FWIW, I fully agree with your sentiments. For 20++ years, Windows
updates have never been a real problem for me, but ever since October, Windows Update is having/giving problems or/and the installed updates
have caused problems. The June cycle *seems* to be OK sofar. Fingers
crossed.
[1] In a future update :-) 'Pause updates' will probably become more
granular and with calendar date selection.
On Sun, 21 Jun 2026 01:28:53 +0000, vallor wrote:
Full hardware potential cannot be realized with ANY off-the-shelf
distro. They are ALL crippled.
Nobody believes you.
You'll never know.
Ignorance is bliss.
On Jun 20, 2026 at 5:54:53rC>PM EDT, "chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
CrudeSausage wrote:
Nick Charles wrote:
Its so easy to avoid playing Russian Roulette with the exceedingly stupid >>>> "Patch Tuedays". Its a few clicks in Group Policy Editor in the Pro version.
Bam! Automatic Updates are permanently disabled.
With forced updates turned off, updates will happen only when you want to. >>>> What I do is wait until Sunday or Monday before Patch Tuesday and install LAST
month's updates. By then, shit like this will have been fixed or removed. If a
given month had a particularly ugly Tuesday, wait 2 months.
I think that's a bit over the top, although I salute your dedication.
Its the only way to do it. No other software on the planet FORCES updates the way Microsoft does with Windows. I'll update when I'm good and ready GodDammit!
I'll say this much: if you're still running Windows and Office with all
the garbage they've pulled over the years, then I wouldn't be surprised
if you enjoy being dressed up as a gimp while a woman whips you.
Ha! Come on, it's not *that* bad.
People need to move on from their idiotic decisions and policies whether it be
because of their constant failures (RT, Windows Phone, Windows tablets,
Zune, Xbox (since they're exiting the market), etc.), unresolved issues
(fTPM stuttering for me) or because they don't mind breaking your
installation with half-baked updates. Linux isn't perfect, but it sure
is better than Windows right now.
I actually hated M$ a little less, in the Win7 era. They actually had
a pretty decent product. But then they wholly embraced the spyware
business model.
You think that the Copilot "take a screenshot every couple minutes"
was bad? If they had the bandwidth, they would *love* to stream your
desktop to their servers in real time!
"For your benefit", you know.
That is exactly why their "AI" is hated. They boast - for everthing they add - that the "AI is watching everything you do, in order to make suggestions".
That is the very definition of spyware. I would not want a person watching everything I do for the same reason. Plus, Windows 11 is already creepy enough with messages like "We notice that you use your PC during this time period. We won't schedule updates and reboots during this time".
How fucking bizarre is that? Who is "we" and why are "we" watching me all the
time? Microsoft is utterly clueless about security AND privacy.
On Sat, 6/20/2026 10:51 AM, CrudeSausage wrote:
I'm not going to lie and say that Linux doesn't break. It breaks frequently. However, when a problem is noticed, it is officially acknowledged and very promptly fixed. fTPM stuttering has been a problem with Windows computers since fTPM emerged as a thing. AMD has acknowledged the problem in 2022, yet the company has done absolutely nothing to this day to address it. Meanwhile, the same issue affected Linux. Linus Torvalds noticed it, complained about how stupid it is, suggested simply disabling the cause when affected processors are detected by the operating system and it is now effectively fixed. The approach is very different. Corporations don't care and just want us to buy new hardware or software when something breaks or doesn't work right. Linux developers don't care any more about us, but they care about their own experience and will fix it for themselves rather than hope and pray that paid developers will do something. We just benefit from their fixes.
"They just want us to buy new stuff..."
That's not going to work, as there is no evidence they
ever fix anything.
On Sat, 6/20/2026 8:18 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:
I don't think that I would ever do something like ask AI what the webpage was
where I saw the picture of Little Red Riding Hood so that it could scour my >> entire history through screenshots and find it. The fact that they would
implement this spying mechanism by default in case anyone ever needs to
do such a thing is horrifying.
The "Recall" feature is only offered on "certified" NPU setups,
of which some Qualcomm ARM-based laptops would be the right materials.
Maybe some day, the DGX Spark will be added to the list. Intel has
at least one CPU, that should be in the list.
Other machines would not be offered "Recall".
In the article below, it uses Windows Hello for authentication.
And if it is available, it is set up as Opt-In.
You have to tick a box, before you can use it.
Or it uses you.
And here, a guy takes one for the team, by visiting
Pornhub with Recall running :-) He's so gung ho, it's
pretty funny. So his Pornhub visit was recorded, but
his credit card and bank account numbers, not so much.
Now he can search on "show me big boobs". What
a time to be alive. Like you would forget where
you left your big boobs.
https://ca.pcmag.com/ai/8651/im-ignoring-the-warnings-about-microsoft-recall-and-you-should-too
This is a big public relations win for Microsoft.
Nobody will forget the company name :-)
I would be more impressed if they fixed the Trash Can
with the wrong filenames showing.
What is Intel's answer to AMD's "Threadripper" processors, hmmmmm?
On 2026-06-21 1:32 a.m., Paul wrote:
On Sat, 6/20/2026 10:51 AM, CrudeSausage wrote:
I'm not going to lie and say that Linux doesn't break. It breaks frequently. However, when a problem is noticed, it is officially acknowledged and very promptly fixed. fTPM stuttering has been a problem with Windows computers since fTPM emerged as a thing. AMD has acknowledged the problem in 2022, yet the company has done absolutely nothing to this day to address it. Meanwhile, the same issue affected Linux. Linus Torvalds noticed it, complained about how stupid it is, suggested simply disabling the cause when affected processors are detected by the operating system and it is now effectively fixed. The approach is very different. Corporations don't care and just want us to buy new hardware or software when something breaks or doesn't work right. Linux developers don't care any more about us, but they care about their own experience and will fix it for themselves rather than hope and pray that paid developers will do something. We just benefit from their fixes.
"They just want us to buy new stuff..."
That's not going to work, as there is no evidence they
ever fix anything.
This is a fact. If you research the stuttering, you'll notice that they claim it only affects AMD processors of the 3xxx and 5xxx lines. For me, that was a good sign... until I found out that it is ongoing to this _day_. It's what motivated me to look for a good deal on a Mac, and what encouraged me to buy this Air despite not really needing it.
< snip long technical stuff >
One thing I can't stand is how Windows automatically encrypts your installation with Bitlocker.
It's especially annoying when you've jumped through the necessary hoops to ensure that you will
be using hardware encryption. You first have to decrypt, configure Windows to only use
hardware encryption and then encrypt again.
On Mon, 6/22/2026 8:47 AM, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-06-21 1:32 a.m., Paul wrote:
On Sat, 6/20/2026 10:51 AM, CrudeSausage wrote:
I'm not going to lie and say that Linux doesn't break. It breaks frequently. However, when a problem is noticed, it is officially acknowledged and very promptly fixed. fTPM stuttering has been a problem with Windows computers since fTPM emerged as a thing. AMD has acknowledged the problem in 2022, yet the company has done absolutely nothing to this day to address it. Meanwhile, the same issue affected Linux. Linus Torvalds noticed it, complained about how stupid it is, suggested simply disabling the cause when affected processors are detected by the operating system and it is now effectively fixed. The approach is very different. Corporations don't care and just want us to buy new hardware or software when something breaks or doesn't work right. Linux developers don't care any more about us, but they care about their own experience and will fix it for themselves rather than hope and pray that paid developers will do something. We just benefit from their fixes.
"They just want us to buy new stuff..."
That's not going to work, as there is no evidence they
ever fix anything.
This is a fact. If you research the stuttering, you'll notice that they claim it only affects AMD processors of the 3xxx and 5xxx lines. For me, that was a good sign... until I found out that it is ongoing to this _day_. It's what motivated me to look for a good deal on a Mac, and what encouraged me to buy this Air despite not really needing it.
< snip long technical stuff >
You are aware how hardware design works, right ?
You CANNOT fix architecture problems with microcode patches.
If the bus arrangement is wrong for a task, and the firmware/software/OS
part of the picture abuses a bus that has limited bandwidth,
exactly how do you expect an AMD hardware guy to fix that from
his office ? You can't. You can only fix the behavior of the equipment,
for the intended level of usage.
If it was a stupid idea on the day they designed that,
it remains a stupid idea... forever.
There have probably been at least a dozen instances of
hardware that never should have shipped, the engineers
knew it, the management shipped the hardware anyway.
This is just one of those events.
On Mon, 6/22/2026 8:38 AM, CrudeSausage wrote:
One thing I can't stand is how Windows automatically encrypts your installation with Bitlocker.
It's especially annoying when you've jumped through the necessary hoops to ensure that you will
be using hardware encryption. You first have to decrypt, configure Windows to only use
hardware encryption and then encrypt again.
At install time, there may be a tick box in Rufus to stop that behavior.
*******
That's not going to help you if you just bought a machine and
are going through OOBE. In which case, you do
manage-bde -status
after the machine is yours to use, and you can arrange to reverse
the encryption they have used.
On 2026-06-22 10:21 a.m., Paul wrote:
On Mon, 6/22/2026 8:38 AM, CrudeSausage wrote:
One thing I can't stand is how Windows automatically encrypts your
installation with Bitlocker.
It's especially annoying when you've jumped through the necessary
hoops to ensure that you will
be using hardware encryption. You first have to decrypt, configure
Windows to only use
hardware encryption and then encrypt again.
At install time, there may be a tick box in Rufus to stop that behavior.
There is. Unfortunately, I didn't have a Rufus USB installer in my hands
at that time and had to use a USB installer created by MediaCreationTool.
*******
That's not going to help you if you just bought a machine and
are going through OOBE. In which case, you do
-a-a-a manage-bde -status
after the machine is yours to use, and you can arrange to reverse
the encryption they have used.
Already done. I've enabled hardware encryption several times on my PC
laptop and even wrote down the exact sequence for anyone else who would
want to do it (with a storage device that supports OPAL encryption).
Anyone who claims that hardware encryption doesn't provide any
noticeable performance benefits over software encryption is a serious liar.
On 2026-06-22 22:46, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-06-22 10:21 a.m., Paul wrote:
On Mon, 6/22/2026 8:38 AM, CrudeSausage wrote:
One thing I can't stand is how Windows automatically encrypts your
installation with Bitlocker.
It's especially annoying when you've jumped through the necessary
hoops to ensure that you will
be using hardware encryption. You first have to decrypt, configure
Windows to only use
hardware encryption and then encrypt again.
At install time, there may be a tick box in Rufus to stop that behavior.
There is. Unfortunately, I didn't have a Rufus USB installer in my
hands at that time and had to use a USB installer created by
MediaCreationTool.
*******
That's not going to help you if you just bought a machine and
are going through OOBE. In which case, you do
-a-a-a manage-bde -status
after the machine is yours to use, and you can arrange to reverse
the encryption they have used.
Already done. I've enabled hardware encryption several times on my PC
laptop and even wrote down the exact sequence for anyone else who
would want to do it (with a storage device that supports OPAL
encryption). Anyone who claims that hardware encryption doesn't
provide any noticeable performance benefits over software encryption
is a serious liar.
Caveat could be that such a disk can not be decrypted in an external
caddy or another computer, if the key is a combination of the password
the user enters + something from the bios. This may be ok, or not
(recovery operation, replacement of broken hardware, etc).
On 2026-06-23 4:52 a.m., Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2026-06-22 22:46, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-06-22 10:21 a.m., Paul wrote:
On Mon, 6/22/2026 8:38 AM, CrudeSausage wrote:
One thing I can't stand is how Windows automatically encrypts your
installation with Bitlocker.
It's especially annoying when you've jumped through the necessary
hoops to ensure that you will
be using hardware encryption. You first have to decrypt, configure
Windows to only use
hardware encryption and then encrypt again.
At install time, there may be a tick box in Rufus to stop that
behavior.
There is. Unfortunately, I didn't have a Rufus USB installer in my
hands at that time and had to use a USB installer created by
MediaCreationTool.
*******
That's not going to help you if you just bought a machine and
are going through OOBE. In which case, you do
-a-a-a manage-bde -status
after the machine is yours to use, and you can arrange to reverse
the encryption they have used.
Already done. I've enabled hardware encryption several times on my PC
laptop and even wrote down the exact sequence for anyone else who
would want to do it (with a storage device that supports OPAL
encryption). Anyone who claims that hardware encryption doesn't
provide any noticeable performance benefits over software encryption
is a serious liar.
Caveat could be that such a disk can not be decrypted in an external
caddy or another computer, if the key is a combination of the password
the user enters + something from the bios. This may be ok, or not
(recovery operation, replacement of broken hardware, etc).
When the PC laptop inevitably dies (it's already five-years-old), the
NVMe will be transferred into such a caddy to test. I would imagine that
it would still be possible to hardware encrypt it as an external device,
as long as I secure erase the thing first. At the same time, I wonder
what the point of an external device using hardware encryption would be since the performance drawbacks of software encryption won't matter as
much. After all, sequential writes to the disk are just as fast
whichever way you go, only random writes and reads are impacted.
On 2026-06-23 13:17, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-06-23 4:52 a.m., Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2026-06-22 22:46, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-06-22 10:21 a.m., Paul wrote:
On Mon, 6/22/2026 8:38 AM, CrudeSausage wrote:
One thing I can't stand is how Windows automatically encrypts your >>>>>> installation with Bitlocker.
It's especially annoying when you've jumped through the necessary >>>>>> hoops to ensure that you will
be using hardware encryption. You first have to decrypt, configure >>>>>> Windows to only use
hardware encryption and then encrypt again.
At install time, there may be a tick box in Rufus to stop that
behavior.
There is. Unfortunately, I didn't have a Rufus USB installer in my
hands at that time and had to use a USB installer created by
MediaCreationTool.
*******
That's not going to help you if you just bought a machine and
are going through OOBE. In which case, you do
-a-a-a manage-bde -status
after the machine is yours to use, and you can arrange to reverse
the encryption they have used.
Already done. I've enabled hardware encryption several times on my
PC laptop and even wrote down the exact sequence for anyone else who
would want to do it (with a storage device that supports OPAL
encryption). Anyone who claims that hardware encryption doesn't
provide any noticeable performance benefits over software encryption
is a serious liar.
Caveat could be that such a disk can not be decrypted in an external
caddy or another computer, if the key is a combination of the
password the user enters + something from the bios. This may be ok,
or not (recovery operation, replacement of broken hardware, etc).
When the PC laptop inevitably dies (it's already five-years-old), the
NVMe will be transferred into such a caddy to test. I would imagine
that it would still be possible to hardware encrypt it as an external
device, as long as I secure erase the thing first. At the same time, I
wonder what the point of an external device using hardware encryption
would be since the performance drawbacks of software encryption won't
matter as much. After all, sequential writes to the disk are just as
fast whichever way you go, only random writes and reads are impacted.
The kind of hardware encryption I know about runs fully internal in the
hard disk firmware. With a proper firmware the disk read/writes as fast
as without encryption (on magnetic media, at least). The problem I know
is that some platforms modify (salt) the the user given key according to some BIOS definition. This makes the disk very secure if stolen, yes.
But the disk is dead outside of that computer. Surely you can find documentation about this, or just ask an AI to summarize it for you.
Why would you be messing with the trash can, in the year 2026 ?
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 70 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 39:26:15 |
| Calls: | 948 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,325 |
| Messages: | 280,644 |