I imagine the definition of "upgrade" depends on the needs of the customer. The merchant of the license is inherently unable to evaluate this. Installing software without explicit consent, especially not-functionally-equivalent-software, is inherently wrong.
It's amazing to me that we're all so chill about a company in Redmond having root access to our PCs because they pinky-swear they will never misuse it.
And yet when you call it what it is (a backdoor) people get highly offended. Same thing with ubuntu snaps or really anything that updates automatically.
"or paying for the required license?"
Where was the acceptance of a contract requiring that? Microsoft just gave people a free upgrade.
I imagine the definition of "upgrade" depends on the needs of the customer. The merchant of the license is inherently unable to evaluate this. Installing software without explicit consent, especially not-functionally-equivalent-software, is inherently wrong.
It's amazing to me that we're all so chill about a company in Redmond having root access to our PCs because they pinky-swear they will never misuse it.
And yet when you call it what it is (a backdoor) people get highly offended. Same thing with ubuntu snaps or really anything that updates automatically.
Discussion (75 points, 18 hours ago, 26 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42057451
David Attenborough voiced "Sysadmins are cautious by nature" in my head.
and ending with "why they do it? -- we just don't know..."
“installs itself” = a 3rd party patch management product installed the update
A 3rd party tool did what MS told it to do.
Or if you auto approve security updates. As is common. Azure VMs even default to auto-update pulls from MS.
https://imgur.com/a/RvEx3yn
We got an urgent notice today from our central IT group warning of this catastrophic screw up of epic proportions, and I could hardly believe it.
This is way worse than the Crowdstrike debacle.