[nailer]

The hack is probably removing even the 'Security' low-level telemetry. Which yes, would hurt users.

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/privacy/configure-w...

Edit: if you don't feel like reading the link, the 'security' level is the minimum required for updates.

No updates means no security updates. Which means exploitable boxes. Which would return us to the grand old days of exploited Windows XP botnets.

[ghostpepper]

Is there any technical reason why telemetry would be required to make updates work?

[nailer]

How do you have a machine download updates and install them without tracking that it is downloading updates and installing them successfully?

[MaxBarraclough]

Every Linux distro manages this. You have the client machine determine which updates it needs, as it has access both to its own state, and to the package repository's manifest.

[nailer]

0 Linux distros manage this. Have you ever ran an apt or yum repo?

[MaxBarraclough]

If you have something substantive to say, then say it.

In what way does apt, say, not behave as I have described?

[dang]

Please don't be a jerk in HN comments. It's against the rules and evokes worse from others.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[nailer]

I mentioned your repo knows everything you have installed. How is that not substantive?

There's not some kind of zero-knowledge k-anonymity (https://blog.cloudflare.com/validating-leaked-passwords-with...) type feature. It simply doesn't exist. Apt doesn't use it, yum doesn't use it, pacman doesn't use it. They all know everything.

If you wanted more detail, you could have asked. Instead you said my comment had no substance.

Please read this very carefully: GFY.