SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Two users have submitted stories about Microsoft's intended change to how it provides updates and patches in the future.:
Running Windows 7 or 8? From October, Monthly Patches Are All-or-Nothing
El Reg reports
As of October, users of Windows 7, Windows 8, and various server products can [say farewell to] a Patch Tuesday of downloading multiple files: Microsoft is implementing the monthly patch rollup it promised in May.
At the same time, however, Redmond has decided to kill off individual security patches, something that might not please sysadmins. Instead, a monthly security-only rollup will collect "all of the security patches for that month into a single update".
[...] Instead of individual patches for each platform, for Windows 7.1 SP1, Windows 8, Windows Server 2008 R2, Windows Server 2012, and Windows Server 2012 R2, there'll be a single set of updates.
The monthly rollups will include security patches and bug fixes, and each month's update will include the previous month's. That will reduce the chance that an update fails because it's got a dependency on a prior update (which, as Microsoft's Nathan Mercer writes in the announcement, can often mean hunting for a file that's hard to find).
[...] Servicing Stack and Adobe Flash won't be included in the rollups.
[Continues...]
In the comments we found these gems
I am already imagining having to miss out on critical fixes as some not-too-critical update in the package is broke and affecting the overall result.
The fact that you have to take the crap with the updates is one of the reasons so many of us rejected 10. Linux, as always, will be patched as soon as the updates become available; no waiting a month for MS to get around to providing a big monolithic update.
I shudder to think how this will affect environments with WSUS for the purpose of limiting specific patches to specific machines.
Does this mean Windows Update won't 'think about it' for 15 minutes?
A double whammy for those on restricted bandwidth [because a) everyone gets the patches for other versions, and b) last month's patches included
Just call it a Service Pack. By the end of next year, we'll have Windows 7 SP17. It's not elegant, but it's much clearer than KB6765431123134654741324.
Windows 7, 8.1 Moving to Windows 10's Cumulative Update Model
In with a story from Ars Technica — Windows 7, 8.1 Moving to Windows 10's Cumulative Update Model
October 2016's Patch Tuesday will see the release of the first Monthly Rollup for Windows 7 and 8.1. This will be a single package delivering all of the security and reliability improvements released that month. Patch Tuesday will be delivered through Windows Update (WU), Windows Server Update Services (WSUS), and System Center Configuration Manager (SCCM). Subsequent months will have new Monthly Rollups, and these will be cumulative, incorporating the content of all previous Monthly Rollups.
[...]
Microsoft will also create security-only updates that include all the security fixes released each month, without any reliability or feature changes. These updates won't be cumulative. They will only be offered via WSUS and SCCM; WU users won't see them.
What Microsoft won't be doing after October, however, is shipping the individual hotfixes any more. Fixes will only be available through the Monthly Rollup or security-only update. This means that the ability to pick and choose individual fixes to apply will be removed; they'll be distributed and deployed as a singular all-or-nothing proposition. Microsoft argues that this will improve patch and system reliability. The company only tests configurations where every update is applied (with hundreds of individual updates, it's simply not possible to test all the individual combinations that a user might choose). This means that users and organizations that cherrypick their updates and only install a subset of the patches that ship each month are actually using configurations that Microsoft itself has not tested. Combining the updates should mean that end-user systems are closer to Microsoft's tested configurations.
[...] Going forward there will also be an equivalent patching regime for the .NET Framework. WU and WSUS will both distribute a Monthly Rollup of security updates and reliability improvements, with a security-only update offered to WSUS alone. The corresponding server operating systems—Windows Server 2008 R2, Windows Server 2012, and Windows Server 2012 R2—will also move to the same rollup model as the desktop platforms will use.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 17 2016, @03:44PM
Can we sue Microsoft for the damages done(hahahahah couldn't keep a strait face typing that bit.)
It will be a pain, you had best have actual proof and documentation of the damages done, you will have suffered the damages, you may spend some/more than the winnings in legal fees, and courts are always a dice-roll. However, yes... yes you can. [slashdot.org] (Sorry for the link, I couldn't find the SN posting.)
It would actually be good if companies did this. I could imagine how thousands of small lawsuits from small companies could put an end to this (or a large lawsuit from a deep-pocket Fortune 100 company). I doubt it will happen, but a person can dream.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Grishnakh on Wednesday August 17 2016, @04:21PM
Oh please. For a company of any size, the amount you'd get out of small-claims court isn't even worth your time, and getting more means going to *real* court, which is going to have enormous legal fees. On top of that, unlike forcing Win10 on your computer, bundling patches together into cumulative updates is not a malicious action in any way, it's just convenience. If that results in your 3rd-party software not working right sometimes, too bad; MS isn't obligated to never make any mistakes, and interactions between different pieces of software from different vendors are bound to have bugs at times.
It's very simple: if you don't like your OS vendor's update policy, then maybe you should look for a new vendor.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday August 17 2016, @04:28PM
You don't need to keep posting this same comment on everyone. 4 out of the 14 comments in this thread are now you telling people to STFU and grow a pair.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Nerdfest on Wednesday August 17 2016, @04:47PM
People still don't seem to grasp that Microsoft is not going to get better. It's like some bizarre abusive relationship.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday August 17 2016, @09:39PM
Exactly. The only way you can get this through peoples' thick skulls is to repeat it over and over.
(Score: 3, Informative) by edIII on Wednesday August 17 2016, @11:20PM
Exactly. I've been upsetting people these last year by warning them strongly that I would never support Windows 10. Last week I flat out told somebody, "No". It's a complete piece of shit, everything has changed so I need to learn new places for tools, and the telemetry makes it wholly unusable for business purposes. Microsoft finally made an operating system I couldn't fucking use, and unlike Windows ME & Windows Vista, Microsoft isn't accepting that people don't like it. Shit like this, and the back porting of telemetry, is the final fuck you delivered to the world.
I couldn't use Apple because of the Walled Garden, and now Microsoft has gone from envy to forcefully throwing everyone into theirs. I'm holding on to Windows 7 by my fingernails here. It's only finances (I have a bunch of secure boot bricked devices) keeping me from leaving right now. I need money for new hardware not tainted with Secureboot.
The silver lining here is that projects like ReactOS and PCBSD are going to get a lot more interest. I can't fucking stand systemD, but I might actually run Ubuntu if I have to get really excellent support for WINE (IIRC, Ubuntu is the best).
All of us in the tech community just need to go on strike and not support Windows 10 at all costs.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Wednesday August 17 2016, @11:24PM
I was reading up on SecureBoot and discussing with someone yesterday. There are several Linux distros that support it now, and you can also apparently load your own keys in many BIOS as well. Might be worth checking again.
(Score: 3, Informative) by butthurt on Thursday August 18 2016, @02:41AM
As reported earlier this month, [soylentnews.org] Microsoft inadvertently published its private keys for Secure Boot.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Wednesday August 17 2016, @04:30PM
bundling patches together into cumulative updates is not a malicious action in any way, it's just convenience.
If it were just convenience, why are they finally doing it now instead of 20 years ago? It couldn't possibly have anything to do with phoning home.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Arik on Wednesday August 17 2016, @05:21PM
Why not do it 20 years ago? People wouldn't have accepted it.
Now they think you will. Simple as that.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Snow on Wednesday August 17 2016, @05:28PM
I actually think that it has less to do with the phoning home, and more to do with the windows store.
They want to console-ize the computer. All computers running at the same level, with the same patches.
I also think that this is the first step to bring the windows store to windows 7. I'm guessing we'll see it just before Christmas (as a mandatory update included in one of these rollups).
(Score: 2, Insightful) by driven on Wednesday August 17 2016, @09:15PM
Back when I used Windows, it took 9 hours to go from installed system to fully patched system (Windows 7). Absolutely ridonkeylous. So from that perspective I could see why they'd want to change how patching occurs. Microsoft's current mechanism is a huge throwback to the stone ages compared to MacOS updates which are smooth and usually don't take too long to apply.
From an opportunist's perspective, why not throw other "wants" in at the same time when making this change? I doubt they are making this change for a single reason.
Seems to me like they are playing catchup on OS patching and user data mining that other companies already have lots of experience in. They're also changing their view of the customer to be more like Apple's in as much as "you're either coming with us to the future or you're out".
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Thursday August 18 2016, @03:00AM
[...] why are they finally doing it now instead of 20 years ago?
They did do it 20 years ago.
Windows 95 Service Pack 1 includes an update, system administration tools, additional components, and drivers for Windows 95.
-- http://download.cnet.com/Microsoft-Windows-95-Service-Pack-1/3000-18513_4-19918.html [cnet.com]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 18 2016, @07:34AM
A few years later they decided that their security reputation needed improvement, and they started offering security updates without having to wait for servicepacks getting tested and fixed.
Now we're back with the service pack model where one of the updates removes some feature that the software you need doesn't work without, and Microsoft refuses to fix it for a couple of years, and that update is of course the one that's needed to stop the new "Code Red"...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 18 2016, @02:13PM
However, yes... yes you can.
No, no you can't. Anymore.
When you agreed to install Windows 10, you agreed that any disputes would be turned over to the American Arbitration Association, i.e. the not-courts that are in the pockets of the corporatocracy.
So first you go through arbitration.
Then, if you're not successful through arbitration you can take a grievance with the arbitration process to court. Such cases almost never succeed, as the government sees arbitration as a Good Thing because it lessens the burdens on the courts. So you have to have really solid evidence that the arbitration was not conducted in accordance with the Federal Arbitration Act, or in good faith. Good luck with that one.
Anyone who tries to sue Microsoft now over Windows 10 will surely first find a motion from Microsoft to stay the case (if not outright dismissal without prejudice) pending the results of Arbitration, a motion that will surely be granted.
Oh, and Microsoft decided not to spend the money on an appeal of the judgment. More people decide to sue, you're darn straight they'd fight an isolated instance becoming a precedent. (In fact, I'm surprised they didn't appeal the 10,000 judgment on those grounds alone. But then again, now they've got the arbitration clause.)
There's no way this comment will be seen a day later, but I had to set the record straight.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday August 18 2016, @06:21PM
We do not censor or delete comments.