• lemmyvore@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    You have to cut Microsoft some slack on mandatory updates. They’re still traumatized from the XP era when they were the platform of choice for botnets and “Windows security” was a laughing stock.

    • trxxruraxvr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      6 months ago

      Tbh, if Linux had the same user base as windows had back then a large amount of people would postpone any update indefinitely and we’d be in the same shit.

      • lemmyvore@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        6 months ago

        Yeah it’s a different game when your user base is tech savvy and self-selecting. When you have to deal with a billion non-technical people you have to be a lot more protective.

        But even so Linux seems miles ahead. It’s Microsoft who should be the most motivated to add things like AppArmor, Flatpak, immutable system, curated app repos, executable as a filesystem attribute etc. They’re doing none of that, they plateaued at UAC and bundling their own antivirus.

        • AnyOldName3@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          They tried. UWP and the Windows Store did loads to boost security and make the source of apps verifiable, but people hated it and barely used it, so the holes they were supposed to patch stayed open. The store itself did have the problem that part of its raison d’être was to try and take a cut of the sales of all software for Windows, like Apple do for iOS, and UWP made certain things a pain or impossible (sometimes because they were inherently insecure), but UWP wasn’t tied to the store and did improve even though it’s barely used.