Why do people keep bringing up amd64 as if that some how invalidates the hundreds if not thousands of things intel as done over the last 50 years. Other than amd64 what has amd done in the last 10 years, a big fat nothing that's what. Who brought us the core duo, the core 2 duo, the core 2 quad, nehalem, sandy bridge, need I go on? The fact that everybody uses that one thing amd did over a decade ago to defend them should be a big flashing warning sign that the company is not very relevant in todays market. Stop living in the past.
The problem is that even people who just try to counter the circle jerk bs get called shills. Even when they agree that microsoft is doing some bad stuff, just not as much as what some people claim. Hell there's probably people thinking I'm a shill and I haven't even defended windows one bit.
Two easily refutable arguments? Why so vague? What are they? Are you saying with absolute certainty that every single person running win7 has usb3, that you have not a single doubt in your heart or mind? How do you know this with such conviction? As for usb3 drivers that's a lot easier to prove. Don't really know why you're arguing against it when a quick google search can prove it.
Of course that's assuming those are the two easily refutable arguments you were talking about. I don't really know since you didn't say. Maybe instead of speaking in riddles you could get to the point.
I think you're the one that doesn't understand what I'm talking about. I'm not defending windows or saying it's fine. I was merely trying to explain how and why its update system works the way it does and what microsoft's though process was.
The windows update on 10 and previous versions fits much of your description of linux update systems. ( I was going to spend some time pointing what the differences were but then I realized it should be obvious and I was too lazy anyway. ) Really the problem is not that microsoft doesn't do it but that they don't do it as well as other systems do. If windows 10 didn't have buggy updates and if reboots didn't take longer it would fit your description almost perfectly.
The longer shutdowns are obviously just poor design that have been around since windows 95 if not earlier. As for the buggy updates some of it is the lack of QA staff, but a lot of it is also the massive install base. Yes I know that answer is trite and nobody seems to believe it for whatever reason but it's true. and I'll put forth my own anecdote as proof. The buggy update that's the cause of this post on slashdot didn't happen to my windowns 10 machine at all, in fact none of the buggy updates that have been reported on slashdot have affected me at all. Not to say everything has been perfect because there was one update that caused a game I play to stop working (it also broke some other programs for other people). But slashdot never reported that buggy update because it didn't affect a lot of people which kind of sums up my point. There are a billion different configurations of windows so an update is pretty much guaranteed to break one of them. Microsoft is apparently unable to to find and fix all these broken configs before they push the update out. Whether that's due to incompetence, laziness or lack of money I'll leave up to other people to speculate on.
People will probably call me a shill if I try to talk about this any more (if they haven't already) so I'll just leave it here.
That's the techie's answer to the question tho. For a normal user that doesn't know and doesn't want to know (aka grandma) they don't prevent updates because they keep up with the tech news and know it might break something, they prevent updates because they get in the way of the photos they want to upload to facebook or whatever. You said "have your update procress be buggy & annoying" but to the normal user the very existence of the update system itself is the annoyance. They don't want to be bothered by updates, ever. Window 10 forcing updates is a direct result of people not installing updates on all previous version of windows, stop and think about that for a minute.
I understand where you're coming from but I think this highlights why microsoft forced updates on windows 10. Users just want to turn their machine on to do X then turn it off. Update notices get in the way of that so users delay or prevent them so the updates never end up getting installed. Then their machine gets infected by a billion malware cause they haven't updated in over a year so their machine is full of holes. You say you just want to get work down now so don't bother you with updates but the updates need to be installed at some point so when is a good time for you?
I said geolocation only needs an ip address. They can get your address from any means that you uses to connect to them whether that be dns lookups or connecting to their web servers. Who said anything about "to be good"? The do cdn to deliver content to their customers faster. Say there's two websites with the same kind of content, one takes 5 seconds to load and the other takes 30 seconds to load, which would you rather visit?
You have to connect to their server to get the web page. They get your ip address from that (obviously since they need it to send the data back to you). They don't need a cdn or dns request to do geolocation, all they need is for you to connect to their server. You aren't using facts you're using smoke and mirrors to misdirect.
CDN introduces the possibility of tracking? What are you joking? You have to connect to their server at some point to get the web page, they can just track you then. Why would they spend all this money building a cdn infrastructure to do something they could do on their web server? This is why I ask you for details and this is why you won't give them. Because there's nothing behind your claims, they're hollow, when you try to go deeper it becomes obvious.
Still wait for you to say how building data centers all over the world helps them track people.
You keep accusing me of being an advertiser so I'll make an accusation of my own. You're apk and you're shilling for your own product. That's why you keep mentioning him and his product instead of using the generic term hosts file like I have been.
When did I lose? OpenDNS maybe patched against one form of dns spoofing but not all of them. And all the other things I asked still apply but you conveniently ignored them. And I said that other anonymous coward said something stupid. I never said this anonymous coward was stupid. I mean really can't you tell the difference between these two anonymous cowards?
You just repeated what you've already said. You're arguing with yourself over local cached resolution being faster because I never said or claimed anything about that.
Let me spell it out for you. CDN is faster in the sense that downloading something from a server 10 miles from you is faster than downloading something from a server 10 thousand miles from you. They decide which server to direct you to by geolocating your ip address in the dns request.
So this program put the address in your host file and it's running on your computer? Where does it get the addresses from? How do you know you can trust them?
How about you stop accusing me of half truths and start giving some truths of your own. I'm asking you for details and this is all you give me? I mean seriously one sentence with 8 words for details and the rest of your post is marketing buzz words and ad hominem.
How do those hardcoded favorites get in your host file? Who puts them there? Can they keep a log of which sites are your favorites? (obviously they can). Why are their addresses more trust worthy? Aren't they just getting the addresses from dns as well? So couldn't they be fooled they same way you could be? etc. etc. etc.
I see a lot of buzz words in your posts but not many details. How about you go into the details and explain exactly how it's better and why it's not vulnerable to this stuff.
Could you be more specific? As in go into more details on how exactly building data centers all over the world helps them to track people. You're the one that made this claim so you back it up.
I just find it hard to believe that you're paranoid enough to think this happens often to dns but not paranoid enough to think it could happen to the person making the host file or paranoid enough to use a real solution that would fix the problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do people keep bringing up amd64 as if that some how invalidates the hundreds if not thousands of things intel as done over the last 50 years. Other than amd64 what has amd done in the last 10 years, a big fat nothing that's what. Who brought us the core duo, the core 2 duo, the core 2 quad, nehalem, sandy bridge, need I go on? The fact that everybody uses that one thing amd did over a decade ago to defend them should be a big flashing warning sign that the company is not very relevant in todays market. Stop living in the past.
The problem is that even people who just try to counter the circle jerk bs get called shills. Even when they agree that microsoft is doing some bad stuff, just not as much as what some people claim. Hell there's probably people thinking I'm a shill and I haven't even defended windows one bit.
More insightful than your comment to be honest. I was pointing out that the word shill gets thrown around a lot, especially in windows threads.
We really need to come up with a good name for people who accuse anyone who disagrees with them a shill.
So in other words you were just trolling? If you can't even say it why did you waste my time with that post.
Two easily refutable arguments? Why so vague? What are they? Are you saying with absolute certainty that every single person running win7 has usb3, that you have not a single doubt in your heart or mind? How do you know this with such conviction? As for usb3 drivers that's a lot easier to prove. Don't really know why you're arguing against it when a quick google search can prove it.
https://downloadcenter.intel.c...
Of course that's assuming those are the two easily refutable arguments you were talking about. I don't really know since you didn't say. Maybe instead of speaking in riddles you could get to the point.
There are usb3 drivers for win7. Also you're assuming all the people running win7 have usb3 hardware.
You are delusional. The vast majority of people using a PC don't even know what a VM is. Stop projecting your needs onto the entire user base.
I think you're the one that doesn't understand what I'm talking about. I'm not defending windows or saying it's fine. I was merely trying to explain how and why its update system works the way it does and what microsoft's though process was.
The windows update on 10 and previous versions fits much of your description of linux update systems. ( I was going to spend some time pointing what the differences were but then I realized it should be obvious and I was too lazy anyway. ) Really the problem is not that microsoft doesn't do it but that they don't do it as well as other systems do. If windows 10 didn't have buggy updates and if reboots didn't take longer it would fit your description almost perfectly.
The longer shutdowns are obviously just poor design that have been around since windows 95 if not earlier. As for the buggy updates some of it is the lack of QA staff, but a lot of it is also the massive install base. Yes I know that answer is trite and nobody seems to believe it for whatever reason but it's true. and I'll put forth my own anecdote as proof. The buggy update that's the cause of this post on slashdot didn't happen to my windowns 10 machine at all, in fact none of the buggy updates that have been reported on slashdot have affected me at all. Not to say everything has been perfect because there was one update that caused a game I play to stop working (it also broke some other programs for other people). But slashdot never reported that buggy update because it didn't affect a lot of people which kind of sums up my point. There are a billion different configurations of windows so an update is pretty much guaranteed to break one of them. Microsoft is apparently unable to to find and fix all these broken configs before they push the update out. Whether that's due to incompetence, laziness or lack of money I'll leave up to other people to speculate on.
People will probably call me a shill if I try to talk about this any more (if they haven't already) so I'll just leave it here.
That's the techie's answer to the question tho. For a normal user that doesn't know and doesn't want to know (aka grandma) they don't prevent updates because they keep up with the tech news and know it might break something, they prevent updates because they get in the way of the photos they want to upload to facebook or whatever. You said "have your update procress be buggy & annoying" but to the normal user the very existence of the update system itself is the annoyance. They don't want to be bothered by updates, ever. Window 10 forcing updates is a direct result of people not installing updates on all previous version of windows, stop and think about that for a minute.
I understand where you're coming from but I think this highlights why microsoft forced updates on windows 10. Users just want to turn their machine on to do X then turn it off. Update notices get in the way of that so users delay or prevent them so the updates never end up getting installed. Then their machine gets infected by a billion malware cause they haven't updated in over a year so their machine is full of holes. You say you just want to get work down now so don't bother you with updates but the updates need to be installed at some point so when is a good time for you?
I said geolocation only needs an ip address. They can get your address from any means that you uses to connect to them whether that be dns lookups or connecting to their web servers. Who said anything about "to be good"? The do cdn to deliver content to their customers faster. Say there's two websites with the same kind of content, one takes 5 seconds to load and the other takes 30 seconds to load, which would you rather visit?
You have to connect to their server to get the web page. They get your ip address from that (obviously since they need it to send the data back to you). They don't need a cdn or dns request to do geolocation, all they need is for you to connect to their server. You aren't using facts you're using smoke and mirrors to misdirect.
And you ignored my other points once again even tho I remind you in my last post. Why don't you want to answer them?
CDN introduces the possibility of tracking? What are you joking? You have to connect to their server at some point to get the web page, they can just track you then. Why would they spend all this money building a cdn infrastructure to do something they could do on their web server? This is why I ask you for details and this is why you won't give them. Because there's nothing behind your claims, they're hollow, when you try to go deeper it becomes obvious.
Still wait for you to say how building data centers all over the world helps them track people.
You keep accusing me of being an advertiser so I'll make an accusation of my own. You're apk and you're shilling for your own product. That's why you keep mentioning him and his product instead of using the generic term hosts file like I have been.
When did I lose? OpenDNS maybe patched against one form of dns spoofing but not all of them. And all the other things I asked still apply but you conveniently ignored them. And I said that other anonymous coward said something stupid. I never said this anonymous coward was stupid. I mean really can't you tell the difference between these two anonymous cowards?
You just repeated what you've already said. You're arguing with yourself over local cached resolution being faster because I never said or claimed anything about that.
Let me spell it out for you. CDN is faster in the sense that downloading something from a server 10 miles from you is faster than downloading something from a server 10 thousand miles from you. They decide which server to direct you to by geolocating your ip address in the dns request.
Could you be more specific? As in how this allows them to track in ways that software can't.
So this program put the address in your host file and it's running on your computer? Where does it get the addresses from? How do you know you can trust them?
How about you stop accusing me of half truths and start giving some truths of your own. I'm asking you for details and this is all you give me? I mean seriously one sentence with 8 words for details and the rest of your post is marketing buzz words and ad hominem.
I said the cdn was faster not the resolving. You're fooling yourself by misunderstanding my posts.
How do those hardcoded favorites get in your host file? Who puts them there? Can they keep a log of which sites are your favorites? (obviously they can). Why are their addresses more trust worthy? Aren't they just getting the addresses from dns as well? So couldn't they be fooled they same way you could be? etc. etc. etc.
I see a lot of buzz words in your posts but not many details. How about you go into the details and explain exactly how it's better and why it's not vulnerable to this stuff.
Could you be more specific? As in go into more details on how exactly building data centers all over the world helps them to track people. You're the one that made this claim so you back it up.
I just find it hard to believe that you're paranoid enough to think this happens often to dns but not paranoid enough to think it could happen to the person making the host file or paranoid enough to use a real solution that would fix the problem.