|
Never in the history of ever has this been a good idea where stability is concerned in a professional environment. Sure, for the average home user, but not for professionals that depend on rock solid stability. Try running an ISP where the OS just magically changes for instance. See how far you get.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with you fully and, as someone who has dealt with this issue for decades, Microsoft is doing a really good job of convincing people that Windows 10 is not the OS to use in those situations.
On the computers we deploy we ALWAYS remove W10 and install W7 and we always disable auto-updating. At this point in time, we do not trust W10 for anything more than laptops and only because it's our only option on these machines. We are a manufacturing company and so far I don't know of any systems deployed using W10 and I do my darndest to avoid it.
|
|
|
|
|
Totally. And I think updates are a good idea, but controlled and allowed for testing before being sent out to production. Glad to see I'm not alone in this regard.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Member 3717204 wrote: and thus need to be as secure as possible
Member 3717204 wrote: these computers are managed by under paid doctors and nurses not IT managers.
A disaster waiting to happen, if all you do is rely on OS updates to ensure security. 
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: A disaster waiting to happen, if all you do is rely on OS updates to ensure security.
And an even bigger disaster if they listen to pretentious tech snobs, turn off auto-updates, and inevitably fail to manually patch their systems promptly each month. 
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
Hmm. I resemble that remark. 
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Neely wrote: and inevitably fail to manually patch their systems promptly each month
Then hire people that will do their jobs.
What you call pretentious, I call experience. I've seen more servers go down over an update that wasn't planned for than I've seen servers get hacked due to lack of updates.
It's not about being a snob. Try running the servers that run banks or the stock exchange. Sure for a mom and pop shop no big deal. But for something that requires the utmost reliability it's a problem.
Anyway, I know this is moot considering you can disable it on Windows Server at least. I just gotta defend the snobs. 
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
If you have an IT dept, yes test first and deploy a day or two later instead of letting an OS auto-deploy run. The 99% of people and small businesses whose "IT dept" is the service desk at their local computer boxmart aren't going to here the almost universally unvoiced "If you have an IT dept" and if they try to listen to what they heard will end up in with the >95% of people who're pwned by a virus exploiting a bug that was fixed months or years ago because they turned off auto-updates a year ago and last patched 3 months after doing so.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
Oh btw, this day and age you can automate the manual triggering of updates to install them across an entire infrastructure instead of letting Windows do it willy nilly. Which I'm all for because that way you get time to test and review them before sending them out to production.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
It's better not to listen to them: every time an update create millions of dollars of damages a lot of contractors are paid to fix them.
Auto updates are our job security.
GCS d-- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
Which beggars the question, why not use a secure OS?
OpenBSD for example, which has "Only two remote holes in the default install, in a heck of a long time!" (20 years now)
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
Learn how pioneering software engineers helped NASA launch astronauts into space, and bring them back again -- pushing the boundaries of technology as they did it. Because someone had to light the fuse
I now have the William Shatner version going
through
myhead.
Aaaaaand now so do you (I hope).
|
|
|
|
|
don't know where this comes, but ...
1969:
-what're you doing with that 2KB of RAM?
-sending people to the moon
2017:
-what're you doing with that 1.5GB of RAM?
-running Slack
I'd rather be phishing!
|
|
|
|
|
Today we released a prototype of a C# feature called “nullable reference types“, which is intended to help you find and fix most of your null-related bugs before they blow up at runtime. string? int? Why?
Mental note: need a macro for
if({foo} != null){}
|
|
|
|
|
Oh goody. More warnings to turn off. 
(Actually, I treat warnings as errors, but some of these warnings seem a bit over the top, particularly if the inputs to the method have been validated beforehand.)
|
|
|
|
|
ReSharper introduced the [NotNull] and [CanBeNull] attributes, and will issue warnings if you are about to run into a NullReference. They were faster.
Oh sanctissimi Wilhelmus, Theodorus, et Fredericus!
|
|
|
|
|
The blockchain hype is real, and it’s become the talk of C-suites around the world. Quarterly reports and conference calls that mention “blockchain” are running at an all-time high this earnings season. And guess who will get to implement it?
|
|
|
|
|
Bill SerGio!
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Bill SerGio!
He who shall not be named!
FTFY
System.ItDidntWorkException: Something didn't work as expected.
C# - How to debug code[ ^].
Seriously, go read these articles.
Dave Kreskowiak
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Blockchain; yet another solution in search of a problem. And which WILL fail spectacularly.
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm,
Joe Woodbury wrote: Blockchain; yet another solution in search of a problem. And which WILL fail spectacularly.
I disagree. There are other 'information protection' benefits to blockchain technology. Let me give some examples:
1.) If a bad guy could get into the codeproject SQL database they could edit your old posts and make you look like a complete idiot back in 2004. With blockchain based storage this would be much more difficult.
2.) If a bad guy could get into the 'Internet Archive[^]' they could rewrite historical context for dozens of websites. A hundred years from now those changes might not be detected and become a future falsified fact.
3.) Corporations (such as Equifax?) that store information in a flat or relational database could potentally have tens of thousands of undetected/untracable database edits. Blockchain information storage makes it much harder to perform such an attack.
Development of information storage utilizing blockchain technologies will harden information temporally. I can assure you that this will become increasingly important over the next few decades. Nation states are already utilizing sock puppets and internet activists to influence international politics. The ability to edit the tweets and posts of real people would be a force-multiplier and some industries (such as the financial sector) need to consider implementing protections against such potential attacks.
Best Wishes,
-David Delaune
modified 20-Nov-17 11:50am.
|
|
|
|
|
Your post reminds me of the old adage; "When your only tool is a hammer, every thing is a nail."
The problems you list could be solved with easier, faster methods or make no sense. (A hundred years from now ALL encryption today will have long been broken as will have ALL current blockchains.)
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
Joe Woodbury wrote: A hundred years from now ALL encryption today will have long been broken as will have ALL current blockchains
Keep in mind that blockchains do not need to be financially related. It has many other real world applications for protecting information outside of digital currency.
For distributed blockchain databases it actually doesn't really matter if the algorithm is weak. With most implementations of blockchain-based data storage each new entry contains information derived from all previous records/transactions. So if you have millions of records and attempt to change 1 entry... you would need to change every data record created after your target.
So using the examples I gave in my previous post.. you would need to change each and every SQL record since 2004 to edit a single 'Joe Woodbury' codeproject post from long ago... if we were using blockchain based storage here on the codeproject.
Of course nobody really cares if someone edits your old codeproject posts... but what about financial records? I can think of many other examples where data should have a high level of integrity.
Best Wishes,
-David Delaune
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds like a rebase in GIT.
If there is something computers are good at, it is automation.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
