61–70 of 124 posts
Microsoft has repeatedly announced strict changes to driver signing policy while not actually enforcing them. Like last time I checked, their docs still claim that the HLK tests are required for drivers on Windows Server 2019, but in practice attestation signing works fine. I hope that will also be the case here.
The title is a gross exaggeration of the policy change MS is making. Come 2021, what will go away is the ability to sign drivers for Windows 7 and 8 without passing WHQL/HLK compliance tests. That's it. You can still update compliant drivers, and you can still ship unsigned drivers if your users are willing to disable signing (not great, but there are plenty of shitty vendors who do this already). Are there some numb…
It's painful to repeatedly witness people voluntarily buy into ecosystems maintained by people with perverse incentives. You can't fault MS, making more money is their raison d'etre. If you care at all, even the smallest amount, explore the alternatives.
Microsoft did (still?) offer a free upgrade path from Windows 7/8 to Windows 10 for years so I doubt this is really for "getting money from our customers" but more "we want to stop supporting these old platforms at some point"
I wouldn't do that if it weren't a personal machine, however, because the "official" upgrade process ended a long time ago. Even using it for a home office might put you into questionable legal territory, but it's still possible.
I do think your last statement is more accurate, though. It really feels that they're subversively pushing as many people away from Win7/8 as possible by unofficially allowing upgrades through existing channels. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't find it especially nefarious.
I don't even use Windows (I have family that does). I'm a Linux user.
The title is a gross exaggeration of the policy change MS is making. Come 2021, what will go away is the ability to sign drivers for Windows 7 and 8 without passing WHQL/HLK compliance tests. That's it. You can still update compliant drivers, and you can still ship unsigned drivers if your users are willing to disable signing (not great, but there are plenty of shitty vendors who do this already). Are there some numb…
How do you permanently disable signing on 64-bit win7? Last I checked it wasn't possible to do cleanly, you end up needing user interaction for every boot, or you get a nag border. So, its a big deal.
Once MS stops issuing updates, you don't have to worry about them reverting your changes.
The title is a gross exaggeration of the policy change MS is making. Come 2021, what will go away is the ability to sign drivers for Windows 7 and 8 without passing WHQL/HLK compliance tests. That's it. You can still update compliant drivers, and you can still ship unsigned drivers if your users are willing to disable signing (not great, but there are plenty of shitty vendors who do this already). Are there some numb…
The title is a gross exaggeration of the policy change MS is making. Come 2021, what will go away is the ability to sign drivers for Windows 7 and 8 without passing WHQL/HLK compliance tests. That's it. You can still update compliant drivers, and you can still ship unsigned drivers if your users are willing to disable signing (not great, but there are plenty of shitty vendors who do this already). Are there some numb…
If your customers aren't willing to install unsigned drivers (and none of mine are), then the new driver will have to be put through the HLK tests and submitted to Msft for signing.
My issue isn't so much the testing/signing process, but that I've had an HCK test suite setup for the past 4 years that has worked just fine. It will have to be replaced w/an HLK test setup, the release engineer and I will have to learn a new process, and possibly get a new signing cert. It's not a trivial process, but one we can work through.
> the main "victims" of this will be shitty vendors with buggy drivers that lagged in supporting newer Windows variants
Some of us have to support customers who are running old versions of Windows, and sometimes we just need to add new features.
Think about what you're saying. There's no reason to denigrate vendors. Also, it's not always about bug fixes. A lot of us really care about the quality of our drivers and our customer's experience. It helps everyone stay in business.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But I need to use Windows for work because of multiple programs that do not run on any other target. > At home I still have to dual boot Windows to play games with my friends. In most cases you may execute such programs & games under Linux via WINE (+ Mono, PlayOnLinux, Winetricks; if needed).[0] > In school (this has changed a bit) I need to use Microsoft PowerPoint, Excel, and Word. Use LibreOffice Impress , Calc…
> In most cases you may execute such programs & games under Linux via WINE (+ Mono, PlayOnLinux, Winetricks; if needed). I do this for most games I want to play (and many are available natively on Linux these days!) but there are a few games with intrusive DRM that stop you from playing them on Linux. I have an older laptop lying around running Windows that I use for those if they’re not too demanding. Otherwise I’ll…
Is it from Steam? (FTR, There is already Steam for Linux too)
BTW, report any issues with apps & games not working under WINE to WineHQ devs.[0]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not only free, but forced!
My Windows 7 PC was never forcibly upgraded. I don't know what you are talking about
Yet another reason why centralized code signing is anti-user and a net negative. You should be able to easily install anything you want on your computer.
My naive understanding is that drivers are low-level and thus malicious drivers would have more net negative impact on an unsuspecting non-technical user (relative to a piece of malicious non-driver code).
Yet another reason why centralized code signing is anti-user and a net negative. You should be able to easily install anything you want on your computer.
This is the same as stating that you prefer many orders of magnitude more users to have unstable or insecure systems because they use products by a negligent vendor or are conned. That's hardly “anti-user” by any metric which covers mainstream users.
To me, this is an argument that code signing systems need to be tightly regulated to prevent abusing the system for reasons other than quality testing and accurate labeling.