Slashdot Mirror
Windows 10 Buggy Updates? Our Patching is Simple, Regular, and Consistent, Says Microsoft (zdnet.com)
Microsoft has declined to comment on an expert's many complaints about the quality of its recent patches and cadence of Windows 10 feature updates. Earlier, Susan Bradley, a Microsoft MVP who for the past 18 years has volunteered her time helping Windows users, took a survey of over 1,800 respondents regarding the Windows 10 Update experience. She then sent an open letter to Microsoft executives summarizing the results of this survey and providing thoroughly researched material regarding the poor update experience Windows 10 users have been experiencing. In return, Microsoft argued in a blog that it gives admins all the tools they need to test and provide feedback before it releases Patch Tuesday updates. From a report: Microsoft's John Wilcox, who helps promote why organizations should move to Windows 10's Windows-as-a-service model has, at the behest of Windows pros, offered an explanation of its monthly Windows 10 quality update servicing cadence and terminology.
As noted by ZDNet's Ed Bott recently, IT admins who'd spent years learning about Windows Update needed to "prepare to do some unlearning" due to the many changes introduced by Microsoft's shift to a Windows 10-as-a-service model. "With Windows 10, Microsoft has completely rewritten the Windows Update rulebook. For expert users and IT pros accustomed to having fine-grained control over the update process, these changes might seem wrenching and even draconian," he noted. [...]
Wilcox outlines that Microsoft's guiding principles to its monthly Windows service updates are built around being "simple and predictable", "agile", and "transparent." Wilcox doesn't directly address patching expert Bradley's major complaints about Microsoft's patches of late, but said Microsoft's predictability meant IT managers should be able to handle its "simple, regular and consistent patching cadence."
As noted by ZDNet's Ed Bott recently, IT admins who'd spent years learning about Windows Update needed to "prepare to do some unlearning" due to the many changes introduced by Microsoft's shift to a Windows 10-as-a-service model. "With Windows 10, Microsoft has completely rewritten the Windows Update rulebook. For expert users and IT pros accustomed to having fine-grained control over the update process, these changes might seem wrenching and even draconian," he noted. [...]
Wilcox outlines that Microsoft's guiding principles to its monthly Windows service updates are built around being "simple and predictable", "agile", and "transparent." Wilcox doesn't directly address patching expert Bradley's major complaints about Microsoft's patches of late, but said Microsoft's predictability meant IT managers should be able to handle its "simple, regular and consistent patching cadence."
And then it is already to late.
I notice "Reliable" is not in there. Please add that one in, too, Microsoft.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
...."all your IT belong to us."
Seriously, that is just the type of new-speak jargon for "we don't care about you, only your sweet, sweet dollars now that we've gotten you locked in, heh, heh, heh...".
ANYONE still using Windows 10 is getting exactly what they deserve.
Microsoft should separate out the operating system, the applications, libraries and the user data a lot more and then with proper security measures and filesystem snapshots the operating system could be a lot better, easier to manage and easier to rollback.
If something goes wrong on Linux or BSD I do an apt-get or pkg install with a specific version. With a ZFS boot volume, I snapshot before and after any major updates, something goes wrong it literally takes seconds to repair. On Windows, you can't roll much of anything back without destroying the OS.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
How proprietors use their power over the user power varies and perhaps increasingly obtuse, but is completely explainable in terms corporate media mostly doesn't dare to explain even as it documents a proprietors' excesses: the power is firmly rooted in denying users software freedom—the freedom to run, inspect, modify, and share published computer software. Proprietary software users get as much control as the proprietors let them have. Microsoft has shown its users a taste of their power before such as when Windows 10 ignored user's privacy settings (including sending identifiable information to Microsoft, even if a user turns off its Bing search and Cortana features, and activates the privacy-protection settings) or when Microsoft forcibly and immediately imposed "upgrades" to Windows 10.
DRM, jailing, tyrannical control, surveillance, interference with ordinary activities, and sabotage are all there. When and if Microsoft deems it time for Windows users to take their updates without warning or opportunity for delay (including enterprise users), Microsoft will do so. This isn't unique to Microsoft either, this is part of an ongoing pattern of which Microsoft is but one proprietor wielding this control. Proprietors get to make these decisions stick based on your willingness to submit to their authority; you determine the limit of their control over your system by how long you'll let proprietary software (such as most of Microsoft's software) be installed on your computer. You can choose to favor software freedom instead, even if it means giving up some conveniences and learning new things. In doing so you take a step in the direction of controlling your computer and getting back the power you deserve over your computer.
Digital Citizen
Microsoft made a very smart decision, which was exactly the right thing to do at the time. Then the world changed and what had been a good decision became a huge problem. Not because Microsoft was dumb, but because of a fundamental change in computing.
> It's also had proper security measures for ages (UAC is basically Sudo)
Yes, it is basically sudo, which was considered proper security ... in the 1970s. Windows has had it for ten years, so only 30 years behind. That model is called discretionary access control, or DAC.
In the 1970s and 1980s, very secure systems had a much more secure model, called mandatory access control. That's more security than needed for a personal home computer which runs from a local disk, as opposed to a mainframe exposed on a network. A personal home computer only needed to be worried about virsuses on disks, because they used Disk Operating System, not a network operating system such as Unix.
Then the world wide web happened. What had been your personal home computer was suddenly exposed to hackers around the world. The level of security needed, the way one thinks about security, had to change radically. That's why Linux got Mandatory Access Control in the 1990s, first as an optional module, then as a built-in part of the kernel, called SELinux. Since the late 1990s, MAC has been "proper security". Windows may get it in about ten more years - they recently got the *nix userland.
I said Microsoft ended up in this situation by doing something smart. In the 1970s, computers cost as much as a house (particularly with important accessories like hard drives). Microsoft wanted a system people could run at home, on affordable hardware. That meant a few kilobytes of memory, and a 360KB drive. A drive that can store 360KB isn't much. To make that work, Microsoft would have to delete 80% of the OS compared to mainframes. It made perfect sense to delete stuff home users wouldn't have any need for. Before the web, they had no need for any of that security stuff, so Microsoft didn't include any in their OS.
Microsoft spent 190-1994 (and a billion dollars) developing a new future of computing. The key underlying technology was called COM. Their vision of the future was finally ready for beta testing when it got it's name, Windows 95. But something crazy happened. In 1995, the world wide web became a phenomenon. There was a whole new future of computing completely different from what Microsoft had spent years developing. At first they tried to stop the web, then tried to turn it into a bunch of COM programs (by renaming COM to ActiveX) which would run only in Internet Explorer. That didn't work, of course. HTML was too good of an idea to be stopped.
Microsoft starting fighting. Trying to save their vision of computing. Mobile showed up and Microsoft tried, but missed. Tried again and missed. They fought against Linux, they fought against the open internet, and they fought against the government potentially breaking the company into pieces. They fought for 20 years and in all this fighting they didn't accept the reality, the new needs, and build a solid, secure operating system - they improved some things, but didn't catch up on security. Remember they started off about 30 years behind on security, which was actually the smart thing to do at the time.
A few years ago Microsoft leadership really accepted they had lost the fight. They have started embracing Linux and open source. They now know they and their systems are just one more player in a huge global network - one full of dangers. It takes a few years to reverse the culture all through a behemoth the size of Microsoft, so pockets of old-school Gates and Balmer-style thinking remain. They are improving on many fronts.
Of course their new thing is Windows as a service, paid for in part through the Facebook model of giving up all your privacy and control. We'll see how that works out. Facebook is an enormously successful company, so maybe the same model will work for Microsoft.
All I am seeing is a lot of MS hate. But consider this. They have been doing their "patch Tuesday" stuff for a long time. Most times it works flawlessly, and no one even notices. When in a couple of cases PC's have problems... well that is what everyone remembers, and they label ALL of MS's updates as fucking useless. I would also like to point out that if you work in a company that has competent engineers they will test the updates on a series of test PC's before rolling it out to the rest of the corporation. Yes, they can do that MS has given them the tools, but lazy fucking engineers don't bother, so they end up causing widespread issues before they realize that update xyz is not compatible with us because we use hardware abc. Whose fault is that? MS? sure, because they released the update, but crashing all the PC's in a company, well, that's the fucking companies engineers fault for not properly testing first. There is a LOT of disparate hardware out there, the fact that windows update works for most people most of the time is fucking amazing, if you can't see that then all you want to do is hate MS. If you hate MS so much why are you even using windows?
There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.