# Creeped out by Windows Updates?



## Euclid (Mar 20, 2014)

Ignoring Stallman's ideology that proprietary software is unjust, it still makes a lot of sense to use and promote open source software over proprietary software - it makes the world a whole lot secure. So I would definitively recommend people ditch Microsoft and Apple and switch to Linux.


----------



## AliceWonder (Dec 11, 2014)

Absolutely. Only thing I use Windows for is to test IE and to use Photoshop, because unfortunately the GIMP developers have decided to take what was a decent bitmap editor and turn it into something that makes me scream stuff that would shock a Tourette.


----------



## starwars (Sep 5, 2014)

I just got a notification for new updates, I agree so many


----------



## Clyme (Jul 17, 2014)

Old Intern said:


> It seems like there are so many windows updates? - So often?
> Are they spying on us?
> 
> When they tell me not to turn off my computer - it just seems creepy.


I don't think they're spying on us, but I do find it annoying how many updates go out. I normally continually delay the update, sometimes for weeks.


----------



## selavi (Nov 29, 2011)

As a programmer and systems/network administrator, I always update everything. I release updates for my own software to add features or fix things, and with operating systems with millions of lines of code that are compatible with thousands of pieces of hardware (which themselves can be buggy), there will be issues that need to be fixed.

It actually surprises me that many people have the intent to not update. You're already using an operating system that can potentially fuck you over, so why not get the patches that (allegedly) improve security and fix bugs? Granted, I can understand being a skeptic and not "needing" the updates, but I have my experiences that say it's a net gain. I can also understand putting it off as it can be slow to update on most systems. And the risk of an update breaking something is rather minimal unless you have a rather special setup.

Of course, if you're paranoid or just want something different and don't need high performance, Windows-only applications then just switch to a Linux or Unix distribution that works for you. Don't forget that it's just as easy for large agencies to backdoor that as well. In fact, Linux has been hit pretty hard this year with vulnerabilities. New security holes are found all the time. Update, update, update.

My two pence.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

@Euclid interesting clip, I looked up RT to follow them on twitter 

@selavi In practice, I tend to be more with you. At the moment, I want what I can do with the laptop and to focus on doing what I know about - not adjusting to a new OS. But it does give me pause; I'm old enough to remember thinking it was tragic that young people no longer have ability to do basics like counting back change. We (myself included now) let ourselves become so dependent even with simple things like not knowing someones phone number, because we have equipment for that.


----------



## Marisa (Apr 26, 2012)

I think it's the Illuminati.


----------



## Euclid (Mar 20, 2014)

@Old Intern RT used to be good several years ago when it was breath of fresh air but now it's just trash just like any other corporate media. Just look at that reporter trying to character assassinate Stallman and generally being a whore for the surveillance police state.


----------



## AliceWonder (Dec 11, 2014)

selavi said:


> In fact, Linux has been hit pretty hard this year with vulnerabilities.
> My two pence.


such as... ?


----------



## Empty (Sep 28, 2011)

I have a SSD and a relatively powerful CPU, so speed is not an issue.

Stop living in the stone age!


----------



## selavi (Nov 29, 2011)

AliceWonder said:


> such as... ?


Heartbleed and Shellshock.


----------



## AliceWonder (Dec 11, 2014)

selavi said:


> Heartbleed and Shellshock.


Heartbleed was not a Linux bug, that was OpenSSL.

Any server running OpenSSL was vulnerable, thus any client (Linux or not) connecting to such a server was vulnerable.
OpenSSL is used by quite a few operating systems and by Apache on Windows, though it is not AFAIK shipped by MS.

Linux on the Desktop was only affected by heartbleed the same way as any other operating system - you connect to a vulnerable server and your session is not really secure.

Shellshock was bash, which is the shell every Linux distro I am aware of defaults to - that is a valid one.


----------



## selavi (Nov 29, 2011)

AliceWonder said:


> Heartbleed was not a Linux bug, that was OpenSSL.
> 
> Any server running OpenSSL was vulnerable, thus any client (Linux or not) connecting to such a server was vulnerable.
> OpenSSL is used by quite a few operating systems and by Apache on Windows, though it is not AFAIK shipped by MS.


I agree. Heartbleed is a little stretched on my part. Still, it is by far the standard library for TLS on *nix. In the same vein, I think it's a tiny bit of a stretch to say the clients were vulnerable. The information they transmit, yes, but not the clients themselves, since they weren't the root cause of the leaked information.

Pedantry aside, it's a hard hit for open source software. Pretty much should have said that instead of Linux; I was simplifying a bit.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

I tend to get paranoid about things like spying and identity theft from malware, but not MS themselves. Recently, I had an update continually fail and I found out about the whole "Silver Bullet" ordeal (update meant to patch a previous update which prevented future updates), so I just deleted the bad update. It kept telling me to restart my computer but with a failed installation, so the alert never went away. It was creeping me out because inability to update is a symptom of malware infection. Not sure how anyone was able to even get the silver bullet working when the problem it's meant to fix precludes its installation. 

I get annoyed by the frequent update alerts so I have it set to do it weekly. 

And yeah I don't know if Avast is necessary. Personally I use the basic security from MS (which I find less annoying/more low-key than the third party ones), plus Malwarebytes for suspicious activity.


----------

