8 ms·

That's why I don't install updates, unless and until they've been proven not to break things. I miss the old days when software was expected to work out of the

by Zr01 1y ago

That's why I don't install updates, unless and until they've been proven not to break things. I miss the old days when software was expected to work out of the box and updates, on the rare occasions when they appeared, were actually useful.

russfink 1y ago
I hope you are speaking with tongue in cheek. Security is the main reason to keep current with updates. They address various “CVE” reports and go beyond to patch things not reported by CVEs.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- mschuster91 1y ago
  > Security is the main reason to keep current with updates. It shouldn't be that way though. Especially the billion dollar corporations should not be excused for shipping insecure software - the sad reality though is that Microsoft seems to have lost most of its QA team and what remains of its dev team gets shifted to developing adware for that sweet sweet "recurring revenue" nectar. Apple doesn't have that problem at least, but their management also has massive problems, prioritizing shiny new gadgets over fixing the tons of bugs people have.
- cesarb 1y ago
  > Security is the main reason to keep current with updates. For plenty of users, their only exposed attack surface is the web browser and AV codecs. Updates outside of that make no security difference for them.
  - hulitu 1y ago
    > For plenty of users, their only exposed attack surface is the web browser Until they realize that every Microsoft app sends data to mothership.
- worewood 1y ago
  I think users wouldn't be so resistant to security updates of they were just that and not bundled with feature removal, unwanted new features, and other things. Or if they were properly done. Example: Intel and the plundervolt vulnerability. To fix that they removed the ability for undervolting in ny laptop. If I don't use SGX there's no reason for the block. They could've restricted undervolting only when SGX is enabled but no, they had to "fix" it in the worst way possible.
- ok123456 1y ago
  CVE inflation is real. Most CVEs are of very low quality. Anyway, security updates should be decoupled from feature updates, so that people aren't hesitant to update. Otherwise, you get people who hold out because they're worried the new release is going to break all their settings and "opt-in" into all kinds of new telemetry.
- hulitu 1y ago
  > Security is the main reason to keep current with updates. They address various “CVE” reports and go beyond to patch things not reported by CVEs. This does not seems to be the case. Rounding buttons and changing icons size in Teams and Office 365 has nothing to do with security.
- hulitu 1y ago
  > Security is the main reason to keep current with updates Can you point to some "security" updates ? /s

by Zr01 1y ago

russfink 1y ago

I hope you are speaking with tongue in cheek. Security is the main reason to keep current with updates. They address various “CVE” reports and go beyond to patch things not reported by CVEs.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
mschuster91 1y ago
> Security is the main reason to keep current with updates. It shouldn't be that way though. Especially the billion dollar corporations should not be excused for shipping insecure software - the sad reality though is that Microsoft seems to have lost most of its QA team and what remains of its dev team gets shifted to developing adware for that sweet sweet "recurring revenue" nectar. Apple doesn't have that problem at least, but their management also has massive problems, prioritizing shiny new gadgets over fixing the tons of bugs people have.
cesarb 1y ago
> Security is the main reason to keep current with updates. For plenty of users, their only exposed attack surface is the web browser and AV codecs. Updates outside of that make no security difference for them.
- hulitu 1y ago
  > For plenty of users, their only exposed attack surface is the web browser Until they realize that every Microsoft app sends data to mothership.
worewood 1y ago
I think users wouldn't be so resistant to security updates of they were just that and not bundled with feature removal, unwanted new features, and other things. Or if they were properly done. Example: Intel and the plundervolt vulnerability. To fix that they removed the ability for undervolting in ny laptop. If I don't use SGX there's no reason for the block. They could've restricted undervolting only when SGX is enabled but no, they had to "fix" it in the worst way possible.
ok123456 1y ago
CVE inflation is real. Most CVEs are of very low quality. Anyway, security updates should be decoupled from feature updates, so that people aren't hesitant to update. Otherwise, you get people who hold out because they're worried the new release is going to break all their settings and "opt-in" into all kinds of new telemetry.
hulitu 1y ago
> Security is the main reason to keep current with updates. They address various “CVE” reports and go beyond to patch things not reported by CVEs. This does not seems to be the case. Rounding buttons and changing icons size in Teams and Office 365 has nothing to do with security.
hulitu 1y ago
> Security is the main reason to keep current with updates Can you point to some "security" updates ? /s