Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Samsung disabling Windows Update?

bsodanalysis.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 149 posts

Re: Samsung disabling Windows Update?

#61

Post by CountSessine »

vcarl wrote: post #8

> When you enable Windows updates, it will install the Default Drivers for all the hardware no laptop which may or may not work. For example if there is USB 3.0 on laptop, the ports may not work with the installation of updates. So to prevent this, SW Update tool will prevent the Windows updates. So they "fixed" the problem of their driver getting overwritten by disabling all OS level updates? Oof. Screams shoddy dev…

Sounds to me like they put defective rev of a USB3 host controller on the board, and they need their own driver to work around it, but the host controller is going to identify itself generically enough that Samsung can't rely on PNP ID matching to pick their work-around driver. Hence they disable windows update to avoid getting a driver update that would stomp their workaround driver.

Whatever it is, it sounds really sketchy.

Re: Samsung disabling Windows Update?

#62

Post by daemin »

geon wrote: post #49
ninkendo wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Would you prefer if Windows worked like iOS where there are serious limitations on what apps can do in the background and where every application has to go through a central authority for vetting? I've thought about this for a while, and honestly, for desktops/notebooks/tablets? Yes. Maybe not just one App Store like iOS, but at least sandbox all possible non-os code similarly to ChromeOS, in a way that's on by def…

I like the way OS X handles it. Unsigned software won't run by default, but the user can override the limitation.

Yes, you can do this on Windows too, but the problem is this update disabler executable was signed, so it would have run anyway.

Re: Samsung disabling Windows Update?

#63

Post by embik »

electic wrote: post #42
crdoconnor wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, as a Linux user this kind of makes me chuckle. Microsoft has spent so much time abusing their market dominance, trying to cripple linux on the desktop that it's kind of funny for once to see a company which they can't strong-arm doing the same thing back to them.

Let the past be the past. The new MS is making some good moves. However, this is not MS's fault. When you operate in an OEM type environment, you will run into situations like this. For example, if OSX was an OEM offering, companies would disable services and make unsavory modifications. The reality, is like Lenovo, we have a bad vendor here and probably think twice before buying PCs from Samsung.

Honestly, it's hard to embrace the "new MS" when there are things like this still happening: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/may/22/microsoft-...

I'm aware that Microsoft is a giant corporation and there are many different people employed. The amount of people who support Open Source most likely increased in the last years. But as long as they're doing the public "we love Linux and Open Source" and try to lobby Open Source away in the background, I have no reason to trust them.

Re: Samsung disabling Windows Update?

#64

Post by bad_user »

ninkendo wrote: post #37
pilif wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really hard to find the correct middle-ground. Would you prefer if Windows worked like iOS where there are serious limitations on what apps can do in the background and where every application has to go through a central authority for vetting? Or do you propose a solution that gives both freedom to the user while also not allowing something like this to happen? Yes, there are whitelisting solutions (built into t…

> Would you prefer if Windows worked like iOS where there are serious limitations on what apps can do in the background and where every application has to go through a central authority for vetting? I've thought about this for a while, and honestly, for desktops/notebooks/tablets? Yes. Maybe not just one App Store like iOS, but at least sandbox all possible non-os code similarly to ChromeOS, in a way that's on by def…

Right, so because Windows has been historically shitty creating this problem in the first place, we now willingly want Trusted Computing and thus losing control and ownership of our own devices, with the grandma reason given as rationale. Well, when this relationship with the likes of Apple and Microsoft goes toxic, and it's only a matter of time, I'll be one of those that will enjoy it, as I'll consider it a sort of social justice, as a lot of people told you so and you wouldn't listen.

Re: Samsung disabling Windows Update?

#65

Post by developer1 »

pilif wrote: post #25
tantalor wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet, Microsoft is responsible for allowing such software to run in the background with no notification or authorization by the user or means to disable it.

It's really hard to find the correct middle-ground. Would you prefer if Windows worked like iOS where there are serious limitations on what apps can do in the background and where every application has to go through a central authority for vetting? Or do you propose a solution that gives both freedom to the user while also not allowing something like this to happen? Yes, there are whitelisting solutions (built into t…

Or you know, place the ability to disable Windows Update behind policy restrictions and UAC rather than being openly editable in the registry? With policy restrictions, corporate installations could deny all attempts to disable the service. In non-corporate environments, this should at least require a UAC prompt. While too many users would likely click through without understanding, at least knowledgeable users would understand and be able to deny the change.

Windows Update is a serious security requirement for any Windows install. Disabling it should clearly require explicit consent from the user.

Re: Samsung disabling Windows Update?

#67

Post by matthewmacleod »

bad_user wrote: post #64
ninkendo wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Would you prefer if Windows worked like iOS where there are serious limitations on what apps can do in the background and where every application has to go through a central authority for vetting? I've thought about this for a while, and honestly, for desktops/notebooks/tablets? Yes. Maybe not just one App Store like iOS, but at least sandbox all possible non-os code similarly to ChromeOS, in a way that's on by def…

Right, so because Windows has been historically shitty creating this problem in the first place, we now willingly want Trusted Computing and thus losing control and ownership of our own devices, with the grandma reason given as rationale. Well, when this relationship with the likes of Apple and Microsoft goes toxic, and it's only a matter of time, I'll be one of those that will enjoy it, as I'll consider it a sort of…

Instead of this sanctimonious sermon, we would be better served attempting to solve the problem that locked-down platforms do, but in a more open way.

Because the fact remains - computers have been a difficult thing for many people to use and maintain reliably. The "Windows has been historically shitty" point might be a reason this problem has been worse than it needed to, but it's hardly a compelling excuse.

When people—and not just Grandma—point out that their iPads don't have the same problem, then we should take that on board, rather than telling them that they're stupid for not listening.

Re: Samsung disabling Windows Update?

#69

Post by Aloha »

crdoconnor wrote: post #47
electic wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let the past be the past. The new MS is making some good moves. However, this is not MS's fault. When you operate in an OEM type environment, you will run into situations like this. For example, if OSX was an OEM offering, companies would disable services and make unsavory modifications. The reality, is like Lenovo, we have a bad vendor here and probably think twice before buying PCs from Samsung.

Their new PR line is they've changed and they are sorry, but they have certainly NOT changed and they are NOT sorry: http://techrights.org/2015/05/29/microsoft-vs-india/ Their recent "good moves" (open sourcing .NET, etc.) are simply an attempt to maintain relevance in the face of declining market share. If it results in regained market-share, they will likely bait and switch, and of course, they might as well get so…

First, why would you expect Microsoft to not lobby against laws that prevent it from effectively competing?

Second, Why is Microsoft lobbying for non-restrictive purchasing standards bad?

It's very clear to me that this has little to do with weather the competition is FOSS - and more to do if the competition can only be indian made software. Buy $country First laws have long been recognized as anti-competitive, protectionist and generally a cause of increasing acquisition costs.

FOSS of more often then not superior on its merits alone, why does it need a protectionist anti-competitive law to help it compete?

Re: Samsung disabling Windows Update?

#70

Post by Zekio »

[deleted] wrote: post #68
Zekio wrote: post #66

Well at least nobody was surprised by this, so that is good right? Jokes aside, this is ridiculously fucked up.

[deleted]

They clearly can't write software properly, or figure out how to contact Microsoft to actually use Windows Update to push out drivers.
Post reply on HN