> Windows 95. No upselling services. No automatic updates
Even Windows 95 came bundled with MSN on the desktop which had a paid monthly fee to access. And its lack of automatic updates was a real problem, as you had to manually find the service packs and security patches. The automatic updates in Windows XP were vastly more convenient.
Automatic updates are needed for security. The only era when you didn't need them was pre-Internet. They're not something we want to get rid of.
> Automatic updates are needed for security. The only era when you didn't need them was pre-Internet. They're not something we want to get rid of.
That was true right up until companies started routinely pushing updates that broke things, removed useful features, added user hostile features, or even outright ads. If I have to give up automatic security updates to not have my software get worse on me over time, I will gladly do so. I would rather have security updates and not have the user-hostile stuff, but we seem to be unable to get that, so the next best thing would be no automatic updates at all.
I know you won't believe me, and my precious karma score may suffer by stating reality: you don't NEED security updates. A properly hardened server with no patches will outlive cobbled together trash library patch over garbage code pasted from ai vibing script kiddies. Would you shake your head in disbelief if I told you 'security patches' are the fix delivered by a dealer to quell your shivers?
Give me functionality updates, cumulative service packs, and the just after BBS days when an exploit discovered in your software meant it was used by no one, anywhere, because we no longer trust your coding or your 'fix'