Hacker News Reader

Comment by woodrowbarlow | Hacker News Reader

on windows 10 home edition?

try installing security updates only. try denying a specific update. try freezing you installation at a specific build number. try running a machine unattended for a month without it rebooting. and next time you update, check your settings. chances are good that something, somewhere, got silently reset to defaults.

the only option for personal windows 10 installations (i.e. non-enterprise) is to blacklist the windows update service. and with each update, you have to find a new way of blacklisting the service. the settings allow for some changes -- you can defer certain types of updates for up to one month -- but eventually microsoft _will_ push new updates to your device and they _will_, if needed, reboot your PC.

View on HN

I can delay updates for a while but if we're talking about a 'home' OS... updates should happen eventually. There are good security reasons for that.

> I can delay updates for a while but if we're talking about a 'home' OS... updates should happen eventually. There are good security reasons for that.

You can delay them for a while. Is that the control you alluded to in the above comment? That doesn't sound like much control over anything, if anything it's just a temporary delay of the inevitable.

The best solution I've found so far is setting your internet as a metered connection, then telling windows not to update over a metered connection. The OS complains every time you boot up, but thats a small price to pay for control over when an update is installed.

I've resorted to using a third-party tool that periodically updates the Active Hours setting, so that Windows will never decide that my desktop has been idle long enough for it to be okay to install updates, reboot, and dump all the stuff that I have open. That way I can apply updates when it is convenient, and cuts down considerably on the swearing when I come in on a Monday morning.

I can delay (for a long while last time I did it, I don't recall getting forced anytime in the past few years) and do what I generally need to.

If the requirement is to run for month(s) without updates, I suspect a 'home' OS was the wrong choice.

I think for your typical home user required updates with the option to delay is very reasonable.

The scale of bad bot activity out there would be tremendous without requiring updates. We see enough security discussion oh HN to make that clear.

What about an OS for people who have some idea what they're doing, though? The enthusiast power user, the independent professional, the small business? Basically the target market for what Pro editions of Windows used to be.

The Pro SKU for Windows still exists and does offer more options for Update control.

Even if your OEM won't sell you a Pro edition license, it's also easier than ever to move a Home SKU to a Pro SKU because it's a one-time $99 purchase in the Microsoft Store and an in-place software update.

Windows 10 Pro offers more options for controlling things like updates and telemetry than Windows 10 Home, but it still doesn't meet the minimal acceptable standard, which is that the user can decline to install any update they don't want and can turn off all telemetry.

I think we definitely disagree on what a "minimal acceptable standard" is here.

Declining updates in general weakens herd immunity.

Pro does let you turn off the "Basic" telemetry that is mandatory on Home and that turns off "all" telemetry in the OS itself (you may still have to opt-out for some applications). Keep in mind that turning of "Basic" telemetry also turns of Windows Error Reporting and crash/BSOD telemetry, which can also weaken herd immunity.

Anti-telemetry and "update control" arguments kind of sound a lot like anti-vaxxer arguments.

Declining updates in general weakens herd immunity.

No, declining security updates that are applicable in your situation and that actually work weakens herd immunity if the threat is contagious.

On my system, I'll be the judge of when that applies, not some external organisation, and certainly not an external organisation with a track record of both abusing an automatic update mechanism to push changes that their users don't want and pushing changes that break things.

Anti-telemetry and "update control" arguments kind of sound a lot like anti-vaxxer arguments.

Anti-vaxxer arguments are not grounded in science and evidence. They advocate not taking effective preventative measures by denying the existence of the harms those measures prevent.

Given that the risks from both bad updates and data leakage are well established, if anything I'd say the argument that we shouldn't care about controlling our own systems and uploads from them is the one analogous to anti-vaxxer reasoning.

Arch Linux

if they only forced the security patches, that would be... well, at least it would be justifiable. but they also force the "quality" updates. quality updates i never asked for like making the voice assistant more intrusive, or installing some 3d painting software with no way to remove it, or digging microsoft online account tie-in further into the windows shell.

windows 10 is (for me) worse than when i bought it. i get that some people wanted these updates, but i didn't. all i want is the software i paid for three years ago.

and yes, i recognize that this is a problem with all "evergreen" software (internet browsers in particular jump out). but choosing an OS is a commitment, moreso than any other type of software, and when you commit to windows 10 you have no way to know how that commitment will pan out a year or two later.

so anyway i'm back to `sudo dist-upgrade` and i'm pleased as punch about that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com