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

141–149 of 149 posts

Re: Samsung disabling Windows Update?

#141

Post by chc »

Malstrond wrote: post #115
Aloha wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, prote…

>FOSS of more often then not superior on its merits alone, why does it need a protectionist anti-competitive law to help it compete? If proprietary software is more often then not superior on its merits alone, why does it need a protectionist anti-competitive law (Intellectual property, reverse engineering forbidden by EULAs) to help it compete?

What would the phrase "proprietary software" mean if it weren't possible for software to be proprietary?

Re: Samsung disabling Windows Update?

#142

Post by chc »

crdoconnor wrote: post #80
Aloha wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, prote…

>First, why would you expect Microsoft to not lobby against laws that prevent it from effectively competing? I wouldn't expect Microsoft to not lobby because I don't believe their PR that says that they've "changed" and are now "pro open source". >It's very clear to me that this has little to do with weather the competition is FOSS So which part of the Indian policy that (briefly) favored open source was not about fa…

It doesn't seem fair to say that Microsoft is attacking open-source software here. They're just asking not to be shut out. I think any of us would be asking the same if someone were trying to categorically exclude something we'd made.

Re: Samsung disabling Windows Update?

#143

Post by chc »

zamalek wrote: post #90
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.

> means to disable it. 1. Right click on the taskbar. 2. Click "Startup". 3. Disable what you want. 4. Click "Services" 5. Disable what you want. This omits "Scheduled Tasks" (cron jobs) which can be set to execute on user logon. This is the single one that Microsoft still need to address. Does whichever operating system you are comparing to Windows have a one-top-shop for the vast majority of startup configuration?…

> Proof-of-point: I have a copy of Linux, without telling you what the distro is, tell me how to disable the firewall (just an example of background software on most Linux distros).

This isn't comparing operating systems to operating systems. "Linux" could refer to a number of operating systems, such as Yellow Dog, Ubuntu and Fire OS. The Microsoft version of this question would be more like: "I have a copy of a Microsoft OS. Without telling you what version it is, tell me how to disable the firewall."

Re: Samsung disabling Windows Update?

#144

Post by bskap »

viraptor wrote: post #36
bskap wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the US and EU have repeatedly told Microsoft that they're not allowed to force OEMs to use their software.

I'm not sure this applies. "You're not allowed to disable updates" is not even close to "You cannot install any browser other than IE".

I'm not sure Microsoft wants to gamble $1 billion that "You have to use Microsoft's updater" is different than "you have to include Windows Media Player".

Re: Samsung disabling Windows Update?

#145

Post by busterarm »

CountSessine wrote: post #61
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…

It's because we don't do recalls on computers...and we should.

Faulty hardware like this goes out _all the time_. Eons ago when I sold computers, HP had a line of high end laptops (~$3500) with 2 slots for RAM (back when that was a big deal in a laptop...) and we found out that the second RAM slot's pins were not connected to anything on the motherboard. On every single laptop we opened (30+). Literally they had just pins on a board with no traces and advertised it as a 2-slot laptop.

HP stonewalled us (Circuit City flagship store, so we had corporate involved) and kept trying to get us to sign an NDA before they would confirm the problem or offer a solution. We said fuck that and shipped several thousand of the things (the chain's entire order) back to them as defective.

They caved, like they should have, but complained about it the entire time.

Re: Samsung disabling Windows Update?

#146

Post by pjmlp »

xg15 wrote: post #137
pjmlp wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People neglected the fact that having $HOME access was already bad enough and lived in the illusion that running applications as normal user was safe.

Why is having a home directory bad?

Any application running under the user id has full access to his private data.

Add the capability to do network communication and suddenly the all wolrd has access to $ HOME.

This is why in the container model of mobile OS and Windows/Mac OS X sandboxes, applications only get to see file handles to files choosen by the user.

Re: Samsung disabling Windows Update?

#147

Post by reacweb »

embik wrote: post #99
reacweb wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ho…

I do not think open sourcing is only PR. It is a different model that should increase quality of software and less deception. I think there is a financial interest in open sourcing and listening to a community. The financial benefits of being "fair play" is not so clear.

Re: Samsung disabling Windows Update?

#148

Post by developer1 »

pilif wrote: post #73
developer1 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Changing the windows update policy requires admin rights and UAC prompting. The Samsung installer would also run as admin (either started from a service running as admin and deployed by the samsung initial image, or by the user allowing UAC when launching the samsung installer), so it can change the registry.

True. To be more specific: while UAC is great for requiring admin privileges, it would be nice if UAC prompts would enumerate the permissions being asked for. The prompt should be asking you if you wish to allow the program to disable Windows Update as opposed to "admin privileges to do anything whatsoever with your operating system".

That said, it's a difficult system to implement properly. Android went that route, and it almost works - almost. Android's available permissions are too plentiful, and yet certain permissions are too broad in scope. I wouldn't want a desktop application to have to ask for separate privileges for every little piece of functionality, but for certain critical actions it would be nice to have some clue as to what is going on.

Perhaps in another 20 years someone will finally invent a privilege escalation system that somehow manages to be both very specific and yet not time consuming for the customer to manage. What a dream. :)

Re: Samsung disabling Windows Update?

#149

Post by SmellyGeekBoy »

crdoconnor wrote: post #108
SmellyGeekBoy wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Somebody clearly wasn't around in the 90s.

I was born in 1984, I remember the 90s well... If Apple have completely reinvented themselves, why not Microsoft?
Post reply on HN