• GreeNRG@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    294
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    15 days ago

    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.

    • Dremor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      202
      ·
      14 days ago

      Congratulation, you are being upgraded. Please do not resist. And pay while we are at it.

    • Maestro@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      83
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      14 days ago

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

      • boonhet@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        78
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        14 days ago

        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.

        • MaggiWuerze
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          93
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          14 days ago

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

          • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            14 days 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.

          • boonhet@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            33
            ·
            14 days ago

            It is, but they never forced anyone to take the update, so that might save their asses, or it might not

            • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              52
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              14 days ago

              This would be no different to you ordering food in a restaurant, them bringing you the wrong meal, you refusing because you didn’t order it, then they tell you to go fuck yourself and charge you for it anyway.

              If this argument is valid in your judicial system then you live in a clown world capitalist dictatorship.

              • Maestro@fedia.io
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                40
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                14 days ago

                Have you seen the state of the US? A “clown world capitalist dictatorship” is a pretty apt description

              • boonhet@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                14 days ago

                I’m saying they might send people the bill and then these people (well, companies) are going to have to fight it in court, where they’ll be right for sure, but Microsoft can make a lot of stupid arguments to prolong the whole thing, to the point where it’s cheaper to pay the license fee. For one they could say that continued use of the operating system constitutes agreement to licenses and pricing.

                Either way this is server 2025 not windows 12. We’re talking about companies here, not people.

                • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  14 days ago

                  Yes, and I’m saying that the fact this could even be viewed by Microsoft as something that is worth going to trial, and being argued in court = hyper-capitalist dystopian dictatorship.

                  In a sane world not “by and for corporations”, this tactic would not even be in the realm of plausibility.

            • NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              11
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              14 days ago

              M$'s mistake creates no obligation to pay, either way. They cannot sue anyone for the extra money.

              But some customers (depending on their legislation) might sue M$ to make broken systems running again, for example if these systems have stopped now with a ‘missing license’ error message.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      14 days ago

      Uh, if they didn’t ask for it, how is Microsoft going to make them pay for it?