If MS cant be expected to vet every driver they push with their autoupdater they shouldnt push drivers with the same tool that autoupdates their OS. Make one or the other. I see a use for autoupdate only MS products and a triggered updater for drivers that only gets used by the error wizard with a user prompt(whtever they call it) if they want to be able to claim no responsibility
KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 hours ago
So you’d like to go back to the old days where users install their devices with a third party installer every time they get a new hardware item, require providing drivers during install, and never update those drivers?
Why wouldn’t it be up to the driver provider to vet the drivers being provided?
Droechai@piefed.blahaj.zone 11 hours ago
So the end user is responsible to hunt down the driver publisher? In what way is that better than MS being responsible and they keep the publishers in lune before the publishers get access to autoupdater?
About the third party installer, why not use my suggested solution rather than putting words in my mouth? Keep the drivers in a separate MS installer from autoupdates
KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 hours ago
Error wizard only updates leads us right into issues of insecure drivers being left in place because they aren’t causing errors. Or what if the drivers originally installed were engineering drivers, and an update was to correct them? Never going to hit because it never errored.
The reality is, the current solution works. Is it infallible? No, of course not. But this is like getting mad at FexEx because they didn’t confirm the package Amazon sent you was the actual item you ordered.