Don't tell people to turn off Windows Update - <AUTHOR> https://www.troyhunt.com/dont-tell-people-to-turn-off-windows-update-just-dont/ <comment><USER3> I love the way he's compared the people who tell you to turn off auto-updates with anti-vaxxers; it's quite an apt analogy.

Microsoft shares part of the blame here for pushing features that the user clearly _doesn 't_ want through updates (especially to the major OS version). Look at the recent ads in Windows file explorer for one example. A lot of the advice to turn Windows Update off is a misguided response to Microsoft's own bone-headed moves in recent years to install bullshit that the user doesn't want.

I still sort of regret installing Windows 10 to this day because of the obnoxious Cortana bar it foisted upon my start menu that I can't get rid of. And yet not installing Windows 10 would've left me less secure with an OS hitting EOL for security updates much sooner.

Microsoft definitely shares some of the blame for this precisely because they have automatically "opted in" their users to stuff they don't want during past updates. Stop the bullshit, Microsoft.

<comment><USER4> > Microsoft shares part of the blame here for pushing features that the user > clearly doesn't want through updates (especially to the major OS version). > Look at the recent ads in Windows file explorer for one example. A lot of > the advice to turn Windows Update off is a misguided response to Microsoft's > own bone-headed moves in recent years to install bullshit that the user > doesn't want.

Vaccinations are awesome, but Microsoft's heavy-handed bundling is similar to how the CIA was using vaccinations as cover to collect DNA[1] samples in Pakistan. This inadvertently led to a distrust of vaccinations[2] which harmed the efforts to eradicate Polio (or biological WCry, if you will).

Additionally, Microsoft abused the update system to download an entire, multi- GB OS (Windows 10) on systems running on Windows 8, "just in case they will want to upgrade". This was _very_ expensive for people on metered bandwidth. Microsoft should separate critical updates from the less critical ones and give users the ability to opt-in for critical updates only.

1\. [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/11/cia-fake- vacci...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/11/cia-fake-vaccinations- osama-bin-ladens-dna)

2\. [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/10/health/cia-vaccine-ruse- in...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/10/health/cia-vaccine-ruse-in-pakistan- may-have-harmed-polio-fight.html?pagewanted=all)

<comment><USER5> I don't think this is the reason why most people (non tech savvy) look to turning off Windows Update.

Most people don't know/care about Windows Update pushing features.

However most people DO care when their computers spontaneously reboot themselves with no warning (sometimes even in the middle of "active hours"!) which is what msft has set by default (and indeed has/had no UI to modify in some versions of Win10)

<comment><USER6> This is now fixed..

But inversely, i'm annoyed that this "upgrade phenomena" seems squarely targeted at Microsoft when people who run Linux or OSX upgrade the second new shiny comes out. I'm not ranting here other than expressing a curiosity of culture that leads to cultural problems lingering much longer than they should.

Windows 10 is awesome.. the experiment with "ads" sucks but its all tweakable.. just jump to Rs2 and provide feedback if there is something you do/don't like. MS listens.

<comment><USER3> > Windows 10 is awesome.. the experiment with "ads" sucks but its all > tweakable.

I don't want to have to tweak my fucking _operating system_ to remove ads!! Also, I think we're asking too much of the average user. It's not obvious how to do most of the tweaks, so your random older/casual user won't do them, or maybe even realize that such a thing might be possible and go off to look up how to do it. They're more likely to just turn off updates.

<comment><USER6> THe "ads" are recommended apps. You can disable that.

<comment><USER3> Disabling it is tweaking. The default install of Windows 10 comes with ads and all sorts of other bullshit that doesn't benefit the user (in an operating system that you _paid hundreds of dollars for_ , mind you). You have to go out of your way to opt out of it, and most users will not ever realize that such opting out is even possible.

<comment><USER6> Even the ads will ask you if you want to disable them.. "click here to disable future notifications" or if you open notification center you can "click here to disable future notifications".

I am slightly bemused we're making excuses for people not trying anything.. especially when computers these days are all about "Expressing yourself" and "identity"..

<comment><USER6> Google does those "Ads" when you open anything google-y without google..

if we're playing this game, we should play it fairly.

<comment><USER3> Google shouldn't do it either, but I think we're diverging into a non sequitur. Whataboutism isn't a valid defense.

<comment><USER6> its not whataboutism.. its making a fair comparison. I'm not excusing Microsoft's behavior based on others actions especially since I know this behavior is simple to disable in its latest OS release which is free to upgrade to.

<comment><USER7> Speaking of fair comparisons - which Google products, that shows these ads, did you pay hundreds dollars for?

<comment><USER6> if you want to compare, i don't see ads when i use free office online or when i use google office.

What i do see is that when i use outlook.com it doesn't pop down telling me to switch to Edge, but when i use Gmail its always telling me to switch to edge.

Have you actually used MS products in comparison to google? didn't think so..

<comment><USER7> So you were never bugged to use Edge, after you launched Chrome or Firefox? (Like this: [https://superuser.com/questions/1146123/disable-microsoft- ed...](https://superuser.com/questions/1146123/disable-microsoft-edge-pop-up- notifications-in-taskbar-and-system-tray)). Or your preferences for the default browser were never reset to Edge after some update ("accidentally")?

Windows is the paid one here.

<comment><USER6> I am only bugged once I install what I want to use as default browser. Not everyday.

YouTube, Gmail, Google et all have a dropdown advertisement asking me to switch to chrome no matter which browser I user that isn't chrome..

Lets also not forget that MS apps show up on google store, apple store and are fully cross platform whereas google is selective in what it supports. We're at a day and age where Microsoft has Cortana, One Drive, Office, Bing, Skype, Photos and so much more on iOS, Windows, Android and people are telling me that MS is bad when google is good (and is far from as cross platform as ms is) I just say use whatever, but if people want to nit pick about "Ads" that everyone does without knowing how everyone does it, that's lame. MS has a TON of "Free stuff" that isn't always dropping toasts to switch browsers, switch to chrome so on and so forth..

If people have so much energy to hate on something, that should be directed at sloppy companies like Yahoo that actually are detrimental to security/safety..

<comment><USER7> After each login into Microsoft partner page, it welcomes me with a page telling me, that I will get the best experience with Internet Explorer. It doesn't even bother to check, whether Internet Explorer exists for the platform advertised in the User agent string.

With the Microsoft services, the crucial difference is, that "Cortana, One Drive, Bing, Skype, Photos" is stuff that Microsoft is pushing on people, not stuff that people asking for from Microsoft. It is _me too_ solution, it is Microsoft's version of Google+, except that Microsoft didn't learn their lesson yet.

Out of this, Office is an exception. iOS and Android users would not give up their platform, but they were willing to use another lite office suite. On a platform, where there is not a such threat, such as desktop Linux, there is no Office port. Even the macOS port hasn't got feature parity with the Windows version. Google is treating Windows Phone exactly the same way Microsoft is treating other platforms with Office.

If you consider this hate, maybe you should also consider whether it is deserved. There's no reaction without action.

<comment><USER6> lol, I doubt that.. Microsoft doesn't support internet explorer anymore and would only recommend edge if you're on windows..

People are asking for these services.. just because you don't run them doesn't mean no one does. Skype is still the largest voip network, bing is slowly still growing against goole, onedrive is huge for private and corporations, Cortana ins on over 600 million devices..

As for office on OSX, it is updated all the time and feature comparable if you bother to run 2016 with updates enabled..

THe hate is far from deserved, its misguided.

Microsoft is so cross platform Visual studio for OSX is full RTM, Visual studio code runs great in Linux/windows/OSX, they're writing Linux drivers, they have the Linux subsystem for windows that runs native windows apps, they're a core supporter of the Linux foundation. .net is cross platform now too and they're starting to merge xamarin/XAML/xml forms so apps can be written once and run everywhere..

doing more for software and systems than google is but people will continue to have this misguided hate

<comment><USER7> Well, I about that message loled too ;). Later it became annoying and a nice example how Microsoft really cares.

If you claim people are asking for these services, then what about not showing them down the throats of those who didn't ask for them? Seem simple, right? If they are so popular, why piss off those who don't care about them? Why do I have look after every Cmd-O at Onedrive file chooser, when I'm never going to use it and there's no option "do not bother me with this again?". I'm sure that Cortana might be on 600M devices, but there are not 600M active users... more likely users what resigned on looking for a new ways to turn it off. See the difference?

Office for Mac 2016 is updated every month indeed, but it is still missing features. For example, everything that starts with Power (PowerQuery, PowerPivot, PowerMap), or Inquire. The Mac version of Office does work with exactly 3 ODBC drivers. It doesn't work with exactly the same ODBC drivers, that the Windows has no problem with (PostgreSQL, for example - it crashes).

There was a lot written about Visual Studio for Mac and it being a rebranded Xamarin. See past discussions here, at HN.

And let's go back to the Office for Linux, shall we? That's the Microsoft prime lock-in device for many. Drivers for Hyper-V or Linux subsystem for Windows help Microsoft, not Linux.

<comment><USER6> Also, shortcomings in the mac version of office may be shortcomings in the Mac OSX platform.

VIsual studio for mac is a re-write of xamarin, that doesn't change anything - xamaerin/visual studio/c# are all converging to offer a unified platform.

And i'm so glad you seem to know everything about everyone. THe same "billion google now" users probably only 1% USE it day in/day out.. but we're just going to be blindly bashing windows..

please, do us a favor and get over yourself. We get it, you don't run/don't like windows... so just stop wasting energy hating something you really don't have any clue about or care about.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> And the reason why people were suggesting to turn off Windows Update was precisely because of malware payloads directly from Microsoft.

"Do you want to upgrade to Windows 10? Press the hidden button to cancel, otherwise upgrade commences." This is how malware works.... But published and pushed by MS's own channels. And his jab at people who say that turning off WU is similar to anti-vaxxers is completely inane and false - we know the damage Microsoft has done to user's computers.

In reality, I'd rather they upgrade to Linux. Those machines wouldn't get bit by this, unless you run the executable with WINE. But I blame MS for being spammy and spyware-y and malware-y, which encouraged users to turn off harassing and onerous updates.

<comment><USER9> No, most people turned it off because they didn't want updates interrupting them. You are vastly overestimating who cares about "MS malware".

<comment><USER10> I'm still inclined to blame that on MS really. Poor ergonomics. I can understand the OS telling me to reboot if I haven't restarted the computer in a few days after an update took place but there's no reason to harass me immediately after an update got installed (unless it's a critical 0-day patch I suppose).

But really, it's getting worse. I remember seeing a bunch of articles last month about how to preemptively defend against the "creator's update" because it came bundled with a bunch of software people didn't want. They use windows update as a trojan horse to install new applications, that sets a very bad precedent.

I've even stopped urging my friends and colleagues to enable auto-updates because I'm worried that they'll end up having windows auto-update to a new version and break something and then I'll have to help them through it. I just can't be bothered anymore.

<comment><USER11> Your last paragraph is confusing. It seems those people rely on your support. Are you really saying you'd rather deal with potential results of them not upgrading than with the upgrade failures? I'm assuming that if they come to you with one, the also do with the other.

<comment><USER10> Well it's just that one position is more comfortable than the other. If they don't update and have an issue then it's on them. If I insist they turn on Windows update and then something goes wrong then it's on me. It's a bit cowardly but as a Linux/BSD guy I just can't stand doing Windows support anymore. Every version is worse than the last, everything is dumbed down to the max and when something goes wrong you're screwed unless you're a PowerShell wizard.

The other day I helped a friend set up a new computer, we installed a brand new (paid for) Windows 10 on it, straight from the Microsoft-provided DVD.

It worked just fine for a few hours, then it would get stuck in a reboot loop continuously. You'd log in and 10 seconds later it'd hard reboots.

Given the brutality of the crash I assumed a driver issue or something like that. Turns out it's just Windows failing to install an update and crashing the OS for some reason. So I thought "well, let's just boot up and quickly disable auto-updates". You can't do that. "Well let's boot up in safe mode". Nothing works in safe mode, you can't access Windows update (the page remains blank). We ended up downloading an updated version of windows and reinstalling it.

I have a Windows 10 PC that I use for gaming, the creator's update installed itself the other day. Amongst other niceties it added a MS edge link in my taskbar and changed my desktop wallpaper. I also noticed that it tries to argue with you when you try to change the default browser from Edge to something else ("We're good now, we promise!!"). Minor details, nothing major but it adds up to a general distrust for the OS and the feeling that I'm not in charge of my own computer.

I just can't put up with that nonsense anymore. If my friends want support they'll run Linux, otherwise I'll let them deal with Microsoft's support or whatever.

<comment><USER12> The best part about not using Windows outside of work is that I can now legitimately tell 99% of the people I know that I don't know how to use their system (Windows or OS X).

You don't get free service from lawyers, accountants, doctors, or mechanics, I don't see why people expect free help from me. I used to help people, but I've realized how limited my free time is, and I prefer not to spend time doing work-like activities outside of work.

I will direct people to the appropriate resource if they ask for advice though.

<comment><USER3> The only people who get free tech support from me indefinitely are my mother, my father, and my sister. Realistically it's mostly my mother, as the other two are good enough with computers to not need help most of the time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I was on a internal Slack call with team the other day, I ended up having to restart to Windows to do a screenshare and switch to Skype.

I ended up having to delay my working day by about 45 minutes while Windows decided to do a mandatory update without any granularity of choice on when is convenient for me. That's what is frustrating. I ended up being unproductive for a whole hour because Windows forced an update on me.

Windows definitely have to make it better as Troy suggests. The frequency is also costly.

<comment><USER14> The article points out that you can set hours when Windows will update.

<comment><USER15> What if Microsoft instead fixed the need to restart for almost every update?

<comment><USER16> MacOS handles this perfectly. It clearly notifies you when an update will be installed if you restart.

<comment><USER17> It also gives you the option of re-trying the update "tonight" which takes up WAY too much of my cognitive load. "Tonight" doesn't appear to be configurable, or even well-defined, although an obscure knowledge-base article tells me it's between "2:00 and 5:00 a.m", which is nothing like my expectation of what "tonight" means. Does that run if my laptop is sleeping? What about if it needs to reboot? I really should know the answers to these questions ...

<comment><USER18> Windows does sometimes wake up a laptop to apply updates and put it back to sleep afterwards.

This can be rather dangerous if your laptop is stuck in a backpack with no airflow on a hot day.

<comment><USER15> It's not only updates that do that. All the HP laptops I've used wake up from sleep in my bag while I'm moving.

The laptop would be hot enough to toast bread when I pull it out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> That article would be more believable if Microsoft (as well as other companies) hadn't slipped all kinds of stuff in earlier updates which are not on the interest of the consumer at all. (Starting with annoying UX changes and A/B tests, to telemetry, to advertising, to removal of user software and DRM)

Oftentimes it looks suspiciously as if the (rightful) need for security and quick responses is used as an excuse for "OS-as-a-service" shift that mostly benefits the vendors.

What happened to the old practice of clearly distinguishing between "security" and "feature" updates? What happened to actually educating the users?

<comment><USER20> MS is 100% responsible for this and they should reap what they sowed. Imo this blame shifting PR damage control is just insult to injury and will probably backfire.

<comment><USER21> It's similar to what banks call "identity theft" instead of "we gave someone else some of your money and now it's your problem".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> My PC is not a toy, and is owned by me, not by you.

* Don't reboot it without my consent

* Don't install/run advertising without my consent

* Don't install/run spyware without my consent

* Don't keep interrupting my work to nag me for my consent

The tasks I want to accomplish using my PC are more important to me than the tasks you want to accomplish using my PC. If the latter get in the way of the former, I will take whatever steps are necessary to prevent this from happening.

One might reasonably claim that allowing Windows Update free reign prevents malicious software installing itself on my PC and introducing undesirable behaviour.

However, if the introduction of undesirable behaviour by malicious software is a risk, but the introduction of undesirable behaviour by Microsoft a certainty, the incentives do not favour enabling automatic updates.

The best solution, of course, is to switch to a stable Linux distro.

<comment><USER23> >My PC is not a toy, and is owned by me, not by you. * Don't reboot it without my consent * Don't install/run advertising without my consent * Don't install/run spyware without my consent * Don't keep interrupting my work to nag me for my consent

Wrong: you are implicitly agreeing to the above 4 behaviors if you willingly use a Microsoft OS. Any time you select a vendor, you implicitly agree to their business practices and the way their product/service works. For MS, that means you consent to it rebooting whenever it wants, advertising to you, spying on you, and interrupting your work to nag you for consent. If you don't agree with these things, then you need to find another vendor.

>The best solution, of course, is to switch to a stable Linux distro.

Exactly!

<comment><USER24> I don't know why you are getting downvoted. If people want to reclaim sovereignty over their computers while also using proprietary operating systems, they will need to get laws passed. Right now, your only right is to buy the hardware you want. From there, that hardware can deny you the right to install another OS, deny you the right to change the hardware, or deny you the right of knowing how the hardware works.

Without those, you aren't much of an owner of anything.

<comment><USER23> I'm getting downvoted because this site is full of Microsoft sycophants. It happens every time I say anything about Microsoft here. I'll get a few upvotes from people like yourself who agree with me on issues like the one here, but then I'll get swamped with downvotes from the MS lovers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Microsoft is to be fully blamed here. They brought it on themselves, pissing off anyone with a bit of a brain by turning their OSes into suspected spyware, forcing W7/W8.x users to turn off updates, allowing funny leaked tools wreaking havoc everywhere.

Author here blames people that took prudent actions to preserve their autonomy, while MS was holding them hostage by bundling security updates with unwanted monitoring. Many of them switched to Linux/BSD and are using Windows minimally as a consequence.

</comment><comment><USER26> I wish I _could_ disable updates. Dumb ass win10 thinks it's ok to download 2 GIGABYTES of data. How is it reasonable to have gigabytes of updates ? For security ? I have gigabytes of binaries here ? And then 15 days later, 1.5GB of updates. (note: my win10 laptop is usually used with mobile internet)

Win10 is a shame.

They could have at least separated security updates from random crap updates. A button would be nice as well.

If anyone knows how to disable updates on non-professional win10, please let me know.

edit: I do know about security and the importance of updates. You few downvoting me can go shove it up your arse. It's crap behavior from win10, period.

<comment><USER27> Unlike all these Stockholm-syndrome affected users here, I will tell you.

Start --> 'services.msc' \--> find "Windows Updates" service --> right-click --> properties --> switch it to Disabled and reboot.

Turn it on once a month or whenever YOU want to update. Done.

<comment><USER26> Wow i feel stupid. Didn't even think to try the standard things.

Thx.

Time to msconfig this laptop to "usable" state.

edit:

Parent comment flagged ? Are we on "Anti-hacker Non-news" ?

Anyway; Start-> type "services" (or "msiconfig" for more options, basically the same as winXP) and you can turn off "windows Update" there. Don't forget to turn it on every once in a while, especially if you use public networks.

update: There's also a thing called "Background Intelligent Something", that is the thing doing the actual downloads. Seems it continued downloading even without the update service running. Said service looks mildly important, but still it had to die.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I would like to keep my Windows Update on, but I just can't afford it. Data bundles are too expensive where I live. I can buy a week's worth of groceries with the amount I spend buying just 2GB data bundle. Not everyone lives in a country with cheap data bundles.

<comment><USER15> This is exactly my situation. Worse, ever used a wifi network slowed to a crawl by different laptops updating windows?

I once had to turn off updates on all laptops in my workplace so we could use the internet. (They thought the network was under a virus attack)

<comment><USER27> I'm Army Reserve and we frequently have this problem in field exercises. Fire up some Win10 laptops on our very limited Verizon MiFi access point, they promptly download gig's of updates without consent and immediately push the bandwidth past the limit and the AP gets throttled to oblivion.

Yeah yeah you can turn of Windows updates or whatever, but you shouldn't have to do that just to force Microsoft to respect your wishes to update when you want to. And no, I'm not talking about some stupid restricted 8-hour window with no other option outside completely shutting down the service. TBH I'm still surprised they haven't tried to block users from doing that too at this point.

<comment><USER29> Windows 10 has the option of specifying that a specific network is a metered connection. It won't update the OS when connected to those networks. Found this out the hard way after getting a big bill while traveling and tethering to my phone's 4G connection.

<comment><USER27> Good idea thanks. We'll check it out. But of course again, that's not something the user should have to do (and not something we want to have to do on every single system that connects). Wifi != "unlimited bandwidth."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Does this guy work for microsoft ? It reads like a partisant piece for microsoft.

Totally overlooked the suspicious timeline of Microsoft releasing patched for vulnerabilities that were exploited for a long time by the NSA right after it was made apparent those had been stolen and were about to be released in the wild. No question asked about NSA having known and exploited those vulnerabilities for a while, no question about Microsoft possibly willingly playing along or being legally forced to do so.

No mention that disabling Microsoft update trend is a logical answer to Microsoft using the system to silently installing spying software, breaking the system altogether, disabling pirated versions among others.

No mention that the solution to things like the wannycry outbreak is not turning on windows update but less windows and more other OS and backups. With a sane backup policy ransomware is merely a joke.

<comment><USER31> > No mention that disabling Microsoft update trend is a logical answer

No, it isn't. Disabling update isn't a logical answer to _anything_ except "what's the best way to get malware". If you don't want Microsoft's "spyware" don't install their OS. There is no coherent logic to simultaneously not trusting Microsoft, and running their code - any version of it.

<comment><USER27> No. In THEORY you're more vulnerable to exploits in the wild by disabling Windows Update. In REALITY you're statistically FAR more likely to be harassed and have your software/apps/OS break due to Microsoft's "very similar to malware-style" forced updates.

I disabled Win10 updates over 1.5 years ago with zero issue. Security people love to claim the sky is falling, but it's all about risk/reward. Risk of issue due to actual exploit is pretty low for most people, so even though the potential IMPACT is very high, because the probability is so low compared to the constant irritation of Microsoft arbitrarily forcing whatever they want down your throat once a month, they just deal with it and shut off updates.

edit: downvote if you want, I'm not wrong.

<comment><USER32> Yeah, who can forget that Microsoft update that locked all your files unless you paid a ransom in Bitcoin.

<comment><USER33> Well, there were Microsoft updates that did make all your files inaccessible.

Try doing the Windows 10 anniversary upgrade if you run bitlocker and have customized your UEFI.

Windows will screw up, bluescreen, and destroy the bitlocker keys.

I've fought with that before.

<comment><USER34> Out of curiosity, what customizations did you make to your UEFI setup? I run BitLocker and did the Anniversary and Creators updates without issue.

<comment><USER33> I don't actually ever invoke any bootloader directly, but instead use an EFI app which in turn loads the bootloaders.

Windows' Anniversary Update works by adding an additional, hidden EFI bootloader, and loading that for the upgrade.

If you instead load the normal Windows EFI bootloader while the upgrade has half-way finished, then it fucks stuff up.

I've been through it multiple times, last time, Windows even destroyed all its own EFI entries.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Well, this would be so much easier if:

1) Windows update installed just security updates instead of potentially disruptive _crap_ "features". The epitome of that, is of course forced update to Windows 10. Ads in Explorer is a close second. This would reduce the frequency of updates significantly as well, which would also help.

2) Windows update would use a sane default of _not rebooting you while you are in the middle of something_.

There's a setting that you can do where windows installs update in the background, with no user intervention, but IFF it doesn't require a reboot, and asks otherwise. But this setting requires Group Policy (or being part of a domain), so it's not available to non-Pro Windows customers (and it's a very esoteric option users won't know about anyway).

You can also reduce the frequency of updates with "install updates for windows only", but you can't really restrict yourself to only security updates (unless you run Windows 10 Enterprise LTSB edition, which you don't).

Actually the best thing for Windows, both usability and security wise would be to make Windows 10 Enterprise LTSB edition _the_ version of Windows people use.

<comment><USER36> I am not sure that it's really feasible to decouple feature and security updates though. With Microsoft releasing two major feature updates a year, how many variations of this can they support if anyone along the way decides to freeze their current set of features and only get security updates for them? Regardless, as a heavy Win10 user across several machines I've found the whole "disruptive" / "spyware" / "crapware" FUD being pushed by some HN posters to be way overblown. Yea, there have been a few annoyances such as the OneDrive ad that showed up a month or two ago, but these are all extremely minor compared to the mountains of advertising and tracking crap we get hit with every day from web sites, apps, and search engines.

<comment><USER35> > With Microsoft releasing two major feature updates a year, how many > variations of this can they support if anyone along the way decides to > freeze their current set of features and only get security updates for them?

As I said, it is totally feasible because Microsoft is already doing it with LTSB.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I've noticed that there is a certain level of competency a person can attain in a subject where they think they have an advanced knowledge and hand out advice with a certain authority.

But in reality they are spreading dangerous misinformed information.

Windows's auto updates though can be annoying, ensures that the average computer is up to date. Like in the example of this article:

"If you had any version of Windows since Vista running the default Windows Update, you would have had the critical Microsoft Security Bulletin known as "MS17-010" pushed down to your PC and automatically installed. Without doing a thing, when WannaCry came along almost 2 months later"

The average user cares that their holiday photos, documents or credentials don't get stolen or ransomed.

<comment><USER38> > Windows's auto updates though can be annoying, ensures that the average > computer is up to date.

> The average user cares that their holiday photos, documents or credentials > don't get stolen or ransomed.

Are both true. However, windows updates also occasionally cause restarts in the least opportune moments (e.g. when you have unsaved work and left for the day), or make a restart take 40 minutes when you need your computer _right now_ (in the middle of an important phone call). Both of these have happened to virtually every Windows user I know, prompting some of them to disable Windows Updates.

Other issues with windows updates are bandwidth abuse (getting Win10 downloaded automatically on metered mobile connection), breaking some software/drivers/configuration, or installing unwelcome telemetry spyware. Each of these only happened to one or two persons I know.

The average user now keeps all their holiday photos on their mobile phone / cloud, but they do care about documents and credentials.

You are not wrong, but the way Microsoft Update behaves, you have to choose the lesser of evils (potentially get ransomwared, vs potentially avoid things listed above). It is not patently clear that Windows Update is universally the better option.

And it wouldn't be a choice between evils in the first place, if microsoft didn't try to advance their agenda by stopping the practice of "security updates" vs "other updates". Microsoft deserves all of the blame for the disdain to Windows Update, and therefore a big chunk of the sorry state of its users.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> The problem with Microsoft updates is that they are so intrusive that the purpose of your computer is to run updates. They interrupt you when you're trying to use your computer, or they cause hour-long startup times.

I've never had such intrusive updates on Mac or Android.

Perhaps Microsoft needs to figure out how to make updates much more seamless. You shouldn't need a 2-hour reboot in the middle of editing a word file just to protect against malware.

</comment><comment><USER40> This article is incomplete without calling out microsoft at the same time. Not many technophiles would object to a stream of _pure_ security patches; the problem is that there _isn 't_ one. By doing MS auto-update, you could have your entire OS upgraded wholesale. If your only alternative is to manually manage updates... I guess I can see why some people opt out.

<comment><USER41> Oh, there is: Windows 10 Enterprise LTSB. What, you don't want to pay $350 on top of your Windows 10 Pro license? Too bad! Here's some mobile games for you to play.

<comment><USER42> And people already paid for their Windows 7/8 Pro licenses, and they got trashed like everyone else.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> It would be easier to sell automated Windows updates if Microsoft wouldn't use them to randomly shove a whole new OS down your throat.

Oh, and if Microsoft actually had a QA department to make sure they don't brick machines.

</comment><comment><USER43> Visiting home. My parents turned off Windows Update on their home computer. Apparently my mum lost her high score on some game when Microsoft forced the Windows 10 upgrade. To the degree there is culpability, it's with Redmond.

</comment><comment><USER44> I have a Windows 10 system that I believe was about 1 year behind in updates. I'd periodically run what solutions I'd find online .. dism.exe, sfc.exe, etc to try to fix whatever was failing. Nothing worked. I stumbled across an awesome forum (sysnative.com) with volunteers that help you track down your issue. Turns out I had a subtle 1 byte registry corruption:

[https://www.sysnative.com/forums/windows- update/22645-win10v...](https://www.sysnative.com/forums/windows- update/22645-win10v1607build14393-x64-win-upd-0x80070246.html#post181300)

Tracking it down required using sysutils' procmon.exe to log about 4GB of event data and correlating it with the CBS.log. It was a broken embedded unicode string registry value with a byte swap from x36 to xFE.

My point -- there are a LOT of posts out there with people with broken windows 10 updates, and I think Microsoft could better address this.

<comment><USER45> Great website, never heard of it before. Will definitely be using it as a resource in the future!

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> I don't know why people complain about updates and restarting, particularly in this thread. You fill your car up with fuel regularly because it has been warning you it's nearly empty for a while much like updates remind you regularly. People seem to complain and say "it updated right when I was in the middle of X" but they've been putting it off for ages. Do you break down in the middle of the motorway when you run out of fuel too?

Windows only updates when you're doing something because you're putting everyone else at risk by not running the damn things in and you've had plenty of notice.

<comment><USER47> I hope your car doesn't stop randomly against your will so it can get a refill.

<comment><USER46> Not yet. Only when you run out of gas. However in a few years, are people going to get pissed off when their Tesla has enough of their shit and drives itself to a charging point because the owner is too incompetent to heed the warnings?

<comment><USER30> As if Tesla had a monopoly on the car market as Microsoft has on the computer OS.

Then again cars only warns when the fuel tank is getting empty, Microsoft updates may happens at times and is totally unrelated to the ability of your computer to continue working.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> I would have agreed with this until Windows 10.

As implemented, Windows 10 feels like a system to deploy code and update computers that happens to run user software.

It's obnoxious. Many people I know have solved the problem by moving to Apple.

<comment><USER32> I don't know how that would solve the problem; Apple is hardly a great friend of user choice compared to Microsoft.

<comment><USER42> It's not a good solution, but it's the only one that capitalism really provides - switching to the competitor to pressure the shitty company to stop being so shitty.

<comment><USER32> But this is like deciding apples have too much sugar and buying cake instead.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> In recent years, Microsoft has been pushing automatic updates more and more. At the same time, the updating experience just hasn't gotten any better.

My Linux install never urges me to update. Updates come out many times a day, and I can ignore them entirely for as long as I want. My Windows install continually urges me to update. It makes them increasingly hard to ignore, to make sure I install them. The idea behind this is not bad: many people would postpone updates indefinitely without understanding the consequences. Browsers these days install updates without even asking the user, and complaints about that are rare.

The problem is that updating Windows is a terrible experience. It wants to install updates when I shut down, which on a laptop is often the moment I'm leaving, when I'm ready to put it into my bag and go home. This is a terrible time to install updates. It's even worse because the time the updates take is incredibly unpredictable. Sometimes they're done in a minute, but I've also had a single small update take 45 minutes. I ended up putting the laptop into the bag while it was running the update. When I arrived home it was very close to overheating, had burnt through much of the battery capacity (the battery in that thing isn't very good), and it wasn't done yet.

Then I figured the solution would be to avoid updates at shutdown, always executing them manually when I was going to keep using it for a while. This is how I handle updates on Linux, and it works perfectly. So I tried that a few times, and the experience was terrible. It would always require a reboot immediately after, while I was working. This is a terrible time to reboot.

Meanwhile, every time I update my Linux installations, it's painless. I just run the update command, it tells me exactly what it's going to update, I accept, and I can leave it running in the background. The longest one of those updates ever took was 10-15 minutes, on a machine that hadn't been on for 6 months. Hundreds of packages updated in minutes, without disrupting the work I was doing. An hour or so later I shut it down and from the next boot on I was running the newest kernel.

What Microsoft needs to do is to make updates painless. It needs to be clear what is being updated and how long it is going to take. It needs to stop requiring reboots all the time, and when that is achieved it needs to stop updating on shutdown.

Also important: It needs to stop requring multiple reboots for one update round. Windows, for me, is not the OS that boots by default. Every time it restarts I need to explicitly tell my computer that "yes, unfortunately there are still reasons to keep using this."

<comment><USER30> > Browsers these days install updates without even asking the user, and > complaints about that are rare.

Until the browser decide to break something you used (see firefox and alsa support on linux, or firefox and australis, or firefox the upcoming drop of non web extension extensions, ...). Automatic update should be limited to critical security and not significantly alter or break user experience.

> Meanwhile, every time I update my Linux installations, it's painless.

You're lucky you did not have to deal with upgrading ubuntu, or linux mint update packs, or used a distro like sidux, or have been hit by a systemd bug preventing the system from booting making evident that systemd also broke the emergency shell used to fix things. Updating a linux system is usually less painful than a windows one, but it is not as flawless as your experience paints it. With the advent of systemd it is now more windows like requiring reboot and tightly coupled versions.

<comment><USER50> Thankfully Firefox still offer a LTS variant.

I jumped on that train when they moved to GTK3, but said train seems to be running out of track.

As of late, Mozilla have done a whole lot to alienate long time _nix users in their attempt at catching Chrome's tail.

And you bring up a good point about tightly coupled versions.

_nix was in part adopted because things were loosely coupled. But in the pursuit of attention the DEs and various other big projects have steadily pushed for more tight coupling so that they can deliver a certain "commercial" UX.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Don't behave so sleazily that people want to turn off Windows Update, just don't

</comment><comment><USER52> Having read the article and (most of) the comments here, there seems to be two basic responses:

1\. For home users, turn on auto updates. Yes, MS's policies for updates suck, but the alternative is probably getting infected by something worse. For professional use, IT is probably going to turn it off, but then it is their responsibility to make sure critical updates get installed.

2\. MS's policies suck, so everyone should disable auto updates. Then, make sure the machines have critical updates installed manually.

Unfortunately, history has clearly demonstrated that the second step of #2 doesn't happen. Heck, the NHS probably has a dedicated IT staff and that particular update hadn't bubbled to the top yet. That produces option 3:

3\. Turn off updates to be moar bettar, then be surprised when the machine starts acting funny.

</comment><comment><USER53> The problem isn't the automatic updates-- Windows always automatically updated. Where Windows 10 changed for the worse is in FORCED reboots.

Once you update, Windows 10 is gonna reboot sooner or later. You can schedule it, but there's nothing you can do to stop it. It's unavoidable. It doesn't care if you're running a long compile, or uploading a large file. If you aren't sitting in front of the computer, it's gonna reboot, period.

I find this to be unacceptable.

The previous behavior, where it essentially nagged you mercilessly until you acquiesced, was far superior. I didn't go out of my way to find a 3rd party program to disable that nag-- I found it useful, to remind me I had to reboot at some point, when I found it convenient to do so.

</comment><comment><USER54> Scumbags will be scumbags and take advantage of these exploits--it's been proven over decades of internet malware history.

The NSA should be focused on protecting US interests by helping these things get patched ASAP, not sitting on a treasure trove of 0-days and then they get leaked and everyone has them whilst chaos ensues.

Microsoft should be focusing on providing less controversial updates, clearly categorizing essential security updates apart from new, often controversial features. What a mess Windows 10 roll out was.

They have billions of dollars and can throw legions of software engineers at this problem fairly easily with their resources, this isn't some minor company that can't handle this issue.

<comment><USER30> If the NSA and Microsoft or similar business/agencies were doing what they should there would be a lot less problems on this planet.

But it does not work that way and wishful thinking and shoulds have no impact.

<comment><USER42> "Wishful thinking" leads to people trying to figure out what _will_ have an impact - for example, perhaps calling your senator and telling them you're pissed at the NSA for hoarding their zero-days instead of actually securing them, or donating to various cross-platform Microsoft-alternatives such as Libre Office.

Telling people they're powerless and that they shouldn't bother is a great way of _making_ them powerless.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> The reason for turning off updates is (I believe) rarely that one doesn't want important security updates. Just as Ubuntu servers have an option to automatically install critical security updates and for the rest you run `apt- get` when you want, the same should be available on windows.

Blaming the users is nice and easy, but Microsoft definitely deserves half of the blame (if not more).

<comment><USER56> That option to automatically install security updates is on by default in Ubuntu 16.04, by the way: [http://blog.dustinkirkland.com/2016/10/dirty-cow- livepatched...](http://blog.dustinkirkland.com/2016/10/dirty-cow-livepatched- in-ubuntu.html)

Snaps were designed from the beginning to push automatic updates, even of non- security updates: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLxqdf89hRo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLxqdf89hRo)

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> I spent the weekend doing a clean reinstall of windows 10, because windows update had stopped working about a year ago (due to a broken windows insider build). I must admit it was really nice to be able to leave my computer on for months at a time without it restarting for updates.

Few people really mind updates. What Microsoft really needs to do is minimize the number of forced restarts required, like Linux which only really needs a reboot if you update the kernel itself (and even then, there are ways around that).

<comment><USER58> To be fair, if you have a vulnerability in a .so used by e.g. Firefox, you'll also have to restart Firefox after updating to have it pick up the updated library. But you're right I would prefer the Linux update model, where I run a command once a week when I like to pick up the latest versions of software.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> I'm currently on Windows 7 and don't want to accidentally install Windows 10. Turning off updates seems to be the only reliable way to do this.

<comment><USER54> The window for the free 7 -> 10 update is long gone, turn your updates back on and install security updates until they run out in 2020.

<comment><USER60> It's a question of trust. That user no longer trusts WU to not silently install Windows 10. The window might have closed, but who says it won't open again suddenly, or a WU bug won't make it think it's still inside the window?

<comment><USER54> Silently installing Win10 from Win7 at this point after the window has long closed would be a massive controversy and utterly unprecedented in the industry. Updates introducing bugs is always a possibility on any platform Windows or otherwise, so the suggestion is just to stop installing security updates? Please.

<comment><USER61> _Silently installing Win10 from Win7 at this point after the window has long closed would be a massive controversy and utterly unprecedented in the industry._

So was pushing the original Windows 10 update from Windows 7. That didn't stop them.

Once bitten, twice shy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> Sadly we have medical instruments (worth 40k)that work only with win7. The vendors do not update drivers for win10. We have to stop updates as they do not guarantee working of these even for win7 updates. Sad but true.

<comment><USER63> It may be a little to much to hope for, but I really hope that things like that will stop in the future with Windows on a rolling release schedule.

It's mind boggling how much bad software is available for Windows. Microsoft is doing a rather impressive job maintaining backward compatibility and yet some vendors manage to lock their software to specific version or even "patch- level". How do that even happen? Actually I know how that happens, developers that don't give a shit about the platform they're developing for.

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> Microsoft has been pushing adware through Windows Update. It is natural that this will cause users to disable the feature, and Microsoft knew this. They chose ad revenue over robust security on their platform.

<comment><USER30> adware, malware and spyware.

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> If you are in remote africa, with a sattelite uplink, windows updates/traffic should be configurable.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/4mcdon/i_live_i...](https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/4mcdon/i_live_in_the_central_african_bush_we_pay_for/)

</comment><comment><USER66> I disagree with the article. I think it's better to get hacked once every 2 years than to suffer through 2 years of Windows updates. The updates that Microsoft considers urgent are actually not urgent at all; most security issues typically affect a limited subset of users.

</comment><comment><USER67> Every time a topic like this comes up I always wonder what bizarro version of Windows I'm running because I've never experienced my personal machine rebooting at an inopportune moment, never seen ads, never seen it install software without my consent, never had an update cause my machine to become unstable.

I'm going all the way back to Windows 7 here.

The only machines that are terrible to use are those I use at work because they are laden with all sorts of corporate security crap that you can't escape and bring otherwise decent hardware to it's knees.

Of course, the evidence that Windows Updates are problematic seems overwhelming but I do wonder if this is a case where the complainant numbers seem large simply because the install base is so massive.

</comment><comment><USER68> Why are so many comments about how much people hate Microsoft?

This article isn't advocating for Microsoft, it's advocating AGAINST turning off automatic updates whether that is from a Linux distro, Apple, Microsoft, Google, etc.

Just update your device/computer, if you don't like the OS switch, if you want a specific patch etc, maybe that should be run in a VM which is gated. But for 99% of users, do not recommend they turn off auto updates.

Also, remember that if you are reading this you are probably a power user. You are not my grandmother reading an article by a power user with simple enough to follow instructions to f- her computer up. There are multiple user bases, and your advice to non-tech people can be disastrous for them.

<comment><USER42> The comments are because Microsoft caused this problem in the first place - people want to turn off Windows Update, because Windows Update installs _antifeatures_ too, and the only way to opt out of the antifeatures is to disable Windows Update.

In fact, there's a "run security updates only" option, which Microsoft provides, but which they deliberately and blatantly violated, by pushing their non-security updates through.

If Microsoft wants to stop this happening, then they need to provide a "security updates only" option, THAT ACTUALLY ONLY PROVIDES SECURITY UPDATES. This is not a hard concept.

"Turn off Windows Update" is indeed a suboptimal choice, like you say - <USER2> you should ACTUALLY be recommending to users, is to ditch Windows entirely if at all possible, and switch to an OS that is both secure and doesn't ship antifeatures.

</comment></comment><comment><USER69> I have a friend who knows next to nothing about different OSs and other various technology thingaroos. He just uses whatever is in front of him. It's not that he can't learn more, he just doesn't care to.

He hates Windows 10.

I rate Microsoft a strong sell.

</comment><comment><USER70> article should be rewritten as: don´t tell people to use windows, just don´t

<comment><USER30> That's what I thought too reading the title, but the windows tax makes sure it comes pre-installed with computers and for most people it means having to deal with windows.

It should be "tell people to use a non-windows OS" instead.

</comment></comment><comment><USER71> I wish they didn't push updates as I'm trying to shut the PC down. That has to be the most irritating time to do that.

<comment><USER30> Aren't you bothered that they push updates as you try to turn the PC on ? Or have you not experienced this part of windows update ?

<comment><USER71> Oh yes indeed. ;) I suppose I'm happy to boot up a machine and go and make a coffee while it goes about its business. But when shutting down a PC, people are usually trying to leave it. (OK. Or reboot it) ;)

[Ex daily Windows user for 10 years+ now]

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER72> This whole comment thread proves the point of the article.

Ye gods, people, if MS updates or win 10 defaults offend you so much, switch OS.

If you consider it a crime that the most widely used consumer desktop operating system in the world's latest iteration dares to not be tailored on install to your specific philosophy or preferences, switch! The alternative is free!

</comment><comment><USER73> Everyone know why updates really are disabled - pirated Windows. Specifically - pirated Windows with badly written hack that fails after certain updates are installed. Given that how enormous is user base of pirated Windows it is expected really to to see lots of guidelines how to disable Windows Update.

Win10 takes it to the other extreme, where it is impossible to disable it. You can only disable it for Wi-Fi and for each network separately. It is insane really and creates all sorts of problems in some use cases.

PS: another problem - some of the Win10 updates caused dozens of incomprehensible errors in Event Viewer on my PC, now I turned on "defer updates" and hope that delay will help MS figure out problematic patches before they will arrive.

<comment><USER74> Came here to say this. Many of my friends run pirated copies of Windows because they cannot afford a license, and they cannot use Linux either because they are dependent on Windows software.

Usually I'd say it's their own fault but fuck it, it's Microsoft's fault. Everyone knows Windows licenses are overpriced and that if Microsoft actually cared about collective security they'd bring the price down. Stop pretending you're not a part of infrastructure.

</comment></comment><comment><USER75> Is it really hard to develop a ksplice / kexec analog for Windows kernel? (Yes, it is. But with Microsoft's dedicated research and resources, it should be possible.)

Interruptive updates are _the_ reason many people choose Mac OS X over Windows. Updates are, obviously, important. Restarts (and notifications) are bad and will be postponed and ignored, no matter how hard we try to educated users. Solution: throw all resources to minimize restarts during updates, make everything as automated as possible. I realize that it is harder to do for Windows, due to their idea of putting everything to the kernel, but this only exaggerates the urgent need for something like ksplice to be integrated.

</comment><comment><USER76> I don't understand why they dont just do what macOS does -- you can keep peoples computer up to date without force restarting at insane times and downloading a ton of junk. "Security" does not excuse microsofts customer abuse.

</comment><comment><USER77> I have Windows 10 Education version, completely legal. But I have been "restarting to apply the patch" for the past four days and it always reverts itself. I am stuck in a loop.. This is why I turned off updates.

<comment><USER50> Ugh, that. Had it on a Home install some time back.

Best i could tell was that MS was trying to update some drivers, this failed badly, had to be reverted, but that still left the relevant patch in the queue, and so Windows would try again on next reboot.

Finally had to resort to some kind of downloaded wizard from Microsoft to blacklist the patch. Not sure if that will be possible on the education version (or am i confusing it with the more recent S edition?).

<comment><USER77> possibly, but I am just contempt on updating. I don't do anything illegal on this computer. I use it for browsing and playing games on steam, I think I am pretty safe.

You can really avoid like 90% of the shit by...

* Not going on shady sites

* Not getting scammed via Phishing

* Not pirating (you know, its really funny how most illegal 'patches' say, oh yeah patch is detected as trojan and its a false positive)

<comment><USER50> > * Not pirating (you know, its really funny how most illegal 'patches' say, > oh yeah patch is detected as trojan and its a false positive)

Sadly i have seen various legit tools trigger the same warnings, because the developer used similar low level techniques that malware use to hide their true nature.

Basic thing is that at the CPU level all instructions are legit. And then we pile code upon code on top to try to extract the context and intent of the programmer from the behavior of the code.

In a sense that can quickly devolve into computer "racism".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER78> Yeah I'd be completely onboard with Troy if MS didn't force me to update my OS to one that overtly spies on me via Windows Update. "Should I enable/disable Windows Update" isn't the question, it's "Should I buy MS software ever".

This is yet another episode in "hey, software isn't just to make you rich". It turns out it runs shit like hospitals. Maybe don't pervert the security tool for marketing purposes.

</comment><comment><USER79> Microsoft is squarely to blame here. People would leave Windows update on if:

\- it would not potentially brick their computer

\- it would not install all kinds of spyware

\- it would be a net benefit to the user

\- it would not be used to further MS's business goals at the expense of the users

Telling people not to turn of Windows Update is putting the horse behind the cart: Tell Microsoft to start respecting their users, _then_ tell people to turn _on_ Windows update.

Fat chance of that happening though.

</comment><comment><USER80> The most annoying thing is that a restart is required.

KSplice shows that you can update a running system without restart.

Real shame that MS, Chrome etc don't all manage this.

</comment><comment><USER81> How many WannaCry victims are too shame faced to come forward? I have heard that several warships belonging to a NATO nation run on WinXP.

</comment><comment><USER82> I'm totally clueless at this point in history. How are people still getting infected with shit when you give them these two rules:

1\. Don't use a public IP on your laptop on the internet.

2\. Don't run shit or use IE.

Bypass 2 if you're a developer and you are experienced in this stuff.

Seriously, I genuinely want to know, because the people that just got this, are going to continue to get shit in the future.

<comment><USER83> Don't use an outdated system with smb1 activated.

</comment></comment><comment><USER84> I think a lot of this is because people do not want to lose saved work. If Windows was to offer the ability to restore file state, that would be something that would help people keep Windows updates on.

MacOS has been doing this for some time and while it's not perfect, it's definitely led me to be less concerned about rebooting my Macs.

</comment><comment><USER85> So I have blocked my mother's PC updating from Windows 8 to 10 because it broke everything for her - so I rolled it back. Have prevented the upgrade auto-occurring again by specifying we are on a "metered" connection, which seems to be the standard trick to prevent the upgrade to 10.

Any idea if this also prevents security updates?

<comment><USER30> I thought the standard trick to prevent the upgrade to 10 was to use never10 to disable the upgrade.

[https://www.grc.com/never10.htm](https://www.grc.com/never10.htm)

</comment></comment><comment><USER86> It seems like the idea is if you want to disable it for yourself, go ahead. Don't disable them for someone who isn't a technical person. IMO They should introduce a way to auto-approve only security updates, like its possible with WSUS. Maybe a cloud based WSUS for consumers?

</comment><comment><USER87> My system partition is full. This alone prevents Windows 10 from updating (without giving any reason; you have to really dig into it to find the actual problem).

But hey, I can ask Cortana for some random stuff and have it fail 95 per cent of the time; nice priorities, Nadella!

</comment><comment><USER88> I still wonder how a company can go from Windows 7 to Windows 10 in such a short while. It was all so good, everything seemed to work in a cohesive manner. Now everything, especially the UX seems to have forgotten how to do it's job.

<comment><USER30> Not having a clue for having been irrelevant for too long and scrambling to not miss the next big thing before becoming obsolete. Seems they thought computers were about to turn into tablets and touch devices overnight (others went the same way such as ubuntu), then they tried to catch on this user tracking to display ads thing while becoming a rolling release. voila! you have now windows 10.

</comment></comment><comment><USER89> I switched my family from Windows to Linux at home because of the work involved in keeping a working Windows machine (with minimal user supervision) connected to the internet.

</comment><comment><USER90> Why can't Microsoft or NSA or whatever good samaritan use the same vulnerability and attack vector to force-spread the update or at least a patch of some kind?

<comment><USER91> Because accessing and modifying computer systems without owner's prior agreement is a crime in most parts of the world. Why would MS, NSA or any other entity would risk potential trials?

<comment><USER90> Did MS not force upgrade users to Win10 against their will - which caused many of them to switch off autoupdate in the first place?

<comment><USER91> I'm sure automated updates were covered in EULA. Not that I agree with this MS step though (see my other comment in this thread).

<comment><USER90> You are probably right.

In that case could not the president issue an executive order asking NSA to use the hack to protect everyone?

<comment><USER91> NSA doesn't have legal power outside USA. That still would be illegal hacking with potential political and/or legal backlash. I understand what you mean, but that's grey area at best.

<comment><USER92> They don't have any legal authority to spy on everyone either. Didn't stop them and after it went public, did anything meaningful happen about it?

Our German chancellor, Angela Merkel, went from "this is unacceptable and can't happen under any circumstances and there will be repercussions" to "please don't do it" after the Snowden leaks went public.

There is little political backslash and no legal one. The spy agencies (NSA, CIA, GSHQ, BND, #insertanotherhere) do whatever they want with little to no oversight. And if the public finds out about it, the first move is to legalize it by law and continue as before.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER93> Alternatively "Tell Microsoft not to market to people by forcing them to download gigabytes worth of extraneous shit through Windows Update."

</comment><comment><USER94> Why doesn't MS segregate its Windows Uupdate into Security Updates, New Features, Performance Updates and give control to the user?

<comment><USER30> Why would they do that ? It's not in their interest.

</comment></comment><comment><USER95> I have a great experience with Windows 10 update, it feels Mac-alike to be honest, and that's a very good feeling ;-)

</comment><comment><USER96> Turning off Windows update is not enough I'm afraid. Better remove this misery-ware completely from your pc and move to Linux. Linux is better, safer, cheaper, and more fun overall!

For apps that don't run on Linux for now, like Adobe, I'd rather move to OSX. Only reason for me to install Windows would be some obscure game that only runs on that platform. I honestly cannot think of any other reason to install Windows.

</comment><comment><USER97> Maybe this will inspire Microsoft to come up with an update system that doesn't mandate a system restart.

</comment><comment><USER98> I turned off Windows Update the correct way. I installed Linux.

</comment><comment><USER99> If Windows Update is vaccine administration, what is NSA?

<comment><USER100> I fear the answer is "the NSA".

<comment><USER99> You don't say "the HIV" either...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER101> As a side note, the delay to release PDB symbols on MS's symbol server after a Patch Tuesday has been at least days and sometimes more than a week for the last two months (at least for the Win10 symbols I tried). I use them a lot with WinDbg.</comment>


The Hollerith Machine - <AUTHOR> https://www.census.gov/history/www/innovations/technology/the_hollerith_tabulator.html

<comment><USER2> Holleriths were also used to coordinate elements of the Holocaust[1].

[1] - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust)

</comment><comment><USER3> There's a beautiful exhibit of one of these in the Computer History Museum. Just saw it last weekend.

[http://www.computerhistory.org/revolution/punched- cards/2/2](http://www.computerhistory.org/revolution/punched-cards/2/2)

</comment><comment><USER4> The Holleriths (later IBM Tabulators) were also used extensively in Bletchley Park and the Heliopolis station as part of the technique for cracking Italian Air codes - explaining why there's one or two knocking about in the National Museum of Computing in Bletchley.

</comment><comment><USER5> There's a great segment in the documentary series _Connections_ that discusses the Hollerith Machine: [https://youtu.be/_mT_futz23s?t=2m37s](https://youtu.be/_mT_futz23s?t=2m37s)</comment>


Scientists leaving labs and heading for cubicles (2013) - <AUTHOR> http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/30/scientist-alternative-career/2002879/ <comment><USER2> I did this about 7 years ago when I saw the writing on the wall (looking at PhD rates and funding rates and grant rates). I was a semi-successful computer scientist/biologist working to be a PI, but the reality was that all my time was spent writing grants and papers, not doing research. I left to work for a large internet services company that provides 20% time to its employees. I had read their research papers before joining and was convinced their infrastructure (developed for search and ads) was key to the future of science. When I got to my new employer, I was delighted to learn they agreed with me and I used the 20% time to develop a number of scientific projects. I still get to do research, while also working on some fairly interesting non- science problems. I still publish, but don't have to worry about funding. The pay is spectacularly better- I finally have a chance of buying a house in the Bay Area- and the benefits are amazing.

I don't think I'd have the same opportunties if I'd gone to be a software engineer at a Pharma- my employer is very open minded about the idea of its software engineers working on collaborative research with external scientists.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> FTA: "Now that President Obama signed into law a federal spending measure that locks the federal budget "sequester" cuts into place, a mandatory $54 billion in basic research funds will be cut across agencies in the next five years, estimates the American Association for the Advancement of Science, based in Washington.

In that case, grant success rates will probably plummet to about 10%, NIH chief Francis Collins has estimated.

"For young researchers, the sequester is just one more load on the camel's back after years of seeing fewer chances at funding," says Boston College biologist David Burgess. "Most of my graduate students are figuring on careers in industry, while the younger students are hearing horror stories about funding and may steer away from science completely.""

Relevantly, I left my academic science job 5 months ago, and won't be going back. I am in a biotech industry job now, however I may soon leave this as well-- salaries are too low for the trouble.</comment>


Internet Archive: What's new with v2 - <AUTHOR> https://blog.archive.org/2015/02/12/whats-new-with-v2/

<comment><USER2> > We have a lot of long-time users of the site, and we know that any major > changes will cause them to have to relearn where things are and how to > accomplish the things they already know how to do on v1. This kind of major > change can be very annoying, so we're working hard to make sure you only > need to relearn things once.

Criticism by long-term members is not purely a matter of confusion. I highly dislike the change from a "tabular" and highly text-based design to the image centric infinite-scroll one we got now. Showing cover images of random unknown music makes no sense in my opinion, there is nothing to recognise and music does not show in images. The information density has been drastically reduced. Things are reduced to icons and everywhere there are transitions.

If archive.org is trying to change its audience (and contributors) then it might be a step into the right direction, but for me, the new design is a step in the wrong one.

There definitely are discovery problems but I don't see how the new design helps. It reminds me more of a random modern 10 second attention span site than a well thought out interface to a vast archive.

<comment><USER3> I stumbled onto the new design about a month ago. I had mixed reactions to it, one side of which was like yours: "Oh no, they're going to ruin it."

But then I found these amazing treasures that were so much better than what I was looking for [0].

The Internet Archive is so priceless, so special, and so impossibly good, that I have to trust the people who make it.

As long as they are "focused on how the site looks," there is nothing they could do to ruin it. Yes, the changes are pointless for someone who was already happy with it. But if they are able to bring more attention and support this way, then more power to them. Their #1 job is to keep it alive, and I'm sure this is motivated with that in mind.

And after all, they have an API.

[0] [https://archive.org/stream/playseditedannot03shakuoft#page/1...](https://archive.org/stream/playseditedannot03shakuoft#page/176/mode/2up)

<comment><USER2> As someone who likes to share data sets via IA, their hiding of the plain list of originally uploaded files behind a non-colored link that only gets highlighted on mouse over made me furious many times. I don't want to have to combine a simple "download my data there" with "then move the mouse there and see how it is actually a link and oh by the way the actual files I meant to link you to are available if you click that".

I totally understand their motivation and I think it is great to present the potentially popular parts of the archives to the public in an "experience". But it worsened my user experience and motivation as a contributor(!).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I used to find the Internet Archive incredibly useful, sadly the new design has completely ruined this. Before the site was nice and organized, now it's a big mess that seems to be designed for smartphones. Infinite scrolling really helps making the site completely chaotic and confusing.

However, even though the site is ruined for me now, I really want to thank Internet Archive for all the years of enjoyment it has given me.

<comment><USER5> Hi, it's Jason Scott. I work for the Internet Archive but I don't speak for them, in this case.

So, first I'd like to make clear that none of the underlying collections or data has moved anywhere. That is, all the items that are in a collection of, say, newspapers or music performances are still there - the URLs are precisely the same and were designed to be permanent. Nobody's shifting those around here. Google searches work, and the site search works the same, using the same criteria.

Next, in the results pages, which include those "tiles" and infinite scrolling that is not to you taste, if you look in the upper right (next to the "Results" number), there's an icon that changes from tile mode to "list" mode. You can also turn on "details". That makes things into a list form, at least. However, for the moment, infinite scroll will still be engaged. Also note you can sort the list alphabetically, by creator, or by views.

After doing those two steps, is the problem at that point JUST the infinite scroll? Is that what makes it a mess for you? Or is it a different set of issues? I'm happy to hear it in this thread, but also, if you click the "beta" button in the upper right, and write exactly what you'd like, I guarantee it's read.

<comment><USER6> Thanks for pointing out the list and detailed views. I missed that when looking this morning as was bummed because I can't stand the unaligned-boxes- of-different-heights view that so many websites go for these days. Maybe I'm just not used to it because I recoil from it every time, but it messes up my read-from-left-to-right nature.

That said, two annoyances I just noticed with the list view (braindump style):

There is no header. I have no idea what the columns are. I can only guess, and that is useless for e.g. the rightmost column here [0]. Mental thoughts as I view it: It's just an icon? It's not clickable and doesn't appear to show anything useful. The speakers change to blue when I have my mouse over them. What does this mean? It's still not clickable... what is it doing?

Another problem related to not having a header: when I sort by e.g. views, the views are not actually shown. Maybe I wanted to see that information as well as having the rows sorted by the column.

Oh wait, I just noticed that there is a header there... but it's not clear it's for the columns of the table underneath it. They're not aligned... and it still doesn't explain what that column of icons is. But now I see that the number of views is shown as the leftmost column. I guessed that it was some sort of filesize initially (1.6B, 377.7M, etc.).

One last thing, I wish clicking the column in the header would toggle ascending/descending sorting like almost every other table I've interacted with. It's not clear at first that I need to go all the way over to the left to toggle that behaviour.

[0] [https://archive.org/details/audio](https://archive.org/details/audio)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Just to throw additional information into the mix:

* The design was the first major overhaul of the back and front ends of the site in roughly 15 years. * Introduced to the public in a very light was in October 31st, thousands of modifications/fixes have happened since then. * The V2 interface truly hit major audiences around the beginning of January. So it's been roughly 4 months, in which feedback has been huge, and read. * If you visit the changelog, [https://archive.org/CHANGELOG.txt](https://archive.org/CHANGELOG.txt) \- you can see the mass of changes that are occurring, nearly daily. * The site is nowhere near done.

<comment><USER7> Are there public source repositories such that one can see the mass of actual changes occurring? Last time I looked I couldn't find anything corresponding among [https://github.com/internetarchive](https://github.com/internetarchive)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I don't like it, at all.

I have yet to find an example of infinite scrolling being good, and this is no exception.

And it's gone from being text-heavy to image-heavy.

If it's trying to become instagram, well, good for them I guess. But that's not anything I'm interested in.

At least have a theme option to keep using the old interface. I suppose I'll have to wait until someone comes out with a usable interface using the API, I suppose.

</comment><comment><USER9> I really liked using archive.org back in the days when it was actively indexing pages. I am happy to see the people behind it our working to improve the user experience. Its a great idea one that goes unrecognized.

<comment><USER10> It does still index pages. You can see the results of the web crawler coming in here: [https://archive.org/details/webwidecrawl?sort=-publicdate](https://archive.org/details/webwidecrawl?sort=-publicdate)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I will use the new archive.org to see what the previous version of archive.org looked like :)

</comment><comment><USER12> I like the new look. I have been trying it out for the last week doing searches and reading books. It feels cleaner than the old layout.

</comment><comment><USER13> ... why did I not know that this existed until this moment:

[https://archive.org/details/internetarcade&tab=collection](https://archive.org/details/internetarcade&tab=collection)

<comment><USER10> The collection of games has been there for a while (and I suppose it grows over time), but the ability to play them in a browser is only a few months old. In fact they're actively looking for more developers to improve the speed.

 _It 's that time again.... I'm looking for a willing volunteer coder (C++ with some Javascript) awareness who wants to take a shot at JSMESS. We have a strong theory that someone could look at the code and, essentially, fix the speed problem (which would likely fix the sound). Are you out there, coding hero?_ [https://twitter.com/textfiles](https://twitter.com/textfiles)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Overall, I enjoy the redesign, but one criticism... having the secondary nav open above the primary nav bar is very strange. Any reason for this decision?

</comment><comment><USER14> No search of historical pages still.

<comment><USER5> That turns out to be a huge, huge technical issue but I can't imagine a future in which that doesn't happen.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Just tried 3-4 sites with no luck, alls giving back: "Got an HTTP 302 response at crawl time"

Anyway, the new design is very nice!

<comment><USER10> I thought it would cache 302's and redirect you to the archived version of the next page (if available).</comment></comment>


Zephyrus – the forecast in hindsight - <AUTHOR> https://zephyrus.boreas.default.dracos.uk0.bigv.io/ <comment><USER2> I love the name. I realize that the word appears in many contexts, but it invariably reminds me of the General Prologue to the Canterbury Tales.</comment>


The Can't Be Evil Sandbox - <AUTHOR> https://salibra.com/p/cant-be-evil-sandbox-f0475feec4b9 <comment><USER2> I'm not really convinced by the argument about cookies. Not allowing cookies, but allowing localStorage and applications to automatically send information from localStorage to the webserver, is not something that I understand as accomplishing all that much. Why would that accomplish anything?

Unless, is there something preventing javascript from, on page load, always sending "hey, here is some content from localstorage" to the server? But I imagine that there isn't anything preventing that, so I don't see the benefit.

In addition, my understanding is that localStorage can only be used using javascript, while cookies can be used for login and such without using javascript.

It seems like these requirements would therefore require applications to either not have a login feature, or to use javascript.

(I know someone who is running a website with accounts, and who intends to use a minimal amount of javascript for it.)

"no third party scripts" makes sense to me (though I might suggest the amended "no third party scripts, unless including a hash or something to ensure that the third party script does not change"?).</comment>


Ask HN: Has anyone else noticed Stack Overflow clones in Google search results? - <AUTHOR> Has anyone else noticed Stack Overflow clones in Google search results? They come up frequently for me. I can't help but wonder who's behind these. It can't be hurting Stack Overflow's SEO.
So far I have saved 5 different domains, and it looks like 2 have vanished.
- [dead] http://www.codeitive.com/0izVUjjXVP/selective-foreign-key-usage-in-django-maybe-with-limitchoicesto-argument.html
- [dead] http://www.codedisqus.com/0QmqWVgjgg/hide-label-in-django-admin-fieldset-readonly-field.html
- http://w3facility.org/question/image-servingurl-and-google-storage-blobkey-not-working-on-development-server/
- http://goobbe.com/questions/3109325/how-can-i-disable-a-third-party-api-when-executing-django-unit-tests
- http://www.ciiycode.com/0HyN6eQxgjXP/django-admin-inline-popups
I actually wrote Stack Overflow support about this in April 2015, but so far nothing has changed. Here's the thread:
Me: "Hello,
 There a lots of spam results on Google. As a web developer, I am frequently googling for how to resolve some programming issue. Often, I get these spoofing sites that link to stack overflow.
I would suggest adding a stricter robots.txt or perhaps blocking some of these bots that are scraping your site.
Here is an example. http://www.ciiycode.com/0HyN6eQxgjXP/django-admin-inline-popups
Thank you."
Response: "Hello,
Thank you for reporting this content. I've passed the information along to the person at our company who handles such issues. It's the diligence of users like you that helps us stay valuable!
Please note, bringing these sites into compliance (or getting them to no longer serve our content) is often a long and arduous process. You may not see immediate results. However, rest assured that we're working on it.
Thank you again, Stack Exchange Team"
Thoughts? <comment><USER2> Google doesn't have a good way to establish provenance, and has trouble distinguishing copies from originals. It's a common complaint of blog operators that some bigger blog copied their stuff and got a higher ranking on Google.

Google could check when it saw something, but that won't work against fast scrapers. For that, you need trusted timestamps.

One solution to this would be to have a few time-stamping services. You send in a string, probably a hash, and it adds a timestamp, signs it, and sends back a signed result. Then provide a WordPress plug-in to use this service, hashing and time-stamping each blog entry, and putting the result in the HTML in some standard way. (Perhaps  blog entry ). A few mutually mistrustful services for that would help; blogs with serious forgery problems could use multiple time-stamping services.

Search engines then need to look at timestamps as a rating indicator. If two results are very similar, the earliest one wins.

<comment><USER3> Since establishing provenance is such a big problem for Google, perhaps it might be a good idea for Google to offer a time-stamping service itself?

<comment><USER4> It's not directly a problem for Google — it's primarily a problem for sites that create original content.

<comment> ezequiel-garzon Not quite. The quality as a search engine could improve dramatically by letting true authors let Google know the content is coming before it's been available anywhere on the web.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Stack Exchange makes all the content available as a downloadable file, so they must be expecting clones.

[https://archive.org/details/stackexchange](https://archive.org/details/stackexchange)

They then have a bunch of licensing terms if you reuse the content, which must be what they're referring to by "bringing these sites into compliance is often a long and arduous process".

<comment><USER6> They even have a tool/site to query the data: [https://data.stackexchange.com/stackoverflow/query/new](https://data.stackexchange.com/stackoverflow/query/new)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> They've been around for years. A while back a few were sometimes beating SO in google results, but google eventually fixed that. Everything on SO is cc-by-sa licensed, so as long as the source is attributed (and it is on some of the sites), it's legal. The motivation is simple: the clone spam sites have ads on them. They're not actively trying to attack SO; they're just leeching value.

<comment><AUTHOR> I guess it's a win-win situation. Stack Overflow's ranking goes up, because of all the sites referencing it, and the spammers make money.

But as a consequence, the users have to sift through spam results.

<comment><USER8> I don't think so. Those sites redisplay SO content, but they're not linking to SO. They're actually trying to out-rank them, up their own traffic, and drive up their ad revenue.

<comment><USER9> Sometimes they link back, sometimes they don't.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> See "A site (or scraper) is copying content from Stack Exchange. What do I do?"

[http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/200177/234215](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/200177/234215)

</comment><comment><USER11> Sort of related, but in the last year it seems to me that Google's results in general have been increasingly getting worse. Now it seems that at least two or three spam results are always present in the first page of results. Most of these results also happen to be duplicate content of bigger sites though. I have tried reporting on numerous occasions to Google, but just usual "we will investigate" response and never a word back.

<comment><USER12> In the cases where the information you're looking for doesn't need to be recent (in my case exercises for a particular sport) you can change the date range of your search to e.g. only include results from prior to 2005. Obviously this isn't an option for recent information, but I've found it useful on occasion to filter out blogspam.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is common across numerous contexts. I've found what appear to be bots Tweeting my reddit and HN posts (I don't mind), several Reddit clones of various levels of sniffitude, Google+ content harvesting, and some Diaspora syndication (to be expected), again, of various levels of sniffitude.

 _To the extent that this simply distributes data around, doesn 't claim it for its own, and credits source, I'm OK with this._ Better even if it follows site-specific licensing. Among my visions for the Web would be content syndication where such schemes would actually _directly_ benefit authors and creators, _regardless_ of where their content is served.

</comment><comment><USER14> I don't understand why Google can't figure it out and remove these clones. They can do much harder things. Why couldn't them outrank sites based on equal text content or -- much better -- huge presence of ads.

<comment><USER15> I suppose it's mostly a social/legal problem. Google could get rid of 90% of those scrappers by basically hardcoding a preference for StackOverflow if it has the same content than another site. Same with sites like Wikipedia. But then obviously people will call foul play (probably scrappers and SEO people will be the loudest to complain). So whatever solution Google makes has to be general enough people won't call it unfair, and that makes the problem much more difficult.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Scraper spam exists for virtually every website that is even somewhat popular, there is almost nothing site owners can do about it but rely on Google, Bing, DuckDuckGo, etc, to figure out the originator. Google _should_ be able to figure it out and rank the true origin source appropriately, and usually Google is pretty effective at that. But sometimes they're not.

Perhaps what I find ironic is that many of the user "answers" on StackOverflow are basically clone spam themselves, copy/pasted from other websites by some user of the site, usually without sourcing the origin. I have personally found my own unique solutions and code copied verbatim and pasted to answers on the StackExchange network multiple times, outranking my original work without a reference to the origination of course, and I'm sure others have experienced something similar. Perhaps that's what you get with a user generated site, maybe Wikipedia experiences something similar.

Related, some of you may recall a few years back, that StackOverflow basically complained to Google in a public fashion about not ranking well enough and got a boost from them, whereas obviously the average Joe and an average website has no such option nor recourse. Here was the discussion on HN: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2152286](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2152286)

</comment><comment><USER17> When I look at w3facility.org, it seems like Googles algorithms do not properly handle the case when a scrape-site provides a source-link to the original content.

Google recommends the latter to protect against duplicate content penalties when you use some external content to enrich your site (for example a short section from Wikipedia, imdb actor info, etc).

</comment><comment><USER18> I haven't seen this yet, and I do searches pretty frequently that result in StackOverflow.com hits... and I make a point of choosing them first, because they are usually the best results.

However, a few days ago, I did see a single hit for expertsexchange.com for first time in years, at least that I noticed. Back when Google used to let you blacklist domains from your search results, before StackExchange was ever around, or when it was still very new, I used to block them, and eventually I'd assumed they'd gone away, but maybe not.

I hope StackOverflow and/or Google are able to do something to put the kibbosh on this kind of thing, because despite the complains SO is still a huge and valuable resource.

</comment><comment><USER19> > I would suggest adding a stricter robots.txt or perhaps blocking some of > these bots that are scraping your site.

The only people who care about robots.txt are some of the big companies. Even Baidu ignores it (As they can, it's purely there as etiquette)

Blocking bots is hard.

</comment><comment><USER20> I see this happen a lot also with the MSDN forums. The interesting thing there is that some of the mirror sites are still carrying topics that have been deleted or otherwise disappeared from the real MSDN forums. More than once, in the obscure subset of Microsoft tooling that I work in, the only hits that are still alive are on somewhat suspicious looking .ru sites, so in some sense, I am glad these sites do exist - otherwise, I'd be completely SOL trying to figure out why the badly-documented API I'm relying on is barfing up an opaque HRESULT.

</comment><comment><USER21> It's not just StackEnchange. I noticed the other day there's a Twitter account and website called "@explodingAds" that tweets HN user comments and mirrors them on it's website. I imagine taking content verbatim is just a quick way to build a corpus of search indexed pages that generate page views and ad impressions.

</comment><comment><USER22> Have been noticing this for the last few months too, very weird.

</comment><comment><USER23> I don't understand why StackOverflow allows this, yeah creative commons is cool and all but it IS NOT COOL for actual users. I get so annoyed every time i search for something on Google and it leads to an its clone site. It's not like StackOverflow has better search than Google (which is ridiculous). I still have to search on Google if I want quality search result instead of StackOverflow. With more power comes more responsibility. StackOverflow's policy feels too irresponsible in this regard

<comment><USER24> We use that license because it protects the content from us. No matter who comes along to run Stack Overflow in the future, Stack Overflow can't do something like put up a paywall and lock it up. Someone else'll just be able to host a copy.

<comment><USER23> As an end user, I don't care about that at all. If StackOverflow does something like put up a paywall and lock it up, then it will die off and some other site will arise that will replace it, just like some other sites that came before StackOverflow which put up a paywall and faded away. Also, StackOverflow can always change the policy if they want (which probably won't happen for the reason I mentioned), so the license as an excuse doesn't really make sense to me. Especially when it comes at a cost of horrible user experience. Lastly it doesn't seem like StackOverflow is doing much to improve search on the site itself and that's what makes this even worse. I wouldn't be complaining if I could find more relevant StackOverflow results on StackOverflow than searching on Google. How is it that I can find more relevant results on a generic search engine than the site where the contents came from?

<comment><USER23> Wow i'm getting downvoted like crazy. I don't think I said anything that's not factual. At least explain why you think I am wrong if you're gonna downvote. To be clear, I love Stackoverflow and I don't know what the world would have been like if it wasn't around, but I do think there are things that are broken and I just mentioned them. Am I supposed to keep quiet because that's how it's been?

<comment><USER25> > If StackOverflow does something like put up a paywall and lock it up, then > it will die off and some other site will arise that will replace it

As others have already said that possible thanks to their liberal license, not despite of it, so you're wrong, hence the downvotes (though I haven't voted in any way).

<comment><USER23> As a thought experiment, do you think if StackOverflow changed their license tomorrow (hypothetically because of the spam problem) but assured all its users that they will never mess with them, all users will leave simply because of the license?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> There's also a lot of Trello clones.</comment>


7 Tips for Getting Acquired - <AUTHOR> http://maplebutter.com/7-tips-for-getting-acquired/

<comment><USER2> Number one tip for getting acquired: do well enough that you don't need to be acquired.

</comment><comment><USER3> Does anyone know, was this an acquisition hire or an acquisition of assets?

</comment><comment><USER4> Tip #1:

Have two tip #1's</comment>


Show HN:Find other HN users in your city and Broadcast around the world. - <AUTHOR> 	Hey, We have a school project called Spotwire which is an app which broadcast your live photos and videos in your city but due to the fewer users the post can be been seen around the world, for now, so now people who are using hackers news can see from where others are from and explore their cities. We need few users for testing for feedbacks. The app may have some bugs but it will be updated soon
The app is in IOS only.
App link: https://appsto.re/in/dOC9ib.i
Let us know the review so we can make improvements to make a better project.
Contact id:email@example.com
Please no negative comments we need genuine help
Thank you <comment><USER2> this is meant as genuine help and not just a negative comment: spell your words out. it helps to make people take you seriously.

<comment><AUTHOR> It only allows limited character.</comment></comment>