Technology
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
view the rest of the comments
Apparently it's not that the software is broken, it's that the software being installed breaks Windows Update. There are reports from people that uninstalling StartAllBack, updating the OS, then reinstalling it back (renaming the install executable first) works fine.
As much as being affected by this is frustrating to me (though this is all happening still on the dev channel, so for me it'll be a problem for the future), I understand Microsoft's rationale here. They can't be expected to support every third-party tool that can break the OS, and it's known that both ExplorerPatcher and StartAllBack relies on many hacks using undocumented APIs to work.
In the last few decades that I've been using Windows, I never felt compelled to use shell replacements or customizations - the default experience always worked fine for me with a few tweaks. So, if anything I'm more frustrated at Microsoft that I'm forced to use StartAllBack, because MS went and removed options from the shell that existed forever and always took for granted, and then some.
I'm going to have to disagree here. If they made their operating system in such a way that the update service can be broken by any random developer, and the fact that their own software is on this list, kind of indicates to me that this is a them problem. They can't be expected to support third party software, but they absolutely can be expected to provide a stable method to deploy patches to their systems. Linux and MacOS don't share this issue.
I'm going to guess it's not very easy to simply fix this problem if you're an app developer. Intel, AMD, Microsoft itself, et. al. simply wouldn't jeopardize their own products in this way and I'd bet many of them are unaware this is happening to their software. Some of these call-outs on the list are years-old at this point.