Slashdot Mirror
Samsung Cripples Windows Update To Prevent Incompatible Drivers
jones_supa writes: A file called Disable_Windowsupdate.exe — probably malware, right? It's actually a "helper" utility from Samsung, for which their reasoning is: "When you enable Windows updates, it will install the Default Drivers for all the hardware no laptop which may or may not work. For example if there is USB 3.0 on laptop, the ports may not work with the installation of updates. So to prevent this, SW Update tool will prevent the Windows updates." Too bad that the solution means disabling all critical security updates as well. This isn't the first time an OEM has compromised the security of its users. From earlier this year, we remember the Superfish adware from Lenovo, and system security being compromised by the LG split screen software.
I've lost track of how many times I've been burned by a driver update from Microsoft that turned out to be incompatible with my hardware, likely because Windows Update misidentified my hardware as compatible with the driver. I no longer install any drivers through Windows Update, but instead go to the vendors sites and get them straight from the source.
Fortunately, the drivers are always optional updates, so you can just flag them as hidden and ignore them.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
"Sign in to the dashboard with your Microsoft account,"
No, go fuck yourself. Give me control over my updates/drivers inside the OS and don't make me sign up for your fucking spam in order to have a WORKING operating system.
The linked page was for hardware developers to submit their drivers to Microsoft so that they can be included in updates.
But I'm sure you realized that...
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
Linux might have some slight incompatiblity with an ever shrinking list of now obscure hardware. But when it works, it works. There is nothing this fucked up about linux drives. At worst, a few of them simply don't have the features we'd like, but nothing catastrophic.
I am not, in fact, a lawyer, but I do know how to use Google (unlike so many here). For instance, I can, without any adult help, open up my web browser, and type in http://www.google.com/ and go to a convenient search engine. In the search box for that search engine, I can type in "eula struck down as unconscionable" and click on the button labeled "Search." And get results such as
this, which talks about Bragg v. Linden Research, Inc., in which Linden's TOS (specifically, the arbitration clause) is struck down as unconscionable not once, not twice, but at least three or four different times and ways ("procedural unconscionability" and "substantive unconscionability" in two different ways, and then again on the latter after Linden amended it).
Wired also covers Gatton v. T-Mobile, again on an arbitration clause, and ruled unconscionable both procedurally and substantively. Also unconscionable for prohibiting class action lawsuits, because "that form of litigation is often the only means of stopping and punishing corporate wrongdoing." It also discusses Douglas v. U.S. District Court, which is about changing the terms of a contact after it has been signed, and which was ruled unconscionable. Gatton is often cited as recognizing that all click-wrap license have an element of unconscionability that must be considered by the court.
This has a link to this", which is a ruling on McKee v. AT&T, ruing their arbitration clause unconscionable.
Note that these are the first three results on the search, and the fourth is on McKee v. AT&T again.
Also note that these are all different courts, state and federal, all over the country.
Unconscionability is an affirmative defense - the defendant has to demonstrate why the contract is unconscionable, but it does, in fact, happen, and more importantly, it took me, literally, less than ten seconds to find example (and five of that was waiting for the browser to open.)
To quote the third link, you may now feed my cats for a week.