571
Sysadmin shock as Windows Server 2025 installs itself (www.theregister.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
94 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 69 points 2 years ago (9 children)

Ah, but did you read the article?

MS didn't force it, Heimdal auto-updated it for their customers based on the assumption that Microsoft would label the update properly instead of it being labeled as a regular security patch. Microsoft however made a mistake (on purpose or not? Who knows...) in labeling it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 93 points 2 years ago (8 children)

    Then it's still on Microsoft for pushing that update through what is essentially a patch pipeline

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [+] -26 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    It is, but they never forced anyone to take the update, so that might save their asses, or it might not

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 50 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    This would be no different to you ordering food in a restaurant, them bringing you the wrong meal, you refusing because you didn't order it, then they tell you to go fuck yourself and charge you for it anyway.

    If this argument is valid in your judicial system then you live in a clown world capitalist dictatorship.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I'm saying they might send people the bill and then these people (well, companies) are going to have to fight it in court, where they'll be right for sure, but Microsoft can make a lot of stupid arguments to prolong the whole thing, to the point where it's cheaper to pay the license fee. For one they could say that continued use of the operating system constitutes agreement to licenses and pricing.

    Either way this is server 2025 not windows 12. We're talking about companies here, not people.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago*

    Yes, and I'm saying that the fact this could even be viewed by Microsoft as something that is worth going to trial, and being argued in court = hyper-capitalist dystopian dictatorship.

    In a sane world not "by and for corporations", this tactic would not even be in the realm of plausibility.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago*

    M$'s mistake creates no obligation to pay, either way. They cannot sue anyone for the extra money.

    But some customers (depending on their legislation) might sue M$ to make broken systems running again, for example if these systems have stopped now with a 'missing license' error message.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent