, but I still would not say the switch is an easy one.
The difference isn't the time it takes. The difference is what the time is spent for.
At MS, engineers argue who has to do the fixing.
With Linux, geeks argue whose fix is more elegant and better.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I think they were talking about how you do not have to pay for the patch.
I don't have to pay for my Linux patches. Where is that going on? I'd like to see that scam in action.
Microsoft has a company to run.
They offer the least possible features that the market allows for the highest possible price they can fetch. Indeed, Microsoft is a Marketing company that employs a legion of developers. The product, for the most part, is testament to that. No innovation to speak of and more license restrictions in the next product.
Let's unwind the propaganda a bit.
1. The average useful OSS project is not a headless zombie with a bunch of peace-loving anarchists running around it. There's somebody that has FULL control of the project. In fact they all have better organization than all of the big companies I've ever worked for.
I know that Microsoft in particular has quite a bit invested in spreading the headless-zombie-anarchy idea around but it's just not true.
You are paying too much for what Microsoft offers and have been for over a decade. Please take a step back and examine the situation with a little more rationality. You'll be much better off without Microsoft.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
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.
I have to use Windows for one single heavy duty application, so I have no choice. But I loaded a new hard drive with Win XP Pro XP2, the updates at that time (2 years ago or so) and the application.
The Dell has never been back on line since then, and has never sufferred a BSOD, nor any update issues, and has stayed up virtually 100% of the time, performing flawlessly.
All work on the web is done on my MacBook Pro, thank you, and it has never suffered any downtime, either. Well it didn't until I filled up its hard drive and needed a larger one.
I am seriously tempted to repeat Win XP SP2 install on a new Dell to take the next version of the application I must run. The last thing I want is crap from the web shutting me down for various crapo reasons.
This is a problem that the western world has. I'm 45 these days and I believe society is changing, while I can't be 100% sure, as I am getting older and changing as well, but apathy and disregard for our rights and freedom is growing at such an alarming rate.
We have rights, we do, but we need to fight for them or people, politicians, and corporations will simply assume we will be lazy fucks and taunt "nah nah nah nah nah" and take them away.
We have the right to own our machine. We have the right to tell companies "I won't open a word document, send it to me in ISO ODF or PDF or text." We have the right to remove Windows from our system. We have the right to sell our OEM Windows licenses.
Without even getting into politics or the growing U.S. police state, corporate america needs a dope slap. We, ALL OF US! have to stand up to corporate shit. We do not stand against it in great numbers, then nothing will ever get done.
Call tech support when shit happens, keep them on the phone for a long time, it costs them money. Send products back, it costs them money. Tell people to avoid products that suck, it costs them money. When the shit that comes from China has lead in it, sue them, it costs them money. The government isn't going to do anything for you, the politicians represent the corporations. It is only when bad corporate policy costs them money, will they change and not one minute sooner.
Start RETURNING computers, WHOLE COMPUTERS, because vista sucks. If Windows is part (as OEM's claim) of the computer, the the WHOLE COMPUTER is defective. That will make the Dells and HPs start to offer new options. Seriously, if 10% of the slash dot readers went out and bought new computers at the big retails stores tomorrow and returned them the next day siting that Vista does not work and is not reliable. It would make a HUGE impact on the industry. No one could ignore it.
But, no, no one will do that because they ARE to fucking lazy.
Surprise, surprise.
As Bruce Schneier points out, the problem is not that Microsoft can install updates on your computer without asking, but as soon as it gets cracked, then soon every script kiddy on the planet will also be able to do so.
Then you're really going to be screwed.
-mike
-- "So, what's the deal with Auntie Gerschwitz et all?"
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.
I don't think you understand the issue here. The issue is that MS users who chose not to get automatic updates got an automatic update anyway. This is a matter of trust. I don't know why you are talking about NDAs. Companies that didn't want automatic updates from MS had an automatic update installed. NDAs are neither here nor there. I also don't understand the relevance of Linux to this. It's not a matter of what was in the update. It's the fact that it was installed automatically despite the fact that users had expressed a preference not to install it automatically.
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
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, you know, even some geeks like having things that just work. There was a time when I'd build my own computer and spend every waking hour monkeying with the thing to make it perform 0.5% better in a specific task. Maybe I'm just getting too old for that, or maybe my interests have just shifted, but this Macbook I have, which doesn't really require anything of me to perform properly every day, is a needed breath of fresh air.
I think the big shift for me was during college, when my Frankenstein computer failed during the one particularly hectic spring essay rush. I bought a Dell laptop because it was cheap and could be at my door in three days. Since then, I've never built a "main" computer again. I still have my HTPC project and a few other things, but it's really, really nice to know that I have one computer that will always work when I need to actually, you know, DO something that matters. No driver headaches, no dodgy hardware, no constant configuration. I open the lid, do my thing, then close the lid. Although I have become a real Mac fan, this isn't a pro-Mac post at all... it's a post in strong favour of things that don't require me to screw around. If I WANT to screw around, I will, but at least the choice is mine now. I've put that same principle into play in what I drive, too. I have a 2000 Mazda Protege, which never fails, as my daily driver. Then, I have a 1988 Nissan Pathfinder with 31" tires, a lift, etc for those days where I feel like tinkering. That truck sits apart for weeks if I don't feel like getting my hands dirty, and you know why? Because it can -- I don't need it to get me to work. It's beautiful. If you can afford it, life really is better when you don't have to drive the project (both literally and as a metaphor for computers).
Frankly, even if it costs me my Geek Card, I'm never going back to the "old way."
-
Inventor of the term 'pardon my French'.
I'll admit this may be a little tinfoil-hattish but it makes me wonder if MSFT is the only player in this saga. Just supposed in the wake of 9-11 hysteria that someone in the administration had the brainy idea to slip a traceable...something...in PC's to track terror suspects. Not something that reported to a third party...too easy to spot the traffic. Something that relayed the data through MSFT so the destination would remain hidden. Now the forced updates are wiping out whatever it was.
Probably out there but a few years ago suspecting the phone companies of listening in on the phone calls of millions of Americans without a warrant would have been really out there.
And before that was the revelation that printers were spitting out identifiable information in the background.
It's a sad testimony that wholesale spying on PC users is not out of the realm of the plausible for the current administration to attempt or Microsoft to cooperate.
It may be years from now before we find out the whole truth. What we know today should send a shudder through every freedom loving person in this country. I'm mildly surprised so many hard-core right wingers are okay with the government spying on them.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
I've long thought the same. Looking at the US situation, that method of government (american style democracy (i'm usian, btw)) (oh and I like scheme;) works really well in small groups with common interests. And it *still* works well in the right scale: small towns, social groups (neighborhood associations, PTG's etc) but rapidly loses effectiveness as you move up in scale. In fact I think the number, at least for governed populations, is much smaller than 1e7. You really need to know at least a sizable portion of your fellow citizens to develop a situation where you give a damn about the rest of the population. Once you get to a "them" mentality, its all over because who cares if it hurts "them" so long as "we" get what we need/want. I think that if the local level is working well, then it will carry up the government ladder to regional and even national levels because the local effectiveness keeps people involved. If you, as a citizen, have access (I mean *real* access) to your elected representatives, and those representatives have some clue who you are, then government will work for you. If not, then apathy sets in.
Probably the same for capitalism as well. Capitalism works great when everyone knows everyone else, or at least most everyone else. I, as a retailer, know my customers and my customers know me. I'm happy to sell to them for a reasonable price that supports me in a reasonable manner and they are happy to buy from me knowing that they're not being screwed. They know this because they know me and know my lifestyle, at least somewhat. Once you no longer know your customers, then you begin to view them as objects with money that you want to get. It's sort of inevitable (I know, I own retail businesses). Likewise, if you as a customer don't know the producers/retailers of goods and services you purchase then you objectivize(?) those people and no longer care about their living and working conditions, you begin to just want the stuff as cheap as you can get it.
It is my opinion, based purely on anecdotal experience, that the system breaks irrevocably once the scale of the local population gets above some number of thousands (maybe 10-50, at a guess) and the population at large is also sufficiently large (a few million?).
man, I feel like mold.
Not only that, but the grandparent post deliberately, I suppose, obscured the issue. The issue is trust, not honest mistakes.
Microsoft's recent sneaky update has caused severe problems: Microsoft Stealth Update and Windows XP repair don't mix. If Microsoft weren't sneaky, at least customers could deal with the mistakes more easily.
Quote from the ZDNet article: "The overall impression that I get as someone who deals directly with the company is that Microsoft believes that it is right and anyone making a fuss is ultimately wrong". It's not surprising to me that billionaire virtual monopolists would have developed arrogance.
However, that's not the REAL problem, in my opinion. The real problem is that people think that Microsoft is a software company that is routinely abusive. But it isn't. Actually, Microsoft is an abuse company that uses software as a means of delivering abuse. I think a lot of people agree that, if you look at it that way, Microsoft is excellent at what it does.
I've often wondered with the slow Vista uptake whether MS would torpedo XP via updates that actually degrade performance or break things deliberately. It's weird, I have a number of XP boxes with very good reliablity, but in the last 3 months I have had a number of software related failures on nearly all of them - most requiring re-installs. The drivers haven't changed, usage hasn't changed, the only thing that has changed is the MS updates. No hard evidence, but many fellow admins I know have seen similar oddities occur (esp after the stealth update)...
It could just be coincidence as it would be a very dangerous move by MS, yet I wouldn't put it past them. Users who are having to fuck around are surely more likely to consider switching OS. For the bulk of desktop users that would be Vista.
The best fastest way to get people out a building is to set it on fire...
Always put up with it? To a point, but soon that hurdle of switching to something else seems worth it when time and time again MS does something to make computing more difficult for the end user. And that hurdle is getting smaller all the time. And I am not talking theoretical nonsense. I work for a library at a large university and it is become unbelievably hard to maintain a large fleet of public computers. Genuine Advantage has broken our update scripts causes massive manual updates to be needed, and they continue to change this, with no guarantee that the next patch Tuesday will or will not require a different process. On top of that, to build an image using MS's own sysprep, has about a 80% failure rate! It can take up to two months to fulling update an image that we know will always boot up correctly on all the computers we use (and we only have three different models). Then there is vista. Right now, hardware requirements aside, it is not ready for mass use. It isn't stable enough for 4 guys to keep 150 public machines running. We would probably need about 15 people. And if SP1 fixes these issues, there is still the hardware side. Maybe we have been spoiled with the fact that 5 year old computers could use the newest software, but that is the way it is set up now. We use computers that are 5 years old, and older for specialized systems, and we can't go back to the university and say, "oh, well MS needs more hardware, so we need to double the computer funding." So as Vista stands now, it would be about 3-4 years before the entire group of computers will run it well enough that busy college students can use it. MS has stated quite clearly that XP will not be supported that long. So soon we may not have any choice but to leave windows. And it may not be that long. I have already been handed a project to evaluate the ability for linux to be used on public computers. The requirements are IE7 and Office 2007 working as well as "All media in books in the library are readable." The last requirement isn't going to be hard. But even if the only way to do that is to set them up with VMware that runs a downloaded workstation of windows, it will probably be much easier to send out a new workstation file than do the updates required from MS. And when linux is running for free on all the public desktops, albeit in the background, how long it is going to be before wine can get IE7 and O2007 working along side the free variants and the university says "Why are we paying a Windows site license?"
While most end-users get their software from their distro, where do you think the distros get it from?
The vast majority of packages are maintained separate from any distro, and they're pulled into each distro by the distro maintainers. The real reason why the the linux updates are more reliable is that the developers can _talk to each other_. Most packages have mailing lists, newsgroups, forums, etc. and solutions can be developed in cooperation with the other developers.
As for the buck-passing thing...it happens with linux too. The application team blames the platform team which blames the distro which blames glibc, and they in turn say that the distro needs to upgrade to the latest version, which isn't compatible with the distro's compiler....and so it goes.
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..
I am a cave man you insensitive clod!
vi +
I am an insensitive clod you insensitive clod!
I think he just explained that.
.NET. Now they just need to do it with something that matters to the average user. It's not a matter of "if", but of "when".
Mac OS X "just works" out of the box.
Linux, not so much. Even Ubuntu requires that I fiddle around with some stuff before it's properly usable. Here's a sample of the idiotic config crap necessary:
- twiddle the X config file to get certain mouse buttons working - I have a 5-button mouse. Only 3 buttons are supported by default, so I have to go add a couple more buttons to the mouse in the config file. How hard is it to just have a nice HID manager that polls the device for its button/axis count and binds everything to a set of commands? Really, it shouldn't be that tough. Mac OS X calls them Button1..ButtonN. Windows does the same but calls them Joy1..JoyN. Motion axes are handled similarly.
- get "special" video drivers to do anything that requires hardware acceleration - To be fair, this one is slowly going away as the Damned Hippies (you know the type) lose control of the community. Ubuntu at least gives you an easy interface to get this if you want it. But to be completely fair, there's not even an issue with this if you use Mac OS X or Windows.
Oh, and before you say "but you can compile your own stuff under Linux and customize it however you want", 1) you can do that on Mac OS X too, and with mostly the same tools, 2) with several distros (Ubuntu, I'm looking at you) the tools aren't included and you have to track them down along with their dependent libs/tools/etc. (again, no different from Mac OS X), and 3) that doesn't meet the definition of "just works out of the box" in even a small way.
You're right in that there's no reason why Linux couldn't work the same way as Mac OS X. But it doesn't. And it won't until the Damned Hippies are removed from the equation. They are now the fly in the ointment. They've contributed a lot, and they deserve the credit for that. But they need to stop dicking around and get things to the point where it "just works" (and the word "completely" really should be added to that) or Linux will never catch on with the masses. And the longer Linux takes to catch on with the masses, the longer Microsoft & Friends have to keep trying until they get something right. They've already done it in the dev community with
Microsoft betraying user trust on several separate occasions and this behavior is eroding customer confidence in the entire update mechanism.'
I think there are probably a lot of people on Slashdot that got burned early by WindowsUpdate, and never trusted it again. I've been burned a few times, and now I leave automatic updates off unless I have a good reason to leave it on. Nevertheless, I really believe that Microsoft is making a mistaking screwing around with this particular sacred cow, although I'm sure the temptation to abuse it was just irresistible. As Wally from Dilbert put it, "What would be the other reasons for having power?"
Still, if our good friends Joe Average and Joe Sixpack get it into their heads that WindowsUpdate has a significant chance of blowing away their systems, they're going to just turn it off and to Hell with patches and fixes. And you know what? They'd be right to do so. This is a stupid, dangerous game that Microsoft is playing.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.