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

91–100 of 149 posts

Re: Samsung disabling Windows Update?

#91

Post by dang »

firloop wrote: post #5

Meta: I submitted this post with the article's title but it seems the mods have changed the title to something less loaded.

HN has never had a "original titles only" rule. If it did, anyone could get whatever they wanted on the front page just by giving a post a manipulative title. That's why the guidelines ask to use the original title unless it is misleading or linkbait.

Is this one misleading? I can't say. In cases where we are in no position to judge the accuracy of a dramatic claim, we sometimes add a question mark. It's a lightweight way to make the title provisionally conform to HN's guidelines while the community sorts out what's going on.

Re: Samsung disabling Windows Update?

#93

Post by zamalek »

reacweb wrote: post #83
daemin wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

There are two problems: how on earth samsung may have the idea to produce this kind of software and who is signing software without giving a look at what he is signing. A problem of software development mentality (on windows) and a problem of responsability.

> who is signing software without giving a look at what he is signing.

Versign would by proxy, as one example. A certificate authorized to sign code was purchased from them. Samsung would directly, to prove that this shit software came from them.

Just like SSL/TLS. I could set up an SSL website that performs drive-by attacks, would Verisign sign that? Yes, yes they would.

Vericode isn't an gate keeper like Macs certificates are. It's designed to improve security: if I download a Samsung installer Windows will tell me that it is indeed from Samsung (during the UAC elevation) because the signature checks out. This means that I can be certain that unbeknownst malware won't be installed on my PC alongside the Samsung malware.

The story is different with WHDL (drivers), those are signed by Microsoft (in addition to yourself, I think).

Re: Samsung disabling Windows Update?

#94

Post by rossng »

I'm not that surprised. SW Update and Easy Settings are among the two worst pieces of software I've ever used.

If I press the volume keys on my (i7, Ivy Bridge) Samsung laptop, I often have to wait several minutes before anything happens.

Better yet, a clean Windows install on that machine will always fail because for some reason the laptop lets Windows install the bootloader to the mini cache SSD - which the BIOS doesn't recognise.

I'm not going to be buying another Samsung PC.

Re: Samsung disabling Windows Update?

#95

Post by PlzSnow »

crdoconnor wrote: post #58
bentcorner wrote: post #4

Isn't there a method by which Samsung can deliver to Microsoft the set of drivers required for their hardware, to solve this exact problem? Is this a matter of Samsung not wanting to go through the WHQL process?

It's possible that Microsoft have been covertly throttling the WHQL process to punish Samsung somehow. They are competing head on with Microsoft in a number of other markets (tablets, etc.), and WHQL is not really subject to much, if any, legal scrutiny.

absurd nonsense

Re: Samsung disabling Windows Update?

#96

Post by jug »

Wow...

> 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.

Pretty sure this sentence causes brain damage just by reading it. I hope this receives Microsoft's attention. They take Windows Update very seriously these days and will probably flip over this.

Re: Samsung disabling Windows Update?

#97

Post by SmellyGeekBoy »

galfarragem wrote: post #92

Is it safe/efficient to uninstall all bloatware from a laptop? I own a Samsung and over the years I've unninstalled the obvious bloatware without any problem. I wonder if I can delete all of them.

I've taken this approach on others' PCs before with great effect (msconfig is your friend) but sometimes it's just quicker to do a clean install. I tend to triple boot Linux / Windows / Current-tinkering-OS-of-choice on my own machine so I'll usually dedicate at least a day to getting everything set up when I have a new one.

Re: Samsung disabling Windows Update?

#98

Post by SmellyGeekBoy »

crdoconnor wrote: post #58
bentcorner wrote: post #4

Isn't there a method by which Samsung can deliver to Microsoft the set of drivers required for their hardware, to solve this exact problem? Is this a matter of Samsung not wanting to go through the WHQL process?

It's possible that Microsoft have been covertly throttling the WHQL process to punish Samsung somehow. They are competing head on with Microsoft in a number of other markets (tablets, etc.), and WHQL is not really subject to much, if any, legal scrutiny.

Yes, I hear 9/11 was an inside job as well...

Re: Samsung disabling Windows Update?

#99

Post by embik »

reacweb wrote: post #87
embik wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I do not like microsoft because I think it has slow down the progress of computer science (MHO). In this case microsoft has done nothing wrong. It has given Samsung the right to sign executable because people would hate if microsoft was the only one able to sign executables. In his case, samsung is the only culprit. I think microsoft has make many good moves recently because the public interest and its business inter…

Yes, I agree that this isn't related to Microsoft at all. I was merely responding to the aspect of "hey guys, look, Microsoft got better".

> It has to lobby governments for commercial interests and at the same time, it has to seduce developpers by open sourcing (and leading technical innovation).

Well, that's the very problem for me. As long as it is only PR to catch devs, I don't care. Opening .NET was great, but honestly I'm accustomed to open languages (or open compilers), such as Go, Rust and C (including the whole GObject ecosystem). It didn't make .NET better, it made it equal to things I'm used to. And in contrast to .NET, these languages are truly governed / developed by a multitude of developers.

To me it's more important to stop ambushing Open Source / Free Software (like the blackmailing I linked above). If Microsoft's products are better, they won't have to fear Open Source at all. Fair play is all I want.

Re: Samsung disabling Windows Update?

#100

Post by xg15 »

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…

> Nowadays there's simply no reason for legitimate applications to have the level of access to the underlying system that they used to have

I'm hearing this argument from time to time. But I'd like to know what exactly changed. I can think of a dozen use-cases for which a shared, system-wide filesystem would be absolutely necessary (yes, especially with computer-illiterate friends and relatives, as "files" is pretty much the only abstraction besides "web" that is widely understood even outside of "geek"/"power user" circles).

So, what exactly has changed between then and now that made those use-cases legitimate in the bast but not anymore now?

Post reply on HN