Some value stability over the latest and greatest, but lucky you. If we all had the same hardware, software installed, and use-cases as you then your "opinion" might make sense. Many people use arch in SPITE of it having rolling releases and that certainly isn't preposterous. Suggesting that it is makes you, at best, a mindless fanboi, and at worst, an obtuse zealot.

I'm on arch, so way too often if you ask me. To specifically answer the question: at least once a week, with probably a new kernel update every couple of weeks. I make sure I have LVM snapshots between each update procedure as at least 1/4 of the time something breaks. I really wish arch didn't use rolling updates, but the vast AUR repository unique to arch is more than worth it.

It's no wonder. In fact, it's surprising more people aren't upset. Don't get me wrong, bitcoin has great intentions. I was very enthusiastic about it in the begining, but ultimately it's problems are too great to overcome. Ultimately I don't believe you can have a healthy decentralized economic system.

The biggest problem the west has economically is simple: corruption. Or more accurately I think: flawed fundamentals compounded by corruption. The most flawed of which being private enterprise controlling everything from investment speculation to the actual money supply.

If I were in a position of authority I would propose a gradual transfer of power from the private sector to a national central bank. Something like an increase on the fractional reserve ratio for all private enterprise by 2% per year until it hits 100. "New money" should then only be lent out by the central bank through private institutions acting as brokers. Profits from loans then go into the public treasury. Interest rates can then be controlled by a central authority who's core interest in is the welfare of the people, rather than shareholder profits. Periods of increased economic growth would result in increased social and public infrastructure spending, while periods of slower growth result in higher rates that help deflate bubbles and encourage saving.

There's still problems with corruption to be solved to ensure a central authority's ongoing interest in the public welfare (like corporate campaign donations) but you have to start somewhere.

There's more wrong than that. The creators of the protocol are of the shared mentality that any inflation is bad, thus bitcoins have a fixed supply. Once the last bitcoin is mined the currency will become deflationary. Proponents will counter this by exclaiming that coins are near infinitely divisible so prices can just modify themselves to fix to the currency supply. This, of course, completely ignores the human psychological element which makes deflation a problem in the first place (ie. If wages and prices would just auto adjust no amount of deflation/inflation would be a problem in the first place). Furthermore, prices auto adjusting doesn't correct the issue of deflation disproportionately rewarding the current "haves" over the "have nots".

The lack of centralization also presents the 51% problem. Proponents are naive to assume this will never happen when the mining process requires heavy investment in specialized hardware. Mining creates an oligarchy by design.

The bitcoin fundamentals are economically and technologically flawed. Other than that though... Yay!

It's not. Neither you, nor Microsoft, knows what's best for people.. so stop presuming you do. That is a very disturbing trend in the tech industry these days.

Having automatic Windows updates on by default and requiring a device administrator to disable it is prudent. Removing the ability to disable it is presumptuous and short sighted. I'll give you some scenarios why.

1) I'm giving a presentation on my laptop. Windows updates and restarts and the entire audience has to wait 10 minutes. Why don't I have pro? I don't know. I bought this stupid thing at Best Buy!
2) I'm trying to download a large file at home to get some work done and it's going at 20K/sec because Windows has decided it's time to update and destroy my bandwidth.
3) I'm in the middle of a game or some work and my computer just reboots because it has decided to update.
4) And of course: my computer updated and now my webcam doesn't work (this actually happened to me recently).

The crux of the problem may just be that Windows doesn't do updates very well. Regardless, the lack of choice and configuration is not, and should not, be a welcome "feature".

Nothing except Domain support (which a home user would never need) that I'm aware of. It could just be that giving users of their "free" OS one more reason to purchase the paid upgrade to pro is motivation enough for this "feature".

There's policies you can push out so that certain types of drivers don't require an Administrator to approve.

That's the policy I use to get around that problem.

Again, it's the lack of choice that's a problem. Windows already has automatic updates on by default. It also requires administrator access to turn this off. If someone has turned it off it's because it broke something, or they didn't want it. Example: trying to watch a video while Windows destroys my bandwidth.

It hasn't been done properly in the past, so why would it be done properly now? Literally all they've done is removed the choice for us. And reducing user control and choice is never a good thing.

What about someone that is trying to get some work done while their bandwidth gets assaulted by mandatory updates? It's that kind of non-thinking that Microsoft is suffering from. Turn automatic updates on by default, fine. But not allowing them to be turned off at all? A lack of choice and control is never "for the better good".

Direct emulation is just needless overhead since you're using Windows anyways, and compatibility layer translation (WINE) support is far too unstable to be practical for business.

Well said.

Except all home grade hardware ships with home versions, and home versions cost about half as much. You might be onto something though. Sure Windows 10 is "free", but you have to pony up some dough to upgrade to pro if you want out of this bullshit.

Sorry but not true. Your users could be as up to date as they want to but give an uninformed user local admin rights and they'll mess something up. I manage about 100 business users, no one has local admin. And I get maybe 1 virus a year. Usually through something like a browser plugin or exploit.

Since Windows update isn't a repository for all software on the computer it becomes pretty useless at patching security holes in browser plugins. Windows programs by design also don't typically used shared libraries. Third party applications, shared libraries, and user ignorance are the vast majority of your problem. None of which Windows update can hope to fix.

What this will do is give Microsoft the ability to force whatever new genius idea they have this week down everyone's throat. That's what they're after.

Also I would add business. I know business versions are unaffected by this, but it could still be a sign of things to come. The average office cemented themselves into the Microsoft ecosystem decades ago. Off the top of my head I could count at least a dozen critical applications my company absolutely can't live without that are Windows only.