[nu11ptr]

> I disagree, at least on end-user devices as opposed to servers.

And who determines what is an "end-user device" vs a "server"?

> If you're running a server, and willing to accept the risk of deferral because 1) you're in a better position to assess the risk and apply compensating controls than a regular user is, and 2) you're OK accepting the personal risk of having to explain to your boss why you kept deferring the urgent patch until after it blew up in your face, then yes, you should have a control to delay or disable it.

So you do want choice after all it seems. Who do you think should make this choice on risk vs. workload/criticality?

I would say you actually agree with me mostly based on your comments, but you have not clarified _who_ makes these choices. I'm saying as the consumer, _I_ should get to make that choice. In the enterprise, my admin will make that choice via group policy, but I do not want Microsoft determining what I'm allowed to do with my OS. They are of course free to keep doing that, but then I also have the right to keep not buying their products.

[kstrauser]

> And who determines what is an "end-user device" vs a "server"?

Someone who decides to buy a Windows 20whatever Server license for the related hardware.

[nu11ptr]

No thanks. I should be able to use any copy of Windows for whatever use case I want. MS is free to disagree, and I am therefore free to keep not buying their products.