Slashdot Mirror
CNET Editor Rails Against Non-Consensual Windows Updates (cnet.com)
schwit1 shares this angry commentary from a CNET senior editor:
Maybe you're delivering a presentation to a huge audience. Maybe you're taking an online test. Maybe you just need to get some work done on a tight deadline.
Windows doesn't care.
Windows will take control of your computer, force-feed it updates, and flip the reset switch automatically — and there's not a damn thing you can do about it, once it gets started.
If you haven't saved your work, it's gone. Your browser tabs are toast. And don't expect to use your computer again soon; depending on the speed of your drive and the size of the update, it could be anywhere from 10 minutes to well over an hour before your PC is ready for work. As far as I'm concerned, it's the single worst thing about Windows. It's only gotten worse in Windows 10. And when I poked around Microsoft, the overarching message I received was that Microsoft has no interest in fixing it.
The editor recalls rebooting his Windows laptop while listening to a speech by Steve Jobs in 2010. (The reboot locked his computer for 20 minutes while updates were installed, "the first of three occasions that a forced Windows update would totally destroy my workflow at a critical moment.") He shares stories from other frustrated Windows users, urges readers to send him more anecdotes, and argues that Microsoft has even begun "actively getting rid of ways to keep users from disabling automatic updates."
If you haven't saved your work, it's gone. Your browser tabs are toast. And don't expect to use your computer again soon; depending on the speed of your drive and the size of the update, it could be anywhere from 10 minutes to well over an hour before your PC is ready for work. As far as I'm concerned, it's the single worst thing about Windows. It's only gotten worse in Windows 10. And when I poked around Microsoft, the overarching message I received was that Microsoft has no interest in fixing it.
The editor recalls rebooting his Windows laptop while listening to a speech by Steve Jobs in 2010. (The reboot locked his computer for 20 minutes while updates were installed, "the first of three occasions that a forced Windows update would totally destroy my workflow at a critical moment.") He shares stories from other frustrated Windows users, urges readers to send him more anecdotes, and argues that Microsoft has even begun "actively getting rid of ways to keep users from disabling automatic updates."
Every day, all day, I do nothing but dodge the sophisticated attempts by countless software and hardware vendors to harass me in every way imaginable. Using a computer has become such a privacy, security and usability nightmare that I no longer feel the slightest joy in doing so. And nobody cares. At least nobody that matters in the least.
The same professor in a world where Microsoft doesn't force updates: "Microsoft's continued refusal to automatically update users computers has put the entire industry at risk from hackers and viruses! Users are clueless drones who don't know to keep their computers updated and Microsoft should do it for them!"
From an article 10 months ago.
https://tech.slashdot.org/stor...
by marked on 07:47 PM May 4th, 2016 (#52047825) Attached to: Windows 10 Updates Are Now Ruining Pro-Gaming Streams
As a somewhat hardened veteran of software installation, and the unbounded stupidity that arises from boneheaded mistakes that occur, I would like to point out the following:
Windows 10 Update installation does not follow the guidelines for updating as explicitly laid out in your software, that is "we will update when you are not using the computer". To help matters further, we will specifically exclude during the following hours "8am to 5:30pm".
So WHY THE FUCK WAS THERE AN UNCONTROLLED INSTALLATION OF AN OS UPDATE AT 4PM TODAY DURING THE TIME I WAS ACTIVELY USING THE SYSTEM? And when I say uncontrolled, it was not "oh click later to install, it was "we are rebooting now to install, OK". No deferral, no postponement, just instant notice.
Not to mention that the reboot occurred during a very intense multiplayer fight that I was the host of, which effectively drop-kicked several players out into the ether without me being able to contact them to let them know what was going on.
Did you mean 8am - to 5:30pm my local time, or that of the Microsoft HQ, in sunny whereever? It is bad enough that games developers can't actually remember how many days there are in April, yet to fuck up simple time management for updating has to be some fairly serious mismanagement on the part of senior design leads.
Or could it be that it completely ignores it like the boneheaded mechanism that only allows 10hour "active" windows slot, because there is no possible reason why people at home could not be using it from 7 in the morning until midnight? or am I completely in the dark about usability that requires a 14 hour window to update on a daily basis?
Of course to further the boneheaded-ness it completely fucked the graphics drivers, where it greenscreened just at idle on the desktop - to the point I had to continuously reboot until I could get to the stage where I could get a CMD prompt up and manage to type "shutdown /o /r /t 1" to get a relatively swift reboot into a mode where I say yes, I want to run a troubleshooting step, and reboot, and then select safe mode, and then reboot into it.
Not to mention that it has been a known problem with the graphics drivers since the last update, and putting it down to "it is the responsibility of the driver manufacturers (Microsoft Engineer)" is disingenuous at best, as MS is supposed to have WHQL'd the drivers, which means that MS should have caught this problem much earlier in testing during the automated build and test phase.
To top that then off, I can't run Microsoft EDGE because the "built in administrator account can't run it".... I can't run explorer because you've managed to switch of the command searching in the cortana interface, which means that I can't run taskmanager, command, etc. What stupidity of a design decision managed to get authorised to create this situation?
The insider fast ring is supposed to be a way to bring light problems that exist in interaction with components. Fucking with AMD graphics drivers in this way isn't an acceptable manner of implementing software best practices.
Now I have to spend an hour fucking around with Device driver uninstaller, because in the infinite wisdom, you've managed to disable any ability of the driver software to recognise that there is an installed device, so of course the programs bomb out with a "no recognised device" so we won't do anything remotely sensible like uninstall the graphics drivers. Then I have to spend an hour waiting whilst I roll back the installation, then reinstall drivers, then reboot, reset up profiles, and ... then reboot again. That is a considerable amount of unnecessary reboots as you rush to get untested, useless additions out into the population.
Yours,
Entirely Hacked Off
Because games run on it. If the games I wanted to play worked on Linux, I would be using it exclusively.
I had a forced restart and I promptly did registry edits and installed Ubuntu. Now I do all my work in Linux, and the only thing Windows could possibly do is kick me out of some online game. It's like they want people who like their platform to switch.
I also had disable automatic Windows 10 updates - I now get notified of new updates and have to start the process manually. In Windows 7, there was a group policy to prevent automatic restarts with a logged in user. The policy is still there in Windows 10, but Windows 10 does not give a fuck.
It's a travesty and makes it impossible to use Windows 10 for controlling instruments or other mission critical stuff. How MS hasn't been massively sued for this behavior of Windows is beyond me.
About a year ago, while I was still using computers with Windows 7 and 8.1, Microsoft was wasting a lot of my time. They were shoving updates down my throat and forcing me to inspect each one and disable the ones about telemetry and the ones that were trying to sneak the Windows 10 upgrade by me.
After hearing about the forced updates that were going on in Windows 10 I simply gave up on MS and switched to Mac. OS X is not perfect, but I have much more time to devote to actual work now.
The timings of the updates are only part of it. I'm running linux at home, but previously used Windows 7 and still do at work. When an update is due, Windows goes all wobbly. Last week's update, which didn't reboot, left me unable to connect to the interweb due to a 'socket error'. Updated, rebooted and all fine.
Now this could be good ol' coincidence, but it follows on from years of similar flaky performance when delaying an update. Not all of them, but plenty enough to plot on a graph and have confidence in a line of best fit.
Who even argued for that? All I've heard was that users should be responsible enough to update and use antivirus software. Windows Vista and up already did plenty by integrating Windows Update with the OS by default and pushing notifications for important ones. Forcing restarts is just ridiculous.
I've seen Windows 10 updates make a computer unusable for hours, particularly for any application where a bit of processing power it needed. Forcing actions that interfere with the owner's use of a computer is another malware trait to add to the adware and spyware that MS bundled with Win 10. It is hard to believe that MS is actually getting away with this sort of behaviour. There are real consequences for Windows users, particularly those in small business that rely on MS products to operate their business but are too small to have the extra control that MS might allow large companies.
Problems with Windows are only going to get worse. Many businesses are unwilling to give up Win 7 and put up with the shit that MS is trying to force on them with Win 10. The same customers mostly avoided Win 8 so are using a OS that MS will abandon, without supplying a functional replacement. MS seems to be completely lost and confused, with an attitude of refusing to give customers what they want but still expecting them to buy their crap.
If Linux companies are smart about this, there could be a huge jump in Linux adoption that convinces more software companies to port their products to Linux. Time will tell. I know from personal experience that it has been very easy to get Win 10 users ready to try Linux.
Windows is losing relevancy as the shift to mobile devices continues and many people no longer need a desktop OS. A sign of just how significant this has become is MS releasing several products onto Android. There are an increasing number of large developers that have little interest in Windows, preferring to focus on other platforms. If MS loses their near monopoly of the desktop OS market, their whole world could come crashing down very quickly.
You can set a registry patch to make windows treat all network connections as 3g/4g, it brings back the option to check for updates and install them when you please, because MS doesn't want to be sued for killing people's monthly data quotas in 5 minutes.
I bet MS gets rid of it or nerfs the ability for it to be applied to ethernet/wifi connections though.
I'm also sick of my phone nagging me like a creepy ex to update. I will update when apple can guarantee the next release isn't yet another step backwards in quality or usability.
I agree wholeheartedly, the fact that Windows 10 by default will just randomly reboot itself on a whim to install updates is INFURIATING. However, after some research, I found a way to stop it from automatically rebooting that has worked for me for several months so far.
:p
First, we need to disable the mechanism that actually performs the automatic reboot after installing updates...
-Open Task Scheduler (Start, type "Task" and it'll appear in the results)
-Expand Task Scheduler Library>Microsoft>Windows>WindowsUpdate
-Delete the "Reboot" task
The task that performs the reboot is now gone, but we're not done yet.
Next, we need to prevent Windows from re-creating the automatic reboot task, which has reportedly happened spontaneously on some computers, most often during build upgrades...
-Hit WinKey+R and enter %systemroot%\System32\Tasks\Microsoft\Windows\UpdateOrchestrator to open that folder
-Delete the file named "Reboot"
-Create a new FOLDER named "Reboot"
Since a folder named Reboot now exists, Windows won't be able to re-create the task file named Reboot.
As I said, doing this has worked for me for several months now, but of course YMMV applies here, especially if Microsoft ever decides to surreptitiously find a way to work around our attempts to take back ownership of our computers and crush us underfoot even harder for daring to defy them.
Block these domains in your networks, routers, firewalls. Windows firewall seems to ignore any rules for these so you need to do it upstream of your computer. Alternatively, set up rules so they only allow contact from 1am to 5am. You are welcome.
crl.microsoft.com
download.microsoft.com
download.windowsupdate.com
ntservicepack.microsoft.com
office.microsoft.com
officeupdate.microsoft.com
stats.microsoft.com
update.microsoft.com
v4.windowsupdate
windowsupdate.com
windowsupdate.microsoft.com
wustat.windows.com
That's a great point, if this same professor has railed against other operating systems that don't force automatic updates, like Linux or OS X. If he hasn't done that, then you've got a non sequitur.
Please excuse my ignorance, but I really only use macOS and Linux on the server. So when you get updates, macOS will display a prompt:\
Update available
[now] [tonight] [ask tomorrow]
I can't imagine that Windows FORCES you to stop your work right there and then, with no way to delay it. Is that really so?
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
Nice bunch of false choices, asshat. The alternative to Blaster, Nimda and Melissa isn't some Nazi-regime where Microsoft sits with all the keys, it's to stop writing shitty, easily exploitable software.
But I guess that's too much for you and your masters, and it wouldn't further your absolute monopoly ambitions either.
I have only been using Linux at home for many years now and in my last job I was only using Linux too, so had not really used a Windows system for a few years when I started using it again for my current job. My first impression was that it was much more stable and usable than in the past, but still inferior to Linux in usability for my type of usage. The stand out exception where Windows has got worse was forced updates. Such a huge distraction and nuisance and feels so primitive compare to Linux. Maybe they will sort it one day, but I suspect I will move on to job that does not force me to use Windows before they fix it.
An article about a problem that has existed for years as if it's a big deal recently. Why would I follow this link unless I just wanted to hear more salty MS tears?
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
Is Non-Consensual Windows Updates like Non-Consensual sex?
Unfortunately no, because you will find you have signed a contract consenting to more or less anything the vendor chooses to do to you. Not only can it have normal vanilla sex with you whenever it wants - it can practice any perversions that take its fancy. And you are legally obliged to cooperate fully.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
thank god Windows didn't reboot while you were typing that. you lucky dog.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
But if Microsoft has begun "actively getting rid of ways to keep users from disabling automatic updates", that's a good thing, right?
Automatic updates are bad
Being able to disable them is good
Keeping users from disabling them is bad
So getting rid of ways to keep users from disabling automatic updates is good.
Right? Or am I off by one here?
"Scheduled restarts."
What's the problem? I've never run into it. And I hated the idea of moving to Windows 10.
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro. ~~ Hunter S. Thompson
1. make sure you have the "Pro" version of Windows 10
2. type in "gpedit.msc" into your start menu bar and hit return
3. you should now have a window called "Local Group Policy Editor"
4. drill down into Computer Configuration\Administrative Templates\Windows Components\Windows Update
5. Double click the "Configure Automatic Updates" setting
6. Select "Enabled" to state that you want to specify / override this setting
7. In the bit on the bottom left change this to "2 - Notify for download and notify for install", this should prevent the updates from kicking in without intervention
8. Click Okay and close the policy window
You can now ignore the updates or install them whenever you want
I swear to god some people are just so lazy they have to bitch and moan about everything
BS!
If anyone from MS is reading these comments let me give the parent poster and my opinion on this. Since you feel you need to make Windows a cell phone and cell phones automatically receive updates, I say to hell with the update due to using the wrong implementation!
I own a Google phone. A nexus 6P which ALWAYS gets updates! Do I loose calls? No. Does my phone ever randomly restart? No. Does it get malware? No.
Here is how everyone else on the planet handles updates. We have this thing called a notification. You should analyze your competitors more? I get a widget alert silently for about a week. Then it eventually turns to a notification about an update. Last it gives me amonth before it even offers a schedule to update. After 3 months it installs when I reboot my phone.
Why is this so hard MS? Also why can't you patch a live system like Oracle Linux or Red hat? You could greatly reduce the need to reboot while keeping your users secure. Last, you think the XP apocalypse was bad with stubborn older users afraid of change refusing to upgrade? Ha!
Keep up this shit and everyone will keep using 7 forever after 2020!! Gee why is Windows 10 adoption slow after the forced upgrades? Perhaps it's because of things like this that scare people.
People use PCs for work. ANY interrupted update IS UnACCEPTABLE PERIOD! Some feel getting malware once or twice a year is preferable with less downtime than getting hit once or twice a month scaringly
http://saveie6.com/
As far as I'm aware the difference is that with the retail version, Miscrosoft takes the view that it has to perform system maintenance (like updates) for you. As part of what you buy. Of course, in such a setting it makes no sense to allow the end-user to postpone updates or any other systems maintenance. Microsoft might get sued if it doesn't patch certain vulnerabilities in time, so it can't have end-users interfering with its maintenance work. That's a conscious decision on Microsoft's part.
With the corporate edition (as far as I'm aware) the IT department is in control, and IT (no pun intended) determines what when where and how updates will take place. Not you (the end user). Not Microsoft. The company IT department. Of course, the average IT department will honour requests that it should not interrupt ongoing work by users ... so it may offer them the standard option to delay updates (for at most 48 hours or so). Servers and such are under even tighter control by IT. Simply because most corporations will not accept anything less. Their interest in continuity of production is paramount and they have the means and the incentive to enforce their preferences. Most private customers don't.
What this illustrates is a shift from the classic "I own it so I control it" idea to the "you're buying a service from us and we'll license you our software to deliver it - just don't get any funny notions about ownership" idea.
It all depends on what packge you buy how you're treated. Buy a consumer grade package, get consumer grade treatment. You're lucky they don't display adds (yet) while updating and then require you to press a button every minute (or they'll stop the updating process until you do).
there are plenty of OS out there, not only Windows... more stable and user friendly than Microsoft
No. You're just using the wrong Personal Computer operating system.
Neither linux or OS X / MacOS will force you to update.
The more you support companies that abuse you, the more you will be abused. This is not rocket science, and if your job does not force you to use the Windows OS, you are not locked in to Microsoft, no matter what else makes you think you are. You can make a fresh start any time you like. linux is free. OS X comes with a dongle (you know, the one called "a computer.") Both make Windows looks like the garbage it is.
Or, you can continue being abused. The rest of us will just watch in amazement.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Windows users will put up with ANYTHING. They'll bitch and moan, but they'll never change anything. A small number will switch to Macs, which are expensive, but actually still behave like computers. As punishment, they'll have to deal with all the programs that are Windows only, of which there's usually one that just won't work right on a Mac to bother everyone. An even smaller number will switch to Linux, which can be a hassle, and has quite a few programs whose programmers are absolutely dedicated to the cause of preventing them from running on Linux.
But it is this absolute unwillingness to switch which has empowered Microsoft to be so shit in the first place. And of course, you CAN disable Windows updates if you are smart enough and desperate enough- even if you run out of ways (and Microsoft has nuked plenty of them), you can always block the bastards at the router. That escape hatch keeps enough of the top tier techies willing to put up with Windows on their personal machines.
Windows 10 is an absolute shitshow. And every Windows 10 user deserves every shitty minute.
When those viruses were running rampant, i was running Linux.. The only annoyance was the constant scans from machines infected with such malware that only served to waste my bandwidth.
Back then i could apply updates to anything but the kernel in the background, and then restarted the affected software at a time of my choosing. Same with the kernel, i could install the update in the background and reboot at my convenience to run the new kernel. Rebooting or restarting applications was quick because the actual update had already been applied so the system only had to boot the new version. If i decided to turn the machine off at night or for the weekend, then the updates would already have been installed so when i next booted it i would get the latest version of everything automatically.
I was able to strip out useless software from my machine, so the number and frequency of updates was reduced.
Nowadays you can even patch the kernel without rebooting...
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
DX12 is mostly just there to keep Microsoft from falling behind Vulkan, and maybe also for some of that tasty incompatibility that they love so much. Expecting Wine to keep pace with Windows- when Microsoft has money to fuck with that whole thing- is not very great.
Linux of course supports all the latest and greatest cards, if the dev can be arsed to actually develop for it. Meanwhile, you can't play any Linux native games in Windows at all. Come on Windows, what's taking so long!
That's kind of their problem, MS won't acknowledge that any competition exists... They do everything their own way, and others are forced to comply.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Hello,
I guess it was a slow day at CBS Interactive's CNet web site, or perhaps they are not very familiar with using Windows. This behavior can easily be disabled by a simple registry tweak. Here's a .REG file which does exactly that:
If you would rather script it using a .CMD file, that's easy enough, too. You can even do it in one line:
Or, for the PowerShell-inclined, here's a three-line version:
As always, you are responsible for your computer and should make a backup before making any changes to it.
Yes, Windows can be difficult to use at times, and the learning curve can be quite high. But these days that's pretty true of any operating system if you're coming to it for the first time. You can find the answers to a lot of questions by searching the web, and in case you can't (or you still have questions), you can go to a web site with an active Windows user forum like BleepingComputer. GeeksToGo, Neowin, Scot's Newsletter,Sysnative, WindowsForums or even Microsoft's own Microsoft Answers forum and someone will help you. Those are just a few off the top of my head, there are plenty of others, although you should probably avoid CBS Interactive's own CNet forums.
Regards
Aryeh Goretsky
Dexter is a good dog.
I think what it meant to say wasMicrosoft has begun "actively getting rid of ways that allow users to disable automatic updates",
And when I poked around Microsoft, the overarching message I received was that Microsoft has no interest in fixing it.
I am beginning to wonder is MSFT is actively trying to kill off the Windows platform. Certainly, none of their recent actions make me in any way doubt my choice to go nowhere near it for serious computing. They're either betting on something being a bigger revenue stream, such as a cloudy OS, or they're (by "they're" I mean the SatNad) incredibly stupid. Either way, their statement that Windows 10 will be the last Windows you will ever buy was probably very true for a significant number of people, organisations and public sector bodies.
Resistance is futile. Reactance buggers it up.
At the time it was Windows 10 Pro Insider Preview, so the top tier home/home-business version.
I wonder how RHEL and my local IT group can keep the workstation I use in working condition without asking to restart the workstation at all...
Microsoft might get sued if it doesn't patch certain vulnerabilities in time, so it can't have end-users interfering with its maintenance work.
[citation needed]
We have decades of history from Microsoft and the software industry as a whole and indeed product liability in general, has anyone ever been successfully sued for failing to enforce a patch, fix or recall on someone else's property after the user has been notified and has delayed, refused or ignored it? If I refuse to hand over my Samsung Note 7 it's not like Samsung can send a SWAT team to collect it. It's not like Ford can go impound cars that have ignored a recall. I can't think of any legal theory where Microsoft could be successfully sued because the user actively refuses to update.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Yes and thank god, viruses and trojans are a thing of the past. There are no ransomware trojans spreading like wildfire today, and people can merrily use their computers without antivirus, knowing that their operating system is impervious to any harm.
Right?
Thanks MS! For that security, we gladly throw away productivity!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
If you have the professional version windows will ask if you want to reboot and you can delay it and then keep delaying it for as long as you want. If I am in the middle of something I will normally tell it to delay for 4 hours and the system already does not check for updates at all during the normal working hours I set.
All of these issues I have run into are people using the home version for work. You can do this but it does come with drawbacks as a result.
Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD!
No dice, starting hour can not be later than earlier hour! It would not let me set it up this way. I could force the winodws update to a narrow window between midnitght and 3 AM.
It clearly shows how badly the managers and UI guys in Microsoft think. Why call it working hours? Allow me to specify update hours. Why just one block of time? Why can't you show me a check boxes in 3 hour blocks and let me pick a block to update?.
The will help people working at odd hours, working on split shifts, etc. I am sure the idea, suggestions and counter proposals came up. Still MS did it in this brain dead way because, it wants to balance the load on its servers. If it gives "too much" freedom everybody will choose 3AM to 6AM block and so to reduce the load on its servers, it deliberately decided to serve about 80% of the user base to reduce complaints.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
I cannot remember anyone asking for that. The closest any demand came to was to make an OS either update itself automatically or let the user take responsibility for its actions.
Either way, I highly doubt anyone thought that it's a good idea that an OS decides when it's time to shut down your PC forcefully.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Same, and it's annoying as all hell. With every Windows version it gets more and more convoluted to get things done, mostly because the OS keeps getting more and more complicated to work around.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I'm on Windows 10 and my computer hasn't reb
I was really hoping that Microsoft would realize their blunder, as they did with Vista and 8, but it looks like they aren't seeing it. I'm guessing maybe they have one more release before 7 is dead, but I'm no longer hopeful.
I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.
He went to an important event where he needed 100% up-time in a public place that he most doubtfully was on a 3rd party wireless network and he made no effort to make sure his computer was up to date before hand.
Have you actually used a computer? You seem to have reality entirely back-to-front.
Updating your OS or other key software just before an important event or deadline is the stupid move here. Once in a blue moon, there's a major vulnerability of the "instant remote pwnage" variety that might justify dropping everything and patching, but for the vast majority of updates, the risk of the update process going wrong, or the update breaking or changing something exceeds any risk from running unpatched. Auto update - even automatic checking for updates - became an abomination as soon as it was used for anything other than the highest-priority critical security updates. Update your software when it has a bug or vulnerability that affects you. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Patch during quiet periods.
If your "security policy" is causing downtime or data loss then you've got your risk assessment all screwed up.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
This technique stopped working after the Windows 10 Anniversary Update.
Gather the hours that the reboot cost you in time. Apply you standard consultant rate for your field. That's how much money the update is worth to you. Bill Microsoft or take them to small claims court. If they don't send a representative, they will lose. Then send them the requirement that they for the judgement. If enough people do this, then they will stop behaving this way. It's death by a million cuts. The time and effort it takes to deal with each tiny lawsuit against them for taking over your computer while you were using it will add up and that will get the attention of the business people.
Creative Spelling Copyright (2002). May use without Persimmons
And MS is new to this. They have released a version of their long awaited Windows, and being extra careful, they want to make sure that when 1-dot-oh hits the streets, and boots itself in your sleep, you will wake up and find your coffee and PC ready and waiting for you to start.
What do you mean it's TEN? Oh, wait...
(Head quietly explodes)
WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
Forced outside of work? That's... interesting. I wonder who is forcing you? Perhaps you should call the authorities.
This may help:
1: Parallels or VWWare or some other similar solution
2: Once Windows is installed in the VM, turn off the VM's network access, or use a firewall to prevent it from getting to Microsoft unless you say "ok". One such product (for the Mac, at least) is "Little Snitch"; when (whatever) tries to get to (wherever) you can catch it in a dialog and say yes or no or allow till reboot or forever, etc., while choosing "all connections" or "only this connection". It's very useful to control wayward software. Like Windows.
And if you want to let Windows out of its cage, you can, and you can still do real work on the Mac, as it's not crippled by whatever Windows malfuckery is going on in the VM.
Well, if it makes you feel any better, the reason I'm smug is because I have this all handled. I never let Windows out of its little sandbox, since it isn't housebroken. :)
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
From a personal point of view, I think automatic updates are all well and good. If it keeps the teeming masses of non-tech people up to date on their software patches, I think that reduces the risks for us all, kind of like vaccinations.
What we do need, however, is better control over it.
For instance, I note that I can set "active hours" on windows update that it won't do updates from such to such time. This is good, in theory, but it isn't flexible enough, because it has a hard limit of a 12h span. As someone who works and plays on the same machine, I don't want updates happening while I'm awake. If they happen overnight, great. But from 0500 to 2200 I don't want updates applied. A 7h update window overnight when I've specified it can update should be more than long enough.
One thing that I think would help a lot is if people could set a date AND time for updates to be applied that is a bit less often than once a week. Say, every other week or even once a month. Like the old "patch Tuesday", except with everyone picking their own day. It would be even better if people could set the time on that day. Then they would know exactly when it is going to be updated, and likely restarted. Bonus points if other software, such as browsers, office suites, etc, could recognize this setting and they all do their updates together. The key here is control.
As a side note, I have heard that some versions of windows have a "Delayed update pattern" where only security updates get pushed out immediately, and all non-security updates are delayed by a month. So stuff adding new features and miscellaneous updates are delayed, presumably to give them a chance to be tested and bug-fix. I'm guessing this is probably an enterprise feature, but it should be on Pro too.
I'm all for everyone being forced to get security updates, but the users need a lot more control over when those updates happen, and ways to ensure that it absolutely does not happen when we need them to work.
Z
These all run games too
Twinstiq, game news
Unless the contributor is just noticing this now, this issue has been there since Windows 10 was out. What took him so long to condemn it?
Initially, this would happen every day when Windows 10 was just out. I had that issue at the time: I was in insurance sales at the time and had an application that would have the forms of people that would be missing one detail or another. It depended on remaining open and updated the next day, but Windows 10 would do a reset and I'd lose the application. Happened on a few, much to my chagrin.
However, since then, Windows has given the opportunity to decide when to reboot, and one can do that in the settings. If this CNET editor is just noticing this now, he's at least a year late.
My iPhone downloaded an update to the iOS in the background and sucked down all the data in my plan in the first week of the month without notifying me.
That is worse than the microsoft os, because I am bandwidth limited, and the impact is strongly financial. Microsoft can kill a meeting, which is an hour, but this iPhone and AT&T killed the utility of the device for at least the next 2 weeks.
That sucked.
no text
Everyone who was tired of getting slammed with the BLASTER worm, with Nimda, or with the Melissa virus, requested that Windows be more secure. Everyone who fell victim to a buffer overflow, or privilege escalation DEMANDED that it be mitigated. Companies who had windows systems connected to the internet ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED that the propagation of worms not be allowed to continue.
Cool story, Bro!
I'm sorry you don't enjoy working with a computer anymore. Did you enjoy it when those above mentioned viruses were running rampant? Which would you rather have, constant attacks from internet zombies, or a small time of inactivity while your OS is being patched?
I enjoy using a computer very much. But my OSX and Linux computers don't seem to have the same problems my Windows machines have. You've just had those problems for so long that you've become acclimated to them, expect them, and have suffered Stockholm syndrome.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Ubuntu only requests reboots if the kernel changes, and that's rare.
In my experience, Ubuntu's kernel changes at least as often as Patch Tuesday.
Are you running Windows 10 Home? If so, then please tell us how you disabled updates for 6 months. I'm sure a lot of people here would really like to know.
RETURN without GOSUB in line 1050
I've had the opposite experience with Windows 10 updates. I might check the update control before heading home for the day and it'll saying something like "An update is scheduled for 3:00 am tomorrow". I'll finish whatever I'm doing and leave. When I come in the next morning I'm expecting an updated system, but no. It's in the exact same state I left it in. Even the window saying that it'll update at 3:00 am tomorrow.
Except switching operating systems shuts down all background services. You can't keep, say, music or group chat going during a reboot, especially because Windows games want to run on a copy of Windows installed on bare metal rather than in VirtualBox. And how does one sync browser tabs between operating systems in a dual boot configuration, including form contents that have been entered but not yet submitted?
The same professor in a world where Microsoft doesn't force updates: "Microsoft's continued refusal to automatically update users computers has put the entire industry at risk from hackers and viruses! Users are clueless drones who don't know to keep their computers updated and Microsoft should do it for them!"
I thought that Mac users were the clueless noobs, and Windows users were smart consumers, making th ecorrect decision on what computer to buy after performing research.
Yet we on MacOS and Linux choose when to make the update. And despite Windows zealot protests, there are enough Unix and Unix-like machines out there to provide a fine attack surface.
Because there is another issue at play here.
Possibly the biggest reason people avoid Windows updates is not because they want to make their machine unsafe, or even the inconvenience. It's that the damn machine often does not work properly after the update. Software that worked perfectly one day, doesn't work at all the next. And this is for little updates, not major ones. In addition, settings are often changed - always go in to visit your telemetry settings in W10 after an update.
Somehow, my other machines are not gifted with that. Which is why my Linux and MacOS machines voluntarily get updated a week after the notices appear. When I could control my Windows updates, I'd wait a couple months at the least, so they could roll back or alter whatever it was that they bitched up. Now W10 updates are like Redmond Roulette.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
This alone is why I will not recommend Windows for any home user anymore. I tell them look any mainline Linux distribution is pretty easy now but if you really want your hand held and feel you have to have support for third party products or just want something familiar buy a Mac.
The first job of the Operating system is to manage data, job number two is to manage processes. If you are rebooting without the users authorization on an indeterminate schedule you are doing neither. I do have a windows VM for testing stuff at work and I have gone to lunch only to find its restated when I got back. Holy crap I lost all the stuff I had open, my background job I wanted finished when I returned did not complete and had to be run again while I was their (huge productivity killer!) and some stuff that keeps work files comes back up and has to do recovery or just loses data because the apps did not get shut down property. Fail Fail Fail!
Seriously this concept is fundamentally and completely BROKEN! If I wanted automatic updates and reboots there is a bloody task scheduler for that, and I as the user can configure that with the understanding of when it will happen. I buy the M$ has to patch or they'd get sued argument either, the first time someone uses one of these versions of windows (outside the license scope or not) to control some dangerous process they are going to get sued eight ways from Sunday. Probably won't get any further in court than a nonsense claim by some asshole that its M$ fault (s)he was hacked when updates had not been installed in three years would get.
Even OSX tries to auto update out of the box but at least you can easily configure it so it won't reboot on its own.
Lets not for get the last issue, lots and lots of people have data caps, some of them are quite low in the 30-60 range for people on Satelite etc. Its entirely reasonably someone might want to push a gig or so of updates into another billing cycle. So even auto download should be at least easily disabled via the UI. Windows SUCKS!
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Of course, in such a setting it makes no sense to allow the end-user to postpone updates or any other systems maintenance.
How exactly is this 'of course'? That's the whole point of this article: plenty of people strongly disagree. I should be able to update my computer when I want or even not at all. If this creates a security nightmare for the rest of the internet, the first defense is to not sell vulnerable software in the first place.
Your suggestion that Microsoft could sued for -not- forcing updates is just talking out your ass. As another poster said there is no precedent for that.
BS!
If anyone from MS is reading these comments let me give the parent poster and my opinion on this. Since you feel you need to make Windows a cell phone and cell phones automatically receive updates, I say to hell with the update due to using the wrong implementation!
I own a Google phone. A nexus 6P which ALWAYS gets updates! Do I loose calls? No. Does my phone ever randomly restart? No. Does it get malware? No.
The problem is that since most of the world uses Windows phones, there are more viruses and malware written for Windows phones.
oh........wait.......
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
All Linux native games on Steam are also available for Windows. Valve requires it. To which games were you referring?
There are times that users just can't have resource grabbing happen, such as 3D printing. The latency from even checking for updates, can ruin a studio recording. Windows 10 rebooting options are poorly thought out. What if you cannot have your computer reboot anytime in the near future?
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
You describe what Microsoft refers to as a "mixed binary" situation. On X11/Linux, unless there have been updates to Linux proper or things with "bus" in the name (dbus or ibus), logging out of your X session and back in usually fixes mixed binary.
If you need your Windows 10 computer to not update for a period of time, you may have to log in to your router and blacklist all Microsoft sites. When you are done work, you can log in again and allow your network to reach them again.
In which build number was the ability to delay downloading a multi-gigabyte update until a particular hour introduced? That's what users of satellite Internet are looking for, because satellite ISPs count early morning downloads differently against the subscriber's monthly download quota from downloads at any other time.
I was thinking along these ( http://www.steptoe.com/publica... ) lines. If companies can incur liability for not applying patches in a timely manner, then Microsoft can conceivably incur liability for not providing them. That was in 2003.
Microsoft have been actively considering the issue. Even if their legal department is doing a good job of keeping would-be plaintiffs at arms length. See also here: (https://www.ft.com/content/4569a00e-c272-11e4-ad89-00144feab7de) [note: paywall].
I am not a lawyer of course, but I have a lively interest in many things legal ... especially insofar as they pertain to liability.
If I were in Microsoft's position, I'd probably listen to legal counsel as they advised me to minimise my exposure to potential claims, simply by showing due dilligence in providing patches. Regardless of the quality of the underlying software and the quality of the patches, being able to show due dilligence to a jury will make it that much more difficult for any claimant to strike paydirt. Plus it's good to keep control over your product. If you can do maintenance, you can do telemetry.You never know when it comes in handy.
So, non-consensual windows updates are more like BDSM without a safeword.
Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
Microsoft is no competition for anyone.
Who needs them ? The OS is not supposed to be important, the software is.
With W10 taking over, I got rid of my last Window Pro system to replace it with a Linux (openrc).
If a senior wants a computer for surfing the web, I find the mac mini adequate although I replace the mail and the browser by thunderbird and firefox. They don't work against the user and it makes it easy to switch to any other OS for the user.
For anybody else, a Linux covers office, development, games (Steam), ...
My only regret is are a few games that are still Windows only and not working on Wine (yet). But that's an acceptable price.
Irrelevant news and morons using moderation to mod down what they disagree on. 2018 resolution: so long.
I sense an excluded middle in your argument. It's entirely possible to address the security problems without this insane updating scheme.
It's not quite so bad. Microsoft defers update control to a technical authority who is skilled enough to make decisions about updating in Microsoft's stead. In the case of the Enterprise version of Windows, it's the IT department. In the case of the retail version of Windows, it's anyone technically skilled enough to know you can just disable the Windows Update service to stop the forced updates.
I'm uncomfortable with forcing less skilled users to get updates, but given the number of Windows exploits and vulnerabilities (and botnets) out there, I'm inclined to agree that it's probably better this way.
My real gripe is taking away control over which updates get installed. I've already encountered a situation where a particular update broke my 3D graphics, but I wasn't able to avoid it because it kept getting reinstalled as part of the bundle of Windows updates. For about three months, I had to waste time reinstalling my laptop vendor-provided video drivers after each update, until Intel finally sent Microsoft a new graphics driver update which fixed their bug.
Everyone who was tired of getting slammed with the BLASTER worm, with Nimda, or with the Melissa virus, requested that Windows be more secure. Everyone who fell victim to a buffer overflow, or privilege escalation DEMANDED that it be mitigated. Companies who had windows systems connected to the internet ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED that the propagation of worms not be allowed to continue.
I'm sorry you don't enjoy working with a computer anymore. Did you enjoy it when those above mentioned viruses were running rampant? Which would you rather have, constant attacks from internet zombies, or a small time of inactivity while your OS is being patched?
The stuff you're mentioning was 15+ years ago. That was before Windows 10, before Windows 8, before Windows 7, before Windows Vista. Those were early Windows XP viruses (before Microsoft bothered including a firewall in SP 2.) Hell, Melissa was a 95/98 virus.
Yes, that was a real shitshow back in the early '00s, when systems were getting owned by the millions even if they were just left there idle there with an internet connection, and a few times they were used to launch attacks that brought huge sections of the internet to a crawl.
What the hell does any of that have to do with Windows 10 again? Are things still that bad? Did you just awaken from a coma[1] ?Given 15 years to work on the problem, could the engineers at Microsoft think of no other way to avoid similar incidents of catastrophic ownage moving forward?
1. If so, you're in for some real treats...
Microsoft escaladed the patch war against the end users, because most users do not care about updates and will click forever the later checkbox to skip the updates, for days, weeks, month.
So what? If users don't want to update, they shouldn't be forced to update.
If a render is going to take hours or days to complete, why wouldn't you check to make sure the system doesn't want an update first?
Actually, better solution: just unhook it from the network. It's going to be busy, you wouldn't want to browse on it anyway. If it's not going to do anything with the internet for days, why give it the chance to try?
I haven't bothered to deal with Windows 10 yet, but can't you just disable the windows update service
till you need it?
Put the following script in your /etc/cron.hourly directory.
#!/bin/sh
sleep $RANDOM
test $RANDOM -lt 200 && reboot
telling the average user to edit the registry. my sides, you are a totally autistic geek aren't you?
Linux has its flaws also, but it depends on the outward facing software. Apache, PHP, SQL, you name it, they have remote exploits that pop up from time to time. For most users not running any servers, it's totally fine unless you have a Web browser exploit...
It isn't that exploits don't exist for other OS'. Its just that Windows is the king of vulnerable operating systems. And their BOHICA update process even emulates some of them.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Yeah and the CNet Site has that infernal AutoPlay on ...
What is the difference between their Site and WinDOS 10 ?
-- kjh
Exactly. It's pure masochism, and people are willing to pay for it, so why not...
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
How did this childish rant get moderated 'insightful'?
What is childish is to assume that an angry tone in any way affects the validity of the point. Do you honestly believe the OP's assertion that the damage done 15+ year old Windows XP viruses (pre-SP 2! Windows didn't even come with a firewall back then!) justifies removing all end user control from the update process?
Cost of Linux: $0!
Problem solved, zero cash flow.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
The problem is that Windows 10 overrides those settings lately. I have a singular machine that runs Windows 10 in our network which is set to automatically update outside of business hours, enforced by group policies, no user is an admin, users are set not to be notified and per Microsoft, we also needed the latest WSUS incarnation to schedule updates so yes, we are running a Windows Server to make sure the only Windows machine on our network is not auto-updating.
Just last week: Pop-up over a full-screen window: "Updates are ready to install now, your machine will reboot in 60.. 59.. 58.."
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Any Linux native game can NOT be played under Windows, under any circumstance. The only reason Windows users don't care about this is that effectively EVERY game gets a Windows version. That's my point- if you wanted to play the Linux version of an intense 3D game on Windows, you are shit outta luck. WINE is a long term push to be able to run Windows games on Linux- the Windows solution is to hope that there's NEVER EVER EVEN ONE that exists on Linux but not Windows. That's my point, and that's absurd. What a ludicrous monopoly.
First, install uMatrix in Firefox which will, under certain conditions, disallow a web page to load if it determines there is something malicious or off about the page. It is not foolproof, but it's a good line of defense.
Anyone interested in uMatrix should start with uBlock Origins if they haven't already. The former can do more fine-grained blocking but the latter is easier to use and although there is some overlap, it does some important things that uMatrix doesn't (particularly the "graylist" option, instead of just whitelist/blacklist.) You can subscribe to the same security blocklists that you can with uMatrix, in addition to using the same adblocking lists that ABP uses.
It's worth noting that with uBlock Origins (and uMatrix too? I still haven't gotten around to tinkering with it) doesn't silently deny page loads if it thinks it's a security risk. Instead, it very helpfully presents a full-page dialog telling you that the page is currently blocked and giving you the option to temporarily (or permanently) unblock the page with just a click or two.
Last it gives me amonth before it even offers a schedule to update. After 3 months it installs when I reboot my phone.
So what you're saying is your phone is still exploitable by all the current bugs and a major security risk. Users don't install updates until they are forced. Got it. Cheers.
Of course all operating system have their own problems. As a user of all three operating systems, I can quote you chapter and verse. Yanking the computer right out from under you while you're working without giving you any choice in the matter, however, is as far as I know, a unique vacation benefit of Windows.
Having said that all operating systems have their problems, OS X is the one that has gotten in my way the least -- and I'm not just a user, I'm also a developer that writes code for all three platforms. If I was to try to come up with an irritation score, OS X would absolutely come away with definitely the lowest, and Windows definitely with the highest, leaving linux cleanly in the middle.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Whats the use in crying? MS isn't going to change what its doing unless they are forced too and no ones suing. Sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me lol and IMO the only update that needs to be forced are security updates everything else can wait IMO.
Jack of all trades,master of none
My main machines have been Linux for years. I do have one Win 8.1 machine for TurboTax but that's all. I've been running Linux Mint for the past 6 years. Before that Suse. I'll NEVER get a Windows 10 machine ever. Windows is such a PITA it's not even funny.
I wonder if you're running a retail version of MS Windows or a corporate one.
So the first thing you thought of instead merely assuming that the poster had a valid point was that he/she was guilty of something. Let me retort: it's happened to me at 8:15 am as I was on a corporate laptop while was in the middle of Skype conference call with coworkers. My computer decided to install an update and immediately restarted my machine instead of asking.
But for the sake of argument, the poster didn't have the corporate version of Windows, how does that make his complaint less valid. If I bought Windows, it should do what I want, not what it wants.
With the corporate edition (as far as I'm aware) the IT department is in control, and IT (no pun intended) determines what when where and how updates will take place. Not you (the end user). Not Microsoft. The company IT department. Of course, the average IT department will honour requests that it should not interrupt ongoing work by users ... so it may offer them the standard option to delay updates (for at most 48 hours or so).
No that's not entirely correct. While IT can create rollout policies such that updates are rolled out at a particular time, that would cause havoc with hundreds/thousands of users in a corporate network. Normally, what happens is IT merely allows certain updates to go through after they've been vetted. Some IT departments do not want to micromanage updates in this fashion.
It all depends on what packge you buy how you're treated. Buy a consumer grade package, get consumer grade treatment. You're lucky they don't display adds (yet) while updating and then require you to press a button every minute (or they'll stop the updating process until you do).
So you're saying that "buying" consumer versions means you get less rights than a corporate version. I don't (and many would agree) think that when I choose to update should not be a "feature" that I can only get if I get the more expensive version of Windows.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Yes considering the number of Windows updates this year that broke something ie internet, patching with the latest patch is something sane Windows admins stopped doing decades ago.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Why do you care if someone decides to take the risks that come with forgoing updates?
If you didn't want it you shouldn't have been that teasing with all that mouse movement and key strokes...
the Windows solution is to hope that there's NEVER EVER EVEN ONE that exists on Linux but not Windows.
For a broad definition of "Linux-based system", there are plenty of Android apps that aren't ported to Windows.
I've seen "of course" rogered in any number of ways that are NSFW, but this takes the cake.
Because it wouldn't solve the problem. There is two possible outcomes for this. Either, software companies set up shell companies that go poof the moment some sizable liabilities start to hit or software prices go through the roof with a handful of makers surviving the fallout.
And in the end, nothing will change. Because nearly all contemporary infections are due to people disabling any and all security for the promise of dancing pigs.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
"Non-Consensual" - reminds me of some important topic I had to research....
If it's working on a task it'll be doing for days, won't it be slow as dogshit? Anyway if you can't yank the cable you can still prepare by checking for an update, and changing the schedule in advance. If you're doing something like that regularly, you probably have a UPS that cost at least a few hundred dollars. (I hope you do, anyway.) If you're willing to drop that to protect your work from the unexpected, twiddling some settings to protect it from the mundane should not be an issue.
Pleased to be of service in helping to bring you up to speed with modern thinking on the proper relationship between copyright owner and license purchaser.
You might be a bit behind the times on the vasselage ceremony of course. There's no vasselage ceremony anymore, except perhaps for really major accounts. The last one being the one with IBM on November 6, 1980 (see e.g. http://thisdayintechhistory.co... )
That has all been superseded by the EULA. Rollout of a new EULA remains an impressive ceremony though. Sometimes even a Vice President attends. In rare cases a Senior Vice President.
The vasselage ceremony you're yearning for has been superseded by a button-click. Sorry.
Perhaps Microsoft will, on request, organise mass vasselage ceremonies across the country. You may petition them for it (after crossing their palm with silver).
That's fine, the main crafted experience games offer are still fun, and indies have a place on consoles so amateur productions are still possible.
The difference is that on PC, many game publishers offer tools to let amateurs build on top of an existing game. Several games are known for having fan-made expansion packs dramatically increase their replay value, such as Half-Life, Neverwinter Nights, and Skyrim. Without Half-Life, there'd be no Counter-Strike, and without Warcraft III, there'd be no DotA. But with the self-contained nature of iOS and game consoles, each indie game has to be created completely from scratch. There's no (legitimate) concept of "game as platform", no stepping stone from modding an existing game to a start-to-finish original production.
And I'm aware that startups have recently become welcome on consoles after years of being turned away. But that still doesn't mean a devkit or a set of objectionability classifications from ESRB, PEGI, and CERO is affordable to true amateurs, those who aren't (at least yet) seeking to make a profit.
Excuse me, but your grammar is improper for Bizarro World ,where you are apparently posting from.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Ever done an important computer presentation? The correct thing to do is to run through it completely beforehand, then lock everything down so nothing changes, since any change could make something fail at the worst possible time. The incorrect thing to do is to run it through completely, and do an inadequately described OS update, or to run that update when there isn't enough time or other resources to fix anything it borked.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Set your wired router to block the IP addresses used by the update servers. What? You don't have a wired router?
Maybe could set it in the firewall... 8-)
As far as the ad hominen, I'm a highly competent, experienced computer scientist with several decades of experience working in not only critical infrastructure systems but presentations as well.
Making sure your computer is up to date prior to an important event is not a "stupid move". Your same ignorant strawman argument could be used against taking vaccinations before traveling overseas but I doubt you'd risk your life or long term health on such moronic logic.
Regardless of context, you have the choice of doing something now that has a slim chance of going wrong and cause a problem that can be fixed before an important or risky event you know will occur, or ignore the issue and hope nothing will happen later with the chance of having a big problem when it really matters and no time to fix.
Anyone choosing the later is a short-sighted fool that deserves the consequences.
Many very important computer-based presentations in my life. Contrary to what you say, the correct thing to do is to make sure you have as stable a platform as possible (and a backup). An unpatched system is not considered stable by any measure of the word. If you are worried about upgrading a computer, you're doing something wrong or not covering your bases properly.
People who hate updates are either running on hardware that have unresolved (or unknown if an incompetent user) issues, no regular backups or too slim a budget (time or money) to do their job properly. Or perhaps all three.
I entirely agree.
All systems are unpatched, relative to the state when the next update comes out. A stable system doesn't automagically become unstable when the next patch comes out. Heck, if you don't know if a more recent update is out, then, by your criteria, you can't know if your system is stable.
Or you may have had an update break something. It's happened before and it'll happen again. Lots of people have had problems after "upgrading" to W10, for example, and smaller updates aren't safe either. If using Microsoft Windows means you're doing something wrong, then you're correct, but not otherwise.
If a competent user is one who knows all issues his or her hardware has, then we're all incompetent. When was the last time you checked the capacitors in your system? Fully tested the hard drive? Validated the CPU?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes