Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Friday April 21 2017, @11:08AM   Printer-friendly
from the update-this! dept.

Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard

Microsoft blocked the delivery of Windows Updates recently to Windows 7 and 8.1 devices powered by a next-generation processor.

The company announced the support change in January 2017. Broken down to the essentials, it means that Intel Kaby Lake and AMD Bristol Ridge processors are only support by Windows 10, and not older versions of Windows.

To hammer that home, Microsoft made the decision to block Windows Update on Windows 7 or 8.1 PCs with those next generation processors.

The company introduced patches, KB4012218 and KB4012219 for instance, which introduced process generation and hardware support detection on Windows 7 and 8.1 systems.

Windows users who run Windows Update get the unsupported hardware error prompt when they try to scan for and download the latest patches for their -- still supported -- operating system.

GitHub user zeffy made the decision to take a closer look at how the actual blocking is done on the operating system level.

Details on exactly what was done are available in the article.

Source: https://www.ghacks.net/2017/04/18/bypass-for-windows-update-lock-for-modern-processors-found/

This will be especially handy for those whose machines were entitled to updates but were mistakenly blocked from receiving them.


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough

Mark All as Read

Mark All as Unread

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by kaszz on Friday April 21 2017, @11:37AM (7 children)

    by kaszz (4211) on Friday April 21 2017, @11:37AM (#497351) Journal

    Time to stuff all Microsoft *.* into that lovely virtualization environment with a big network condom over it. Any contact with any "update" & telemetry server(s) VERBOTEN.

    • (Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Friday April 21 2017, @01:46PM (6 children)

      by Nerdfest (80) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 21 2017, @01:46PM (#497390)

      It's long past that time. I don't even run it in a VM anymore except occasionally for work. Even for gaming, it's not really needed (YMMV).

      • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday April 21 2017, @01:48PM (5 children)

        by kaszz (4211) on Friday April 21 2017, @01:48PM (#497391) Journal

        So how do you handle the beast?

        • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday April 21 2017, @02:52PM (4 children)

          by DannyB (5839) on Friday April 21 2017, @02:52PM (#497425)

          Handling the beast.

          At home: don't use Microsoft products. (or Apple, since 1999) Linux only.

          At work: Windows, SQL Server, but I don't pay for them nor am I responsible to install or maintain them. I just use them. Including installing Windows VMs, which I know the procedure for by heart. What I build works with them just fine, but is not married to Microsoft products. An interesting side effect that has been noticed is there are no third party royalties on what I build. All open source libraries and code (java). But in the .NET world, everything you use comes with someone holding their hand out for (lots of) money. Also I can soothe my MS misery with the sweet hardware I get to use. I won't brag about my box at home, but the boxes at work are something else. Of course, it all makes money. But I think about the money that could be saved without MS.

          • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday April 21 2017, @03:07PM (3 children)

            by kaszz (4211) on Friday April 21 2017, @03:07PM (#497434) Journal

            What specification is in your opinion demanded for the MS-in-VM setup?

            And could the stuff that uses MS right now be done with open and free software without starting a in-house development department?
            I recall some licensing condition that one may not run MS in virtualization.. ;)

            • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday April 21 2017, @04:09PM (2 children)

              by DannyB (5839) on Friday April 21 2017, @04:09PM (#497464)

              Negotiated volume licensing is the key. Any of our developers can run up to four virtualized MS Windows on their desktop workstation. Our std developer configuration is 32 GB. On my server box (64 GB, raid 5, 2 xeons, etc) in my office a few feet away from my workstation, it has an MS Windows with license that exceeds cost of the hardware, but lets me run as many virtualized MS Windows as I want or can fit in 64 GB. (And I don't want Windows, but it is mostly a windows shop, good job, etc.) There are things that run Linux and various technologies, PostreSQL, etc in some other groups. Open source isn't banned or anything like that. There is some Apache, PHP etc on Windows in a few places. But I am not responsible to maintain the Windows running on bare metal. (Windows in a VM is my own problem to deal with. And hey, it works.)

              If you're asking why to run Windows in a VM, I would say: MS (or Linux for that matter) in a VM is just too darned convenient. Easy to make checkpoints and restore entire OS to earlier state, etc. Spin up or throw away OSes as you like. It's a productivity booster. Like dual monitors.

              • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday April 21 2017, @04:27PM (1 child)

                by kaszz (4211) on Friday April 21 2017, @04:27PM (#497474) Journal

                I'm curious if the services done using Windows could be done with available open and free software?

                (Why to run Windows in a VM ought to be obvious ;-)

                • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday April 21 2017, @05:04PM

                  by DannyB (5839) on Friday April 21 2017, @05:04PM (#497493)

                  It really depends on what you're talking about.

                  Take a legacy Windows desktop application (yuk) and offer it to customers over the internet, virtualized with RDP access. Probably always will need Windows. (Thank God that I never have to touch a project like that!)

                  Developing a modern application? Well you could pick your choice of technologies. (Like I did years ago.) Some projects pick .NET because they perceive they can get a lot of cheap developers. And not necessarily US citizens.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by FatPhil on Friday April 21 2017, @01:49PM (10 children)

    by FatPhil (863) <{pc-soylent} {at} {asdf.fi}> on Friday April 21 2017, @01:49PM (#497393) Homepage
    Linux. Well the dozens of linux kernel engineers I know at Intel are being told that the processors are designed to run linux (as well as Windows). So for Microsoft to claim that such processors are "designed for the latest version of Windows" is a bit of a stretch. The truth would be far more prosaic "Windows 7 and 8 are now designed to not run on your modern processors", that that kinda makes them sound like dickwads, so they'd never own up to it.
    --
    I was worried about my command. I was the scientist of the Holy Ghost.
    • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday April 21 2017, @03:10PM

      by kaszz (4211) on Friday April 21 2017, @03:10PM (#497436) Journal

      Not modern processors? Great there's always 6502 virtualization, it ought to be enough for any Windows.. ;-)

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by fishybell on Friday April 21 2017, @03:15PM

      by fishybell (3156) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 21 2017, @03:15PM (#497439)

      This sort of thing smells like a class action lawsuit in the works. If I were a lawyer my mouth would be salivating.

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by bzipitidoo on Friday April 21 2017, @04:10PM (7 children)

      by bzipitidoo (4388) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 21 2017, @04:10PM (#497466) Journal

      > kinda makes them sound like dickwads

      Well, they are. Been jerks since before the company was founded. A top 10 list of worst crap they've done has a lot of contenders.

      14. MS DOS 4.0
      13. J, the attempt to exterminate and replace Sun's Java
      12. Clippy and MS Bob
      11. activation keys and "phone home" required ever since Windows XP
      10. Windows ME
      9. Plays For Sure and the attempt to kill ogg vorbis and mp3
      8. Internet Explorer
      7. Windows 10 telemetry.
      6. Security fixes, updates, changes that aren't just fixes
      5. Extreme nagging and trickery to force upgrade Windows 7 and 8 to 10.
      4. many massive security holes
      3. The "Microsoft Tax", imposing Windows license fee on every PC
      2. MS Office file format lock in, OOXML to destroy ODF.
      1. DRM, particularly in the much hated Windows Vista

      And that's just the PC world. Security holes and fixes could be broken out into long lists of their own. Like, the time about a decade ago when MS created a completely unnecessary chicken and egg problem by blocking the downloading of updates except on "verified" installations of Windows. But had to have the updates before a new Windows install could be verified, because it had to connect to the Internet to "phone home", and it couldn't finish phoning home before it was infected from being connected to the Internet before being patched.

      MS is always, always imposing artificial limitations, and insulting our intelligence by asking us to believe those limitations are just how the system works or the result of unfortunate bugs, sorry, it's not their fault, when it clearly is their fault. Why won't DirectX12 work on Windows 7? Because MS says so, no other reason? Can MS be believed when they claim something like that it's because Windows 7 can't support the more direct access to the hardware DirectX12 brings? No, they can't. It may be true, but MS hasn't the credibility to be believed even on those rare occasions they aren't lying. More often, they don't explain, resorting to the equivalent of "that's just the way it is", treat the customers like mushrooms, keep them in the dark and feed them manure. They've shown over and over that they can't be trusted to tell customers anything straight. Even in the explanation of the simplest bug fix in a small patch, you have to wonder if they're leaving things out. Of course they refuse to show the world the source code, think it's unfair of the world to ask that of them. Often the limitations just happen to be resolvable by paying them more money for an upgrade, unless they screw it up which they have more than once. Why so many customers still put up with this, I do not understand.

      So, soldiers of the MS Light Brigade, yours not to make reply, yours not to reason why, yours but to do and die. Lock in to the right of you, bugs to the left of you, malware in front of you. Into the jaws of Office, into the mouth of Power Point, rode the 640k.

      • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday April 21 2017, @04:31PM

        by kaszz (4211) on Friday April 21 2017, @04:31PM (#497477) Journal

        Let's hope someone writes a Win7/8 virus that makes them DirectX12 capable. It would be a neat f-ck you to Microsoft.

      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by DannyB on Friday April 21 2017, @04:46PM (3 children)

        by DannyB (5839) on Friday April 21 2017, @04:46PM (#497486)

        It's like you're reading my mind, man.

        MS-DOS 4.0 didn't last long, fortunately. But you failed to mention MS-DOS 6 which included a stolen copy of Stacker's disk compression software. MS got sued. Eventually forced to (under)pay for it. Cheapest technology MS ever stole.

        You mentioned IE (Internet Explorer). But the story goes deeper. In 1995, while Mac had TCP/IP support and good dial up internet support with web browsers, MS-Windows sufferers had to install trumpet winsock do complex configuration, etc. Bill Gates famously said the internet is just a fad. (Also compare the original registration dates of the names apple.com and microsoft.com for some additional insight.) Then Microsoft woke up and smelled the internet. Suddenly, desperately they needed a web browser. A small company, Spyglass made a browser for Windows. Microsoft bought it for $100,000 up front, plus a royalty percent of sales. Renamed Spyglass to Internet Explorer. And guess how many copies of IE have ever been sold? Then Microsoft poured, over time, $150 Million into IE, for a not for sale product? Why? To break compatibility of the web and hold back web development. And it worked. For a while. Netscape folded. But from its ashes rose Firefox. It was way better and market share grew, eventually passing 50% of browser users. Then, suddenly, Microsoft realized that the decade long stagnant IE 6, needed to be modernized. So we got IE 7. Not fully web standards compliant. Then IE 8, 9, etc. Microsoft finally realizing that it simply had to be fully web compliant. Eventually scrapping the whole steaming pile of code and building Edge.

        You also mentioned Windows artificial limitations. That is an ancient IBM monopolist trick called "segmenting the market". Basically you end up with:
        * Windows Home Basic
        * Windows Extra Whitening
        * Windows with Baking Soda
        * Windows with Peroxide
        * Windows with Fresh Mint taste
        * Windows with Baking Soda and Extra Whitening
        * etc

        It's funny that Linux doesn't need to come in all these different kinds of editions. You can get, say Red Hat, or SuSE, or Ubuntu and add the right software to it to be a desktop, or headless, or a file server, web server, mail server, database server, etc. And no artificial distinction between a "small business server" an "enterprise edition server" or "datacenter edition server".

        It reminds me of the old trick where an expensive IBM printer was field upgradable from the slower model to the fast model. What did the field technicial do? He moved a belt from one pulley to another, blew out the dust, looked busy, and then put the printer back together. That's what I think of when a desktop PC Windows will only accept a limited number of inbound TCP connections.

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by hendrikboom on Saturday April 22 2017, @12:40AM (2 children)

          by hendrikboom (1125) on Saturday April 22 2017, @12:40AM (#497702) Homepage

          The IBM 407 printing card processor was field-upgradable to a model that was twice as fast simply by the removal of a relay. If you knew which relay, anyone could do it. Where I was, the computer centre director did it on his first day on the job.

          The relay caused it simply to skip every other machine cycle.

          • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday April 24, @01:30PM (1 child)

            by DannyB (5839) on Monday April 24, @01:30PM (#498820)

            Of course, if you got caught, IBM would increase your rental cost to the more expensive model, probably retroactively, if not file a lawsuit.

            Did I say rent? Yes, I did. You couldn't "buy" IBM equipment. Only rent it. That monopolist trick prevented the emergence of a market for used IBM equipment. When a monopolist's prices are so high, people would jump at the discounts of buying used equipment in working order.

            • (Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Wednesday May 03, @03:08AM

              by hendrikboom (1125) on Wednesday May 03, @03:08AM (#503451) Homepage

              The rules may have been different for a university, since they tend to get the students and staff used to a particular manufacturer's hardware, and they may go and buy likewise when they go elsewhere.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 21 2017, @05:10PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 21 2017, @05:10PM (#497494)

        More often, they don't explain, resorting to the equivalent of "that's just the way it is", treat the customers like mushrooms, keep them in the dark and feed them manure.

        Q: How does Bill Gates change a lightbulb?

        A: He doesn't; instead, he redefines darkness as the industry standard.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 21 2017, @10:38PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 21 2017, @10:38PM (#497635)

        The "Microsoft Tax"

        Volume price is legal.
        The way M$ did it, however, was clearly anti-competitive.
        This was a failure of government regulators.
        Reagan's DoJ should have come down with both feet on M$ in the early 1980s.

        ...and the way that the white box builders bent over and took it was pretty gutless.
        M$'s NDAs played a role here, I'm quite sure.
        Again, gutless PC companies just taking the abuse.

        MS DOS 4.0

        Specifically?
        As DannyB said, M$ DOS 6 was the glaring example of scummy DOS-related behavior.

        Now, in the 4.0 era there was the attempt at blocking installs of Windoze on DR DOS systems.
        "Non-Fatal Error" (AARD) When You Tried To Install Windows 3.1 Under DR-DOS [twimgs.com]
        (That didn't make its way into the released version, but it's obvious that M$ was considering that slimy, clearly anti-competitive move.)

        -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by DannyB on Friday April 21 2017, @02:55PM (4 children)

    by DannyB (5839) on Friday April 21 2017, @02:55PM (#497427)

    Why would Microsoft consider it to be a problem for old versions of Windows to merely run on newer processors? Unless the new processors are so incompatible with the old ones that it requires significant effort to make old Windows run on new processors.

    Oh, I get it. To force people off of older OSes. So they can get pwned by Windows 10.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 21 2017, @04:43PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 21 2017, @04:43PM (#497483)

      Or as one colleague of mine said, "It's a lot of work to update an older OS to work with newer software! Why should companies have to support that?" So just buy the new version! I mean, its so HARD for Apple and MS to patch the old OS with code theyve already written...

      • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday April 21 2017, @05:34PM

        by bob_super (1357) on Friday April 21 2017, @05:34PM (#497502)

        To be fair (because at least one person has to), spending engineering time figuring out why something broke on an old product is neither fun nor necessarily productive. Many times, the problem has been solved already in the newer version, and porting the fix's dependencies is a lot of redundant work...

        BUT, that's what "supported" is supposed to mean.

    • (Score: 2) by SomeGuy on Friday April 21 2017, @05:35PM (1 child)

      by SomeGuy (5632) on Friday April 21 2017, @05:35PM (#497504)

      Seriously. Why?... Why?... Why?....

      In the past, older OSes would usually still run on newer PC hardware. This was even expected of the hardware, although ocasionally things would genuinely break. The catch usually came in the form of drivers that required a later OS, or some fancy lame new features that required functionality not present.

      Run Windows 98 on a dual CPU system? Sure, but it just would only use one. Run Windows 2000 on an Athlon X2? Sure, but you probably would be stuck in basic VGA mode. Run Windows 95 on a 5ghz machine? Yea, that is going to crash and burn without some hacks. Run Windows XP with some fancy-shmancy built-in goofy SATA controller? Well, if it doesn't offer IDE emulation or slipstreamable drivers you might have a problem - or slap in an IDE PCE card.

      But it never said "you are not allowed to try this".

      Congratulations, Microsoft. You have turned the PC industry in to a distributed version of Apple.

      • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday April 21 2017, @08:11PM

        by DannyB (5839) on Friday April 21 2017, @08:11PM (#497565)

        Too bad Apple didn't patent this business method so that they would be the only one doing it.

  • (Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Friday April 21 2017, @03:27PM (8 children)

    by wonkey_monkey (279) on Friday April 21 2017, @03:27PM (#497450) Homepage

    Microsoft blocked the delivery of Windows Updates recently to Windows 7 and 8.1 devices powered by a next-generation processor.

    The company announced the support change in January 2017. Broken down to the essentials, it means that Intel Kaby Lake and AMD Bristol Ridge processors are only support by Windows 10, and not older versions of Windows.

    To hammer that home, Microsoft made the decision to block Windows Update on Windows 7 or 8.1 PCs with those next generation processors.

    So they blocked updates for Windows 7/8.1 (*), which means the new processors are only supported by Windows 10. And to hammer that home, they've... blocked updates for Windows 7/8.1 (*).

    I guess a circular summary is fitting for the seemingly circular logic Microsoft are using here.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk
    • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday April 21 2017, @04:28PM (5 children)

      by DannyB (5839) on Friday April 21 2017, @04:28PM (#497476)

      which means the new processors are only supported by Windows 10.

      At what point will there be more Linux running on Intel processors than there are Windows on Intel processors?

      Don't laugh. Serious question.

      Consider.

      Linux is all around you. (Like the matrix.) Every time you turn on your TV. Use your router. Use your DVR. A GPS navigator. Use your smart phone (if you are among the 4/5 of Linux powered smartphone users). Digital camera. Digital picture frame. Tablets. Smart watches. Chromebooks have outsold Windows Laptops on Amazon for years now. Linux in home security systems. Home automation hubs. And on and on.

      Now many of the Linux instances I named run on ARM processors. However Linux is king of the hill when it comes to internet servers. PC sales have been declining year over year, but I think recently flattened out, maybe. So at what point are Intel processors running more Linux instances than Windows instances? Just wondering.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 21 2017, @04:45PM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 21 2017, @04:45PM (#497484)

        Why do you think there is such an effort to subvert linux? Because it is becoming more popular!

        • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday April 21 2017, @05:17PM (2 children)

          by DannyB (5839) on Friday April 21 2017, @05:17PM (#497497)

          Microsoft has been trying to destroy Linux for 15 years now. And has failed. The only place where Microsoft dominates over Linux is on personal computers. And Chromebook and Android tablets are making inroads. PC sales have declined for several years now.

          In most anything else with a microprocessor that requires a GUI, or internet access, file system access, bluetooth, WiFi, etc. Linux dominates. Even a basic printer today has Linux with a simple GUI interface.

          Microsoft is definitely not doing very well at destroying Linux.

          As for Microsoft's patent extortion? Those patents eventually do run out. Microsoft's best days are behind it. They won't go away anytime soon. Like IBM. But their best days are in the past, IMO.

      • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday April 21 2017, @05:46PM

        by bob_super (1357) on Friday April 21 2017, @05:46PM (#497507)

        There are more processors or cores running linux than Windows.
        There are more linux kernels than Windows kernels.
        Most people either don't know, don't care, or don't realize what an achievement (and progress) that is, because those ARM-based systems don't advertise Linux every single time you look at them.

        Google docs is actually the other biggest threat Microsoft has ever faced, because the overwhelming majority of those Linux instances didn't displace Win licenses (except in very lucrative enterprise servers, but many still have to run licensed VMs), while Google docs replaces Office directly.

    • (Score: 1) by tedd on Saturday April 22 2017, @03:16AM (1 child)

      by tedd (1691) on Saturday April 22 2017, @03:16AM (#497770)

      Where are your asterisks going?

      • (Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Saturday April 22 2017, @10:56AM

        by wonkey_monkey (279) on Saturday April 22 2017, @10:56AM (#497861) Homepage

        They indicate the circular nature of the summary which, thanks to the way it was written, is circular in nature.

        --
        systemd is Roko's Basilisk
  • (Score: 2) by requerdanos on Friday April 21 2017, @08:12PM (6 children)

    by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 21 2017, @08:12PM (#497568) Journal

    Bypass for Windows Update Lock for Next-Gen Processors Found

    Begin Rant() {

    Software that constantly fights against you is called euphemistically "PUP" (potentially unwanted programs), or more plainly malware.

    Unless you relish a constant arms race and fight against malware (Maybe it's your hobby? Maybe you're a masochist? Perhaps an ego thing?), the generally recognized industry best practice in dealing with malware is to remove it and to guard against its recurrence.

    Otherwise, you must always be on guard, knowing that the malware that you knowingly have installed can at any time cause you problems. I don't say "unforseen" problems because I am forseeing them right now for you; you can't say "but I didn't know!"

    Malware does unwanted things without regard to the instructions or desires of its user(s).

    Now try that sentence with the word "Windows" in place of the word "Malware". Yes, Windows does unwanted things without regard to the instructions or desires of its users. It's malware.

    Windows can be replaced with a free operating system [distrowatch.com] to solve and to prevent these problems. It's galling that that is even necessary, but Microsoft has over the years introduced hostile measure after hostile measure designed to deliberately break Windows remotely, to get Windows to spy for them (and not transparently, either), and to deliberately break Windows features and break software and software compatibility, with no signs of their stopping anytime soon.

    While any given free OS will not be identical to any particular version of Windows, there are broad areas of feature overlap with none* of the malware aspects. Looking at free operating systems [distrowatch.com], interest/popularity roughly corresponds with how much luck people have had with a particular free operating system.

    A larger community of users also generally corresponds with a greater availability of assistance when needed. Note that some communities know nearly everything but communicate at a more technical level (e.g., Arch) while others' knowledge may be less deep but more accessible to beginners (e.g., Mint). Others may fall somewhere in between (e.g., Debian, Fedora).

    While many are forced by professional or educational(!) requirements, there are some who willingly use Windows and fight against is as if that were natural and normal. It's not. If you knowingly choose to use Windows, you are part of the problem.

    *Free operating systems historically do not contain malware, except possibly for Ubuntu: Trusting them is hard to recommend after the default-phone-home-local-searches issue and their disastrous response to it ("no big deal"). Yes, being spyware is a big deal, and so is being malware. No OS is worthy for general use that has or promises such misfeatures.

    }

    • (Score: 2) by vux984 on Friday April 21 2017, @09:41PM (3 children)

      by vux984 (5045) on Friday April 21 2017, @09:41PM (#497612)

      While many are forced by professional or educational(!) requirements,

      Yes, including me.

      there are some who willingly use Windows and fight against is as if that were natural and normal.

      wait what? No there aren't. There are LOTS of people just willingly using windows who don't fight against it at all. But I don't think many people at all spend their days fighting with windows who AREN'T forced by other requirements to keep using it.

      • (Score: 2) by requerdanos on Friday April 21 2017, @10:52PM (2 children)

        by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 21 2017, @10:52PM (#497641) Journal

        there are some who willingly use Windows and fight against [it] as if that were natural and normal.

        wait what? No there aren't.

        With respect, yes there are.

        Reading the comments of articles like this [techsupportalert.com] and this [lifehacker.com.au] and this [reddit.com] you find person after person who acts as if fighting against your operating system is the most natural thing in the world; and some of them seem positively giddy at "getting one up" on Microsoft by disabling or reconfiguring some small part of the crapstorm that is contemporary Microsoft privacy and functionality policy. You don't see them as much on tech-savvy sites, unless by tech-savvy you mean "assume Windows is the center of the universe". But they're out there, keeping Windows alive by pretending that the emperor has clothes.

        • (Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Saturday April 22 2017, @01:17AM

          by hendrikboom (1125) on Saturday April 22 2017, @01:17AM (#497717) Homepage

          Decades ago I saw it on mainframes -- users fighting their systems and refusing to switch. Specifically, on CDC Cyber systems. They were difficult to work with. But people had becoms so used to the hoops they had to jump through that they refused to go through the process of learning too navigate an entirely different set of hoops on s different system. It took forcibly dragging some of them to a better-designed system (in this case, a Vax) before they realised that all the pain was unneessary, and their friends moved over too.

          Now back then, I suspect, none of the problems were there because CDC had a policy of abusing their customers.

          Given the commercial cultural evolution since then, I cannot be convinced that Microsoft (and the systemd pushers, for that matter) are entirely innocent.

        • (Score: 2) by vux984 on Saturday April 22 2017, @03:42AM

          by vux984 (5045) on Saturday April 22 2017, @03:42AM (#497775)

          i don't know that i agree. They may not be aware of linux and other alternatives, so fighting windows is the only option they have. They may not be aware that linux will work for them... but that assumes it would and honestly for most of those people i would argue it would probably wouldn't. People who 'fight' windows tend to be at least power users or gamers; so even if not really that tech savvy, they still likely use more advanced programs and tools, or games etc that are dependent on windows.

          They aren't people who just need a working web browser.

    • (Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Saturday April 22 2017, @01:10AM (1 child)

      by hendrikboom (1125) on Saturday April 22 2017, @01:10AM (#497711) Homepage

      For one market -- the use of Linux outside the usual Gnome desktops -- the approach of systemd is causing some of the breakage problems attributed to Windows. Lots of things still work, but system administrators who are need to work deep within their Linux systems have been reporting serious breakage.

      Of course, it is still possible to use Linux without systemd. But several of th main distros have given themselves over to it wholesale.

      Systemd appears to be something like a Windows wannabe.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 22 2017, @05:23AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 22 2017, @05:23AM (#497796)

        systemd = MicroSft sponsored sabotage of the Linux world.

        I am concerned about MS joining the Linux Foundation, as well as the re-alignments at Canonical / Ubutu for "commercial" focus... is Shuttleworth preparing to sell out to MicroSoft? That woulod be a complete train smash for Linux, something that would have Satan Nutella licking his H1-B legacy lips.

(1)