| |||||||||||||
Forcing updatesForcing updatesPosted Feb 12, 2009 17:08 UTC (Thu) by eli (guest, #11265)Parent article: Forcing updates
It is MY computer. Yes, it is running your software, but that does not change the fact that it is MY computer. "Silent, automatic updates"? "Forced updates?" Um, no. Never. At all. For any reason. Even security reasons. You have no right to make that decision on my behalf. Period. End of discussion. ... um... I'll just step down from this soap box now...
(Log in to post comments)
Forcing updates Posted Feb 12, 2009 18:39 UTC (Thu) by linuxjacques (subscriber, #45768) [Link]
Same here. No forced updates no way no-how.
Forcing updates Posted Feb 20, 2009 4:53 UTC (Fri) by Drone (guest, #56757) [Link]
Absolutely. And you will have my backslash for attempts to take control over my computer. I do not see how silent actions which are against my wishes could be better for me than viruses itself. As for me, such behavior is a trojan horse on it's own. You can offer defaults updating most unaware users (if this does not interrupts their jobs and not annoys them or you will have awful backslash for a good reasons). But if you will really FORCE me to do something... I will be forced to send such system to /dev/null and seek for better replacement. And I will HATE you. Everyone hates tyrants and enslavers. I'm surely doing the same.
Forcing updates Posted Feb 12, 2009 23:47 UTC (Thu) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link]
Forced updates *are* applicable in certain situations -- see mattdm's case above -- but only where the user who sits in front of the computer is obliged, or willing, to delegate system administration tasks to the OS supplier. In the Boston University situation, the OS supplier *is* the administrator and vice versa, so there's no ambiguity.
But if we're talking about a supplier like Red Hat or Mandriva effectively becoming the system administrator for 90% of their less-technical users, all bets are off. They don't have the resources to properly run millions of machines without charge or to respond to the cases where automatic updates inconvenience their non-paying users.
OTOH it's something they or similar businesses could take on, maybe profitably, given the right wording in the contract and the right price -- using mandatory automated updates merely to make it possible.
Technical Unix users will take on their own system administrator role whenever they feel like it, whether their network admins or their OS suppliers want them to or not. So you're *not* the subject of this discussion and won't suffer, one way or the other, as long as you choose to run free software :-)
Forcing updates Posted Feb 20, 2009 5:04 UTC (Fri) by Drone (guest, #56757) [Link]
> Forced updates *are* applicable in certain situations
But only in CERTAIN scenarios. If you will attempt to break in and "administer" MY computer, I will consider this as attempt to remove MY FREEDOM, violate my privacy and so on. It's my computer and it have to obey to ME. So if you will try to do otherwise, I will put all my forces to enforce you (and anyone involved) to administer only your toilet until end of your days. That's a only fate any tyrant deserves (administrative tyrants are not exception). Do not mix your sucking enterprises with corporate half-slaves behind computers and free people who does not receives salary from you so they have zero tolerance to your attempts to invade into their private lives. Also I can recommend to half-slaves to stop being such ignorant morons so someone always allowed to takeover your power to make decisions. Power to make decisions on your own is a great thing. This is what really called as freedom, actually.
It's only matter of time... Posted Feb 13, 2009 0:08 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] It is MY computer. Yes, it is running your software, but that does not change the fact that it is MY computer. But it's connected to public network. I think the eventual resolution will be something like "treble damages apply if your system does not have auto-updates and is actually hurt someone"... Or may be something like cars: you don't need automatic updates, but you need to check your system regularly and can be disconnected from netwerk if there are no "stamp of approval" for week or two. Bascially the story is simple: as long as your computer is truly yours and does not connect to any other computer - you are free to use anything you want. When you are becoming part of public network - some rules should apply...
It's only matter of time... Posted Feb 20, 2009 5:13 UTC (Fri) by Drone (guest, #56757) [Link]
> But it's connected to public network.
I can buy kitchen knife and then I can kill someone with it. Is this a valid reason to enforce people to stop using kitchen knives? Or maybe it is a valid reason to jail everyone "by default" and only sometimes release for short time? No?! Same goes here.
I am agree to receive certain punishment if I got actually infected as the result and some harm was done to others. Just like I am agree to get punished if I'm killed someone. That's necessary to enforce security.
But I will never agree to get jailed and forbidden to use even kitchen knives "for my own security" and without any other reasons - I will simply consider this as a slavery. I do not need security at price of my freedom since then I will be neither secure nor free. How can I feel secure if I can't even trust to my OS which does something against my wishes? And how can I feel myself free if my freedom of choice is taken away?
|
|||||||||||||