this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2023
99 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37801 readers
119 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Because Microsoft manages Windows update, it's not like a package manager in Linux.
I don't want Microsoft telling me when I should update an Epson printer driver.
Out of all the things to hate Microsoft for, removing the need to manage your own print drivers seems like a weird hill to die on
If they were just drivers, I'd agree with you. I was looking into the Lexmark and HP continuous ink services recently, and one of them, Lexmark I think, wanted the ability to update the firmware in your printer to stop you from being able to use third party inks or toners.
Along with that, I've had issues in the past where a faulty driver crashed the Windows Update service. Trying to update the driver through Windows would take me to Windows Update to install the missing update before it would let me update the driver. If I couldn't get the driver from the manufacturer's website, I would have been stuck.
And having drivers in windows update has 0 effect on drivers being available from manufacturers directly, as evidenced by your comment. So I don't really see how that could be construed as a negative.
If Windows is dropping support for the third party drivers, why would the manufacturers bother making two sets. They would most likely just make the Store drivers with everything built in. I might be wrong, but the choice to update drivers through Windows Update isn't granular, so if you want to update any of your drivers that way, you have to update them all.
If Lexmark, or any other manufacturer, decide to put their firmware updates in the drivers, you won't see it when it updates through Windows, and even if you do, you'll have to turn off driver updates for everything else to stop them.
Well, you could think of Microsoft as your distro. Generally, if they’re telling you to upgrade a driver, you should do it. At a minimum, everyone should be automatically installing security updates. This is one of the most important services an operating system vendor provides.
If you don’t trust them to do that or you don’t like their update frequency, maybe consider a different operating system. In the Linux world, we have some choices as far as release cadence and update policy. You can do rolling, 6 month, 2 year LTS, etc. Some are bleeding edge and others use “proven” software and remain very stable until the next major release.
The thing is, on Linux you can see exactly what an update brings, and you can also block individual packages from updating. I doubt you'll get the same courtesy with Windows updates, it's all or nothing.
I haven't used the more recent versions of Windows on a personal machine, but I know you at least used to be able to choose which updates you wanted to apply.
Control over individual updates was abandonded halfway through Windows 7, when they found out their algorithm for evaluating updates is exponential and has trouble finishing within 24 hours. So they moved to a linear sequence of all-or-nothing bundles and diffs.
They used to offer two tracks of those: everything and security-only. I don't think they do that anymore either.
You can uninstall individual updates after the fact. Not sure this actually works to any useful degree.
Auto update is fine for home user and ensuring latest stuff, but corporate use you want updates tested and then released in a controlled manner, otherwise you chase technical issues that are hard to trace and resolve with everchanging code updates being injected
Umm… you can do that with Windows in a corporate environment.
That was my point
Windows update is a package manager. It's hot garbage (obviously) but its job is indeed to manage packages and their updates.
Drivers and other HW-related tools have been distributed via Windows Update for years now and it's generally a good thing. Before M$ did this you had to plug in driver DVDs or scour the internet for drivers (ugh).
So you want Epson to provide you with a separately application which runs in the background to tell you when to update? Why split the responsibility?
Because Microsoft has no more business managing Epson applications than Epson does, I dunno, Kensington or Belkin.
It's not like Microsoft would be managing them, just providing the repository. I really fail to see how having N+1 separate application update mechanisms (possibly running in the background) would be better than having a central one. Sure, it's managed by Microsoft but if you have a problem with that I'm not sure what you're doing using Windows in the first place