These bets are familiar ones: [...] a constantly updated version of Windows [...]
Microsoft really thinks that the constant updating of Windows is a desirable feature? I disagree -- that "feature" is one of the top three reasons why I despise Windows 10.
In either case, everything is still using the old, vulnerable kernel.
I forgot to answer this: you are correct. If the kernel update resolves a vulnerability that is important to you, then you should either use a live kernel update method or reboot in order to start using the new kernel. Which you'd want to do anyway! The point is that the system itself doesn't require you to reboot until you're good and ready.
No, the mixed binary issue was resolved quite a long time ago. You can have many different versions of the libraries installed simultaneously. Applications can use a very specific one if they want. If they use the "default" one (always the latest version), there still isn't a problem, as the links to the default binaries are not updated to use the new ones until a reboot (or, in the case of updating a live kernel, where no reboot is required, when the update completes.)
Having worked for a couple of major consumer security software firms, I can tell you that my experience is that you're half right.
The developers have every intention of allowing you to remove the software. However, once installed, uninstalling such software is technically challenging on a number of levels. Not just because the software must put tendrils deep into sensitive parts of the OS, making removal difficult when done on a system in an unknown state, but also from a project management perspective. There's a lot of tendrils, and it's really easy for a change to get lost so that the uninstaller does not get updated. And so on.
From management's perspective, there is also no overt intention to prevent people from removing the software. However, there certainly is an awareness that if people can't figure out how to get rid of it, a certain percentage will pay for updates just to make the nagging stop. This means that things like fixing buggy uninstallers or making it clear how to uninstall the software is not something that will necessarily get prioritized if there's anything else about the product that needs attention instead. And there almost alway is.
Personally, I find incognito mode too inconvenient for common use. There are some cookies that I want to be maintained, and it's too error-prone to have to switch modes back and forth. It's much safe and easier to tell the browser which cookies I want and which ones I don't.
You misunderstood my remark. I was not saying that the need for updates is because of poor design. I'm saying that the need to reboot the machine as part of the update process is poor design. Always.
Linux does require a reboot when updating the kernel, and that too is the result of poor design.
While it certainly happens, and apparently is becoming more common, that still sounds like a bit of an exaggeration. Nobody in any kind of official capacity has even demanded a Facebook identity from me. I've been asked for it as optional information twice now, but did not opt to provide it. Of course, I have no FB account at all, but I've not even volunteered that much information, so I don't know what effect that would have had.
In my experience, many Linux users are (unwittingly?) betting on known vulnerabilities not being exploited due to Linux having a lower profile and its users having better than average safe computing practices.
There's a certain truth to this. I have met a type of Linux user who I'd call "knowing just enough to be dangerous". They've heard that Linux is secure, and so put the entire topic out of their mind, figuring they're OK just because of their choice of operating system. They've never learned the basic rule of security: you can't make anything secure in an absolute sense, you can just make attacks more expensive. Feeling like you're safe makes you less safe.
My first impression was that it was much more stable and usable than in the past
You'll hear opinions going both ways on this. I think this is indicative that any stability difference between 10 and Windows 7 is negligible. They're both actually very stable operating systems. I think some people may have experienced stability changes because they also changed drivers, but mostly I think it's people experiencing what they expect to experience.
As to stability compared to Linux, my personal experience is that Linux is noticeably more stable.
What's the point? I can predict what almost all of those agreements say: "we're going to collect anything we wish, and use that information pretty much any way we wish, and we can change this agreement at any time of we want to."
If your requirement is that you want to keep using Windows software that you're currently using, and all Windows games, flawlessly in all circumstances then my strong (and rather obvious) recommendation is to stay with Windows.
But that in no way means that it's not possible to escape from Windows without losing functionality. It just takes time and effort, as it does any time you change operating systems. That time and effort may not be worth it to you, and that's fair. It's a personal call.
BTW, I'm not talking about business use. Businesses have options to mitigate this update problem while staying with Windows 10 (albeit they aren't cheap).
In what world is it considered a sane design decision that it is possible for guests to be locked in a hotel room? It seems like the sort of thing that should be a fire code violation at least.
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.
Slashdot Mirror
You also have to add a few third-party applications to fix the rest of the stuff that Microsoft broke, such as the Start menu.
Microsoft really thinks that the constant updating of Windows is a desirable feature? I disagree -- that "feature" is one of the top three reasons why I despise Windows 10.
"Hero Experiences"??
That's the best laugh I've had this week! Thanks, Microsoft!
In either case, everything is still using the old, vulnerable kernel.
I forgot to answer this: you are correct. If the kernel update resolves a vulnerability that is important to you, then you should either use a live kernel update method or reboot in order to start using the new kernel. Which you'd want to do anyway! The point is that the system itself doesn't require you to reboot until you're good and ready.
No, the mixed binary issue was resolved quite a long time ago. You can have many different versions of the libraries installed simultaneously. Applications can use a very specific one if they want. If they use the "default" one (always the latest version), there still isn't a problem, as the links to the default binaries are not updated to use the new ones until a reboot (or, in the case of updating a live kernel, where no reboot is required, when the update completes.)
Having worked for a couple of major consumer security software firms, I can tell you that my experience is that you're half right.
The developers have every intention of allowing you to remove the software. However, once installed, uninstalling such software is technically challenging on a number of levels. Not just because the software must put tendrils deep into sensitive parts of the OS, making removal difficult when done on a system in an unknown state, but also from a project management perspective. There's a lot of tendrils, and it's really easy for a change to get lost so that the uninstaller does not get updated. And so on.
From management's perspective, there is also no overt intention to prevent people from removing the software. However, there certainly is an awareness that if people can't figure out how to get rid of it, a certain percentage will pay for updates just to make the nagging stop. This means that things like fixing buggy uninstallers or making it clear how to uninstall the software is not something that will necessarily get prioritized if there's anything else about the product that needs attention instead. And there almost alway is.
Personally, I find incognito mode too inconvenient for common use. There are some cookies that I want to be maintained, and it's too error-prone to have to switch modes back and forth. It's much safe and easier to tell the browser which cookies I want and which ones I don't.
There are several FF forks around, such as Pale Moon, that can serve just fine.
You misunderstood my remark. I was not saying that the need for updates is because of poor design. I'm saying that the need to reboot the machine as part of the update process is poor design. Always.
Linux does require a reboot when updating the kernel, and that too is the result of poor design.
The easier way to tell if I'm drunk: I'm eating Tostitos at all.
You're being deliberately disingenuous.
No, he's quite correct.
While it certainly happens, and apparently is becoming more common, that still sounds like a bit of an exaggeration. Nobody in any kind of official capacity has even demanded a Facebook identity from me. I've been asked for it as optional information twice now, but did not opt to provide it. Of course, I have no FB account at all, but I've not even volunteered that much information, so I don't know what effect that would have had.
Yes, that's a problem. However, there are FF add-ons that will bring that behavior back, such as Cookie Controller.
I'm not particularly bothered if a browser doesn't fully support HTML 5. Omitting support for certain aspects of it would even be a selling point.
Free means either ad-supported
Ad supported things are not free, they're just requiring a different sort of payment.
Why do you care if someone decides to take the risks that come with forgoing updates?
In my experience, many Linux users are (unwittingly?) betting on known vulnerabilities not being exploited due to Linux having a lower profile and its users having better than average safe computing practices.
There's a certain truth to this. I have met a type of Linux user who I'd call "knowing just enough to be dangerous". They've heard that Linux is secure, and so put the entire topic out of their mind, figuring they're OK just because of their choice of operating system. They've never learned the basic rule of security: you can't make anything secure in an absolute sense, you can just make attacks more expensive. Feeling like you're safe makes you less safe.
My first impression was that it was much more stable and usable than in the past
You'll hear opinions going both ways on this. I think this is indicative that any stability difference between 10 and Windows 7 is negligible. They're both actually very stable operating systems. I think some people may have experienced stability changes because they also changed drivers, but mostly I think it's people experiencing what they expect to experience.
As to stability compared to Linux, my personal experience is that Linux is noticeably more stable.
I very much prefer option (a).
I don't just prefer it. I insist on it.
Didn't you read the license agreements? ?
What's the point? I can predict what almost all of those agreements say: "we're going to collect anything we wish, and use that information pretty much any way we wish, and we can change this agreement at any time of we want to."
If your requirement is that you want to keep using Windows software that you're currently using, and all Windows games, flawlessly in all circumstances then my strong (and rather obvious) recommendation is to stay with Windows.
But that in no way means that it's not possible to escape from Windows without losing functionality. It just takes time and effort, as it does any time you change operating systems. That time and effort may not be worth it to you, and that's fair. It's a personal call.
Here's a good list: http://without-systemd.org/wik...
BTW, I'm not talking about business use. Businesses have options to mitigate this update problem while staying with Windows 10 (albeit they aren't cheap).
But if power is needed to unlock them from the inside, even if that power is batteries, that's a really serious design failure.
In what world is it considered a sane design decision that it is possible for guests to be locked in a hotel room? It seems like the sort of thing that should be a fire code violation at least.
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.