this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2024
569 points (98.1% liked)

Technology

59429 readers
2885 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 295 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (17 children)

Since rolling back to the previous configuration will present a challenge, affected users will be faced with finding out just how effective their backup strategy is or paying for the required license and dealing with all the changes that come with Windows Server 2025.

Accidentally force your customers to have to spend money to upgrade, how convenient.

[–] [email protected] 80 points 1 week ago (10 children)

Since MS forced the upgrade, you should get 2025 for free. That would probably be really easy to argue in court

[–] [email protected] 69 points 1 week ago (1 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.

[–] [email protected] 93 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 week ago

MS will be sued over this and they will lose. This is not an ambiguous case. They fucked up. It’s essentially an unconsentual/unilateral alteration to a contract, which kinda violates the principle of, you know, a contract.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)