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.
Related Stories
The Register reports
Redmond kicks off the era of the force-fed security update
Microsoft is kicking off a controversial new security program this month by packaging all of its security updates into a single payload.
The October security release introduces Redmond's new policy of bundling all security bulletins as one download. While more convenient for end users, who now get just one bundle, the move will irk many administrators, who had preferred to individually test and apply each patch to avoid compatibility problems.
Krebs on Security notes
Microsoft: No More Pick-and-Choose Patching
Starting this month, home and business Windows users will no longer be able to pick and choose which updates to install and which to leave for another time. For example, I've often advised home users to hold off on installing .NET updates until all other patches for the month are applied--reasoning that .NET updates are very large and in my experience have frequently been found to be the source of problems when applying huge numbers of patches simultaneously.
But that cafeteria-style patching goes out the...err...Windows with this month's release.
[...]Microsoft's patch policy changes are slightly different for home versus business customers. Consumers on Windows 7 Service Pack 1 and Windows 8.1 will henceforth receive what Redmond is calling a "Monthly Rollup," which addresses both security issues and reliability issues in a single update. The "Security-only updates" option--intended for enterprises and not available via Windows Update--will only include new security patches that are released for that month.
What this means is that if any part of the patch bundle breaks, the only option is to remove the entire bundle (instead of the offending patch, as was previously possible). I have no doubt this simplifies things for Microsoft and likely saves them a ton of money, but my concern is this will leave end-users unable to apply critical patches simply due to a single patch breaking something.
[...]The smartest option is probably to ditch [Adobe Flash] once and for all and significantly increase the security of your system in the process. I've got more on that approach (as well as slightly less radical solutions) in A Month Without Adobe Flash Player.
[...]Finally, Adobe released security updates that correct a whopping 71 flaws in its PDF Reader and Acrobat products. If you use either of these software packages, please take a moment to update them.
Has this change in method and control altered the thinking of any Soylentils WRT their choices of software supplier?
Now for the biggie: Has anyone convinced his boss to depart the Redmond path?
Previous: Windows 7 and 8.1 Moving to Windows 10’s Cumulative Update Model
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 17 2016, @02:39PM
Of course they are. It makes it easier to force their telemetry and advertising on Windows 7 and 8 users.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 17 2016, @03:21PM
... and turn it back on with every new monthly update-blob
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Wednesday August 17 2016, @04:04PM
Exactly, and they're doing exactly the right thing for themselves and their shareholders. Anyone who doesn't like it should rethink their use of this vendor's products.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 18 2016, @07:25AM
Alienating customers is the right thing to do for shareholders?
Oh, you mean Apple shareholders, like this guy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxOp5mBY9IY&t=4m28s [youtube.com]
(Score: 4, Informative) by EvilSS on Wednesday August 17 2016, @06:43PM
Why do people think telemetry wasn't already in Windows 7? When they mangled the start menu in Windows 8 they even said it was based on telemetry data they had showing how the start menu was being used. It's like someone suddenly realized it was in 10 and thought it was new.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Wednesday August 17 2016, @09:14PM
I think if the telemetry data were in there and non-optional they would have figured out what a bad idea this was.
This happens to them primarily because the people who have telemetry data enabled are mostly the ones that are too stupid to figure out how to disable it. Or they're at work and IT didn't disable it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 17 2016, @10:10PM
Why do people think telemetry wasn't already in Windows 7?
Because, as far as we know, until the GWX era we knew how to turn all telemetry data in Windows 7 OFF.
AFAIK, nobody intelligent has claimed that telemetry was new to Windows 10. What is new is the shitstorm of places telemetery goes to, that you CANNOT turn it all off, and the requirement to enter rules at a higher-than-machine firewall level to really be able to suppress it all. Plus the GWX joy of telling the machine you don't want something running only to have it override your express choices at the next update, and there being absolutely no reason Microsoft wouldn't apply that to telemetry as well (delivering new IP addresses and domains to ping.)
And finally, because those of us who are intelligent enough to get the telemetry turned off in the old system, I'm not surprised that Windows' usage data is skewed and Windows 8 non-Start was a complete clusterfuck. Not to mention that some tools used for corner case repair situations just shouldn't be measured on how popularly they are used.
(Score: 5, Informative) by nitehawk214 on Wednesday August 17 2016, @02:40PM
Considering things like WindowsLies [github.com] have been cutting out the spyware portions of the updates for a while now, I am surprised it has taken them so long to start doing this.
Now it will be trivially easy to slip malware in the cumulative "security" updates. Who knows what it is doing? Its a bunch of unrelated changes lumped together.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Wednesday August 17 2016, @02:45PM
Even beyond that I'm sure it's a cheaper maintenance burden for MS to not allow so much choice in the update process. From a business point of view it makes sense for them: why go to the extra expense of allowing a la carte patches on the legacy versions of the OS?
Of course, from a user/administrator perspective, that doesn't mean it's the best way to go at all.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Wednesday August 17 2016, @03:03PM
When you know you're above the law, why bother not being evil?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 17 2016, @03:55PM
Hey, that's the google motto. Get yer own!
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday August 17 2016, @04:08PM
How are they "above the law" in this instance? There's no law saying that software vendors must make updates available on an a la carte basis, nor is there a law saying that vendors must act in the best interest of their customers. This change makes perfect sense for them and their shareholders, reduces fragmentation, and gives them more control over the "user experience" and how customers' machines are configured. I'm honestly surprised they didn't do this long ago.
If you don't like it, you're free to find another OS vendor.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Wednesday August 17 2016, @04:24PM
Well, ever since they got that antitrust judgment, it's not like they've really stopped anything they were doing. And now they're just seeing how much they can get away with.
But fine, if you prefer, referring to the recent schenanigans, "unethical." I said "above the law" because there are a great many things that clearly are illegal that our court system is handwaving these days. And Microsoft has teams of Ninja Lawyers and swimming pools full of cash.
If you don't like it, you're free to find another OS vendor.
With Microsoft this is disingenuous. People (companies) need compatibility, and they've got a proven track record of stuff like AARD. [wikipedia.org]
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday August 17 2016, @05:23PM
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by tangomargarine on Wednesday August 17 2016, @05:30PM
I expect that the exact moment ReactOS becomes stable enough to be used for anything, they will somehow get sued into oblivion. And yes, I know what a clean-room implementation is. Still.
Don't mistake this for me saying nobody should support them. It's a cool idea if it ever gets off the ground.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday August 17 2016, @06:24PM
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday August 17 2016, @08:15PM
Yes, I've read about them before. All these reasons you're listing are very eloquent and all but we're just discussing why they're never going to make a difference :P
In other news, GNU Hurd will be totally orgasmtastic when they finally release it any year now, and we'll have flying cars in 20 years and cold fusion in 40.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 18 2016, @04:56PM
One of the big issues with GNU Hurd is that they've basically taken all the work, thrown it out and started over multiple times. By the time they decided on one to stick to, Linux was already the big boy on the scene. Except, they haven't really picked one because every few years, a big chunk of core developers spend their time trying to port it to another microkernel that is theoretically better.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 17 2016, @04:38PM
Not this instance, but in other instances (the OP said "When you know you're above the law, ", not this instance shows that Microsoft is above the law).
For example you and I would be in serious trouble (with various computer crimes laws) if we went about upgrading thousands of machines to Windows 10 without the genuine permission of the owners e.g. we popped up a dialog box and they clicked the wrong thing like "close" the dialog box.
And yet Microsoft gets away with it.
http://www.computerworld.com/article/3075018/windows-pcs/microsoft-breaks-own-design-rules-in-dupe-the-user-windows-10-upgrade-tactic.html [computerworld.com]
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/229040-microsofts-latest-trick-clicking-x-to-dismiss-windows-10-upgrade-doesnt-stop-upgrade-process [extremetech.com]
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 17 2016, @06:17PM
"It applies the patches, or it gets the hose!" Bill "Buffalo" "Microsoft" Gates
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 17 2016, @03:11PM
Sure it is, and you can do that if you have slaves. Other businesses have customers they need to keep happy.
(Score: 5, Touché) by LoRdTAW on Wednesday August 17 2016, @03:20PM
I just can't anymore. I can't deal with Microsoft's heavy handed bullshit. The precise reason to have individual patches is to be able to exclude certain patches that interferes with existing software until the vendor can patch on their end. Then you patch the software and then patch the OS. Now it's all or nothing. Fuck you Microsoft.
Happened to to have precisely this scenario a few months back when our ERP software stopped working. Turned out a patch affected a part of the software which renders the data into a report. Traced the problem to an MS patch. Called the vendor who was working on a solution. Removed the patch in the meantime. How Am I supposed to fix that? What happens when our ERP goes down again because of a patch? Can we still roll back? Can we sue Microsoft for the damages done(hahahahah couldn't keep a strait face typing that bit.)
(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.
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 2, Redundant) by Grishnakh on Wednesday August 17 2016, @04:24PM
It's simple: you just deal with the downtime and stop whining about it. If you don't like your OS vendor's patch policy, then look for a vendor that suits you better. If your ERP software only supports this vendor, then raise the issue with them and ask them how they plan to deal with this kind of thing, and if that isn't to your liking, find a better ERP vendor.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Wednesday August 17 2016, @05:51PM
Sadly putting the burden on the users is more like victim blaming. Not everyone can afford a switch, has the know-how, etc. Shady practices should be discontinued, but looks like that will require a class action lawsuit.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Ethanol-fueled on Wednesday August 17 2016, @05:54PM
That's all fine and dandy until you go to school for a fuckhuge exam, turn on your laptop to study, and it says "Installing updates." You say, "aw, fuck" and try to cancel it, but there's not option to. Since your laptop was previously off for awhile (as you use your desktop for most of your work) that's a lot of updates. One hour has already passed and your computer is still updating. In desperation you try to restart your laptop, but again it forces you to the updates with no way around it.
You can't study in safe-mode or Linux, thanks to bullshit class requirements with proprietary software, and the computer lab isn't available, so you sit and wait trying not to be stressed out. 2 hours go by, leaving you pissed-off and with half an hour to study.
Say the rich-kids who don't have to work 40-60 hour workweeks while going to school. Surprises can happen to anyone, and prancing up to your vendor and asking nicely to magically support different OS and architectures overnight isn't going to get a goddamn thing done; and especially not before your looming deadlines.
Hell, Salesforce.com still doesn't even have record-locking. When two people unknowingly edit the same record, even different sections of fields, the second person to save loses all of their changes and has to make all those changes all over again -- and yet Salesforce is the largest (by body count) tech employer in the Bay Area and they can't even implement a solution to a problem in computer science that was solved, oh, decades ago.
Fuck the tech industry. Cocksuckers!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by julian on Wednesday August 17 2016, @06:22PM
Wow, Microsoft has managed to make me feel sympathy for Ethanol-fueled.
(Score: 2) by seeprime on Wednesday August 17 2016, @04:55PM
If you can document actual damages due to an update you can sue Microsoft. Their defense will be that you had the option to turn off Windows update. So, that's the right thing to do to avoid compatibility issues.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Gravis on Wednesday August 17 2016, @05:38PM
Maybe it's time to invest in software so that you can stop using Microsoft software. [codeweavers.com] If your company refuses to allocate the required resources then their undoing will be their own doing.
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Thursday August 18 2016, @01:52PM
I don't think most small businesses have the resources to fund enhancement of Wine to run a particular application that's business-critical yet rated Garbage in Wine AppDB. Nor does Wine run device drivers for specialized peripherals.
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Wednesday August 17 2016, @06:57PM
OK, "you can't take it anymore"
So what are you going to do about it?
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 17 2016, @04:59PM
They've been doing something approaching this for awhile. I assume this means they're just making it official, possibly increasing its use even further.
Last month I wanted KB3161647 for example, but it's only available as part of KB3172605, which was July's security roll-up (this was for a Windows 2008r2 server).
Back a month or two, I had to install KB3156417, because it's the only way to obtain KB3155218 and KB3155039. Again this was a Windows 2008r2 server.
On the servers in question, these roll-ups didn't install automatically, even though the servers were set to download updates automatically. Both had been flagged as "non-critical" and the servers were setup to only download "critical" updates (to avoid downloading ruinous driver updates WU is populated with).
(Score: 2) by EvilSS on Wednesday August 17 2016, @06:45PM
They have been doing it for a few months for functional updates, but not security updates. This will force that model onto security updates as well.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 17 2016, @11:48PM
I had to install the July rollup in a VM to get win7 to update at all. That VM has been out of date for year.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by bob_super on Wednesday August 17 2016, @05:17PM
Great! After telling people to upgrade their XP because they shouldn't run an unsupported OS, now they push a lot of people to run their 7 unpatched or get spied on. That's MS logic for you.
Dear Microsoft,
I perfectly understand that you do not have a legal requirement to patch my older product, even as you find mistakes which you made a decade ago. Thank you for doing it so far.
I however did not take your offer of a free Win10 upgrade, neither did I buy a Win10 license, because I am not interested in providing you with "telemetry" data.
The Win 7 license which I legally purchased (shocker, I know) came with a clear granular update system which I had control over, at my own stay-at-risk. Any attempt to change this is an unacceptable course of action, which you likely believe you're entitled to via subclause XXX of the product's EULA. Given that EULA clauses have not systematically held in court, I would recommend that you and the millions of paranoid geeks just peacefully part way, and agree that you will not actively try to undermine the people who want to keep your product as purchased.
Thank you
(Score: 3, Insightful) by GungnirSniper on Wednesday August 17 2016, @09:21PM
It's about damn time. It takes longer to search the system and download updates than it does to clone the initial prepped install over the network. That's all sorts of wrong, and having systems on a bench for half a day or more sinks the TCO.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by toddestan on Thursday August 18 2016, @02:50AM
Try installing from the original Windows 7 disk. The first update check after SP1 installs easily takes most of a day.
(Score: 2) by darnkitten on Thursday August 18 2016, @01:30AM
About 1/3 of the Win10 users I know have suffered system problems due to infrastructure problems/interruptions during the massive Win10 updates--and now Win7/8?
MANY rural areas lack the necessary network infrastructure to support massive problem-free downloads, and we aren't going to get real improvement anytime soon! G-D---T, I wish I could kidnap a couple of execs (MS, Google, Mozilla) and force them to live here for a month or three.
I mean, a week or so ago, I heard about a tech company that does "2G Tuesdays" where it scales back connectivity across the company for an afternoon to remind employees that "Not everyone has high speed access..." Yeah. My community doesn't have reliable 2G--most of the town doesn't even have cell access at all! My library and a local diner have the only wifi hotspots in town, and right this minute, my (library) connection is averaging 3.5Mbps down, 1.2Mbps up, shared between two active machines (out of as many as 8 possible).
Several of my patrons still use dial-up!
I already recommend that Win10 users turn off automatic updates unless they are connected to a UPS and a wired connection, but updates still occasionally bork their systems.
-
I dunno. I'll have to see how many problems this causes, before I start telling them to run unpatched.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Thursday August 18 2016, @06:01AM
Perhaps your library could have DVDs of some of the most popular Linux distributions on hand. Often they have copyleft licences so loaning them out for installation is allowed.
(Score: 2) by Hyperturtle on Thursday August 18 2016, @02:26PM
This actually reminds me more of how it used to be. Windows NT and Windows 95 had service packs. Even Windows 98 and 2000, while filled with numerous little fixes, still had large updates. Also consider Windows XP SP2 -- one of the biggest service pack pushes filled with features and fixes to any OS of the era. It was XP SP2 that introduced the concept of an OS based firewall to the masses.
Prior to then, people and their always-on cable modem connections were subjected to really bad security concerns by simply doing as the marketing told, rather than doing something stupid like running viruses they got in email or pirated software or codec viewers from porn sites. The PC merely had to be connected to the cable modem -- and remember, it was against the terms of service to use NAT at the time. Cable companies demanded you got a public IP for EVERY device you connected.
It was a big deal.
And--many people on-dial up benefitted from this as well, because dial-up often also provided direct public IP addresses.
I state this because this isn't a new paradigm in screwing people. It's the old way of doing it, and it's come back into fashion.
Personally, I prefer to check each update and decide yes or no -- I prefer the selective model.
The difference is that back in the old days, changing the OS after the fact was not considered a good thing to do. Detailed notes were provided and it was not uncommon for systems to remain on a certain patch level because of compatibility or performance concerns -- not security concerns.
The piece-by-piece model allowed for a greater adherence in a corporate environment -- install what you need, and don't introduce new problems by installing what you don't need. Often in the giant packs, you had to go in and turn off new features you didn't want -- and then go patch them later because they were found to have problems. Just because its turned off doesnt mean someone doesn't turn them on later, or some new software does it for you without asking, etc.
In this case, I would guess they are seeking greater control. I can imagine the future patches including stuff you do not want...just as I described, but so much harder to keep track of because of constant change instead of once every few months.
I have to think that if you don't want telemetry... well it's bundled in this pack, and if you don't install this pack, then you are going to be exposed to whatever the problem we're fixing is. Or our new version of what you do want requires a tweak made to a DLL in that pack with the telemetry etc, so no now you can't install the dot net fixes because of it.
Get on the train or go off the rails is the message they are sending, I think. Screwing rural customers isn't the intent, because they came out with SCCM, SMS, SUS and WSUS a long time ago to help with centralized management. You even can install a local MS patch file executable you bring around on a USB drive, like what I used to do at clients with low bandwidth. You don't HAVE to use windows update on windows 7. It just makes it very convenient in an unmanaged scenario.
(Score: 2) by darnkitten on Friday August 19 2016, @02:06AM
Yeah, its probably about time to revive that programme--We used to distribute Ubuntu and Mint in several desktop flavours, until I got too busy to help people maintain their own systems. The local tech guy, while he uses SUSE KDE personally, doesn't have Linux support experience and is reluctant to offer it.
I might have to do an "Ask SN" on low-maintenance distros I could distribute. I'm also currently in the process of converting some of our older PC workstations to Linux (generally some flavour of Mint) to expose the patrons to alternatives to Windows (might be good to "Ask SN" about desktop environments and distros that won't scare people unfamiliar with Linux, too--Ubuntu Unity on the library public computers didn't work out so well, the last time I tried it).
With October so close, I guess I will just have to move up the timetable.
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Friday August 19 2016, @04:16AM
Xubuntu shouldn't scare users too much, especially compared to Unity. What might scare people more is inability to run That One App that's rated Garbage in Wine or use That One USB Device that needs a proprietary driver exclusive to Windows and macOS.