Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.comp.os.windows-10 > #188320 > unrolled thread

Site claims there is a simple way to keep W10 updated for EU users.

Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.os.windows-10

Contents

  Site claims there is a simple way to keep W10 updated for EU users. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-10-16 12:39 +0200
    Re: Site claims there is a simple way to keep W10 updated for EU users. VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-10-16 09:58 -0500
    Re: Site claims there is a simple way to keep W10 updated for EU users. "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2025-10-16 17:55 +0200
      Re: Site claims there is a simple way to keep W10 updated for EU users. Stan Brown <someone@example.com> - 2025-10-16 12:04 -0700
        Re: Site claims there is a simple way to keep W10 updated for EU users. "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2025-10-18 20:45 +0200
          Re: Site claims there is a simple way to keep W10 updated for EU users. Stan Brown <someone@example.com> - 2025-10-19 09:55 -0700
            Re: Site claims there is a simple way to keep W10 updated for EU users. [OT] "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2025-10-19 22:34 +0200
              Re: Site claims there is a simple way to keep W10 updated for EU users. [OT] "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-10-19 22:37 +0100
                Re: Site claims there is a simple way to keep W10 updated for EU users. [OT] "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2025-10-20 14:15 +0200
                  Re: Site claims there is a simple way to keep W10 updated for EU users. [OT] Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-10-20 13:52 +0000
                    Re: Site claims there is a simple way to keep W10 updated for EU users. [OT] "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2025-10-20 16:14 +0200
                    OT: quoting (was: Re: Site claims there is a simple way to keep W10 updated for EU users. [OT]) "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-10-20 15:22 +0100
                    Re: Site claims there is a simple way to keep W10 updated for EU users. [OT] "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-10-21 01:16 +0200
                      Re: Site claims there is a simple way to keep W10 updated for EU users. [OT] Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2025-10-21 21:53 +1100
                        Re: Site claims there is a simple way to keep W10 updated for EU users. [OT] "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-10-21 21:56 +0200
                      Re: Site claims there is a simple way to keep W10 updated for EU users. [OT] "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-10-21 14:37 +0100
                        Re: Site claims there is a simple way to keep W10 updated for EU users. [OT] "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-10-21 21:59 +0200
              Re: Site claims there is a simple way to keep W10 updated for EU users. [OT] Stan Brown <someone@example.com> - 2025-10-19 20:57 -0700
                Re: Site claims there is a simple way to keep W10 updated for EU users. [OT] "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-10-20 09:59 +0100
                  Re: Site claims there is a simple way to keep W10 updated for EU   users. [OT] Stan Brown <someone@example.com> - 2025-10-20 07:32 -0700
                Re: Site claims there is a simple way to keep W10 updated for EU users. [OT] "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2025-10-20 14:13 +0200
                  Re: Site claims there is a simple way to keep W10 updated for EU users. [OT] Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-10-20 14:03 +0000
                  Re: Site claims there is a simple way to keep W10 updated for EU users. [OT] Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-10-20 18:04 -0400
    Re: Site claims there is a simple way to keep W10 updated for EU users. Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-10-16 14:08 -0400
      Re: Site claims there is a simple way to keep W10 updated for EU users. Jesper <Vitsky.kasperski@gmail.com> - 2025-10-16 20:24 +0200
      Re: Site claims there is a simple way to keep W10 updated for EU users. "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2025-10-16 20:35 +0200
        Re: Site claims there is a simple way to keep W10 updated for EU users. Marion <marionf@fact.com> - 2025-10-17 02:15 +0000
    Re: Site claims there is a simple way to keep W10 updated for EU users. "...winston" <winstonmvp@gmail.com> - 2025-10-16 14:08 -0400
    Re: Site claims there is a simple way to keep W10 updated for EU users. Marion <marionf@fact.com> - 2025-10-17 00:59 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#188320 — Site claims there is a simple way to keep W10 updated for EU users.

Just register with a Microsoft account, and use it at least once every 
60 days.


<https://www.diariodesevilla.es/tecnologia/como-mantener-windows-10-seguro-ue_0_2005010291.html>

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)


  *The European exception*

Fortunately, users in the European Economic Area (EEA) have an important 
exception: they will continue to receive free security updates until 
October 2026.

  This extension is due to the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and pressure 
from consumer associations such as Euroconsumers and the Organization of 
Consumers and Users (OCU), which called on Microsoft to take measures to 
prevent millions of computers still in use from being left unprotected.


*What does this extension mean for users?*

For another year, Windows 10 computers will continue to receive 
automatic security patches through Windows Update, without the need to 
sign up for the Extended Security Updates (ESU) paid program.

This protects against critical vulnerabilities and threats, but does not 
add new features or technical support.


  *What do I have to do to benefit from this extension?*

European users who want to access this protection extension do not need 
to do anything special: if the computer is registered with a Microsoft 
account, the updates will be installed automatically.

It is recommended to check your internet connection and keep automatic 
updates enabled from the computer menu: Settings > Update & Security > 
Windows Update.

Microsoft may require users to sign in to their account at least once 
every 60 days to maintain the validity of this free support.


*How long does this protection last?*

Free Windows 10 security coverage extends until October 13, 2026.

After that date, Microsoft will permanently stop offering free patches 
even in Europe, except through paid programs or new versions of the 
operating system.


  *In summary: what you need to know*

     Duration of protection extension: until October 2026.
     Cost: free in the European Union.
     Requirement: use a Microsoft account and keep automatic updates 
enabled.
     Limit: only covers security updates, not technical support or new 
features.

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#188332

"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

> Just register with a Microsoft account, and use it at least once every 
> 60 days.
> 
> <https://www.diariodesevilla.es/tecnologia/como-mantener-windows-10-seguro-ue_0_2005010291.html>

I don't recall a 60-day revisit requirement for the USA, but then those
using an MS account will probably visit each month for security updates.

Be interesting to know if MS got pressured into doing this in the EU,
and then decided to make it global, or if Microsoft started this in the
USA, and then coincidentally complied with the EU when they pushed.
winston said MS announced last year the ESU extension.  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#188336

On Thu, 16 Oct 2025 12:39:01 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:

> Just register with a Microsoft account, and use it at least once every 
> 60 days.

AFAIK you don't even have to use it at least every 60 days. The only
requirement is to have a Microsoft account.

-- 
s|b

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#188346

On Thu, 16 Oct 2025 17:55:21 +0200, s|b wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 16 Oct 2025 12:39:01 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> 
> > Just register with a Microsoft account, and use it at least once every 
> > 60 days.
> 
> AFAIK you don't even have to use it at least every 60 days. The only
> requirement is to have a Microsoft account.

Which seems odd. I don't have one, yet Settings shows my PC is 
enrolled for Extended Security Updates. I just used the Power Shell 
script that was discussed a couple of weeks ago ago.

(I removed win 11 from the newsgroups line, since this is strictly a 
Windows 10 issue. Why do people keep crossposting it to the Win 11 
hroup, since _no_one_ with Windows 11 is affected?)

-- 
"The power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by 
those who don't have it." --George Bernard Shaw

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#188411

On Thu, 16 Oct 2025 12:04:32 -0700, Stan Brown wrote:

> > AFAIK you don't even have to use it at least every 60 days. The only
> > requirement is to have a Microsoft account.
 
> Which seems odd. I don't have one, yet Settings shows my PC is 
> enrolled for Extended Security Updates. I just used the Power Shell 
> script that was discussed a couple of weeks ago ago.

I missed that apparently.
 
> (I removed win 11 from the newsgroups line, since this is strictly a 
> Windows 10 issue. Why do people keep crossposting it to the Win 11 
> hroup, since _no_one_ with Windows 11 is affected?)

I've got Agent set up to warn me when a message is sent to 4 or more
newsgroups, so I didn't get a warning. 

-- 
s|b

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#188474

On Sat, 18 Oct 2025 20:45:27 +0200, s|b wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Oct 2025 12:04:32 -0700, Stan Brown wrote:
> 
> > > AFAIK you don't even have to use it at least every 60 days. The only
> > > requirement is to have a Microsoft account.

I did not write that, you (s|b) did, following up on a post by 
Carlos. I'm sure it wasn't on purpose, but you make me seem to have 
written something that in fact I disagreed with. I did write the 
following paragraph, which you quoted:

> > Which seems odd. I don't have one, yet Settings shows my PC is 
> > enrolled for Extended Security Updates. I just used the Power Shell 
> > script that was discussed a couple of weeks ago ago.
> 
> I missed that apparently.

As well as a proper attribution.

-- 
"The power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by 
those who don't have it." --George Bernard Shaw

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#188488 — Re: Site claims there is a simple way to keep W10 updated for EU users. [OT]

On Sun, 19 Oct 2025 09:55:47 -0700, Stan Brown wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Oct 2025 20:45:27 +0200, s|b wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 Oct 2025 12:04:32 -0700, Stan Brown wrote:
> > 
> > > > AFAIK you don't even have to use it at least every 60 days. The only
> > > > requirement is to have a Microsoft account.
> 
> I did not write that, you (s|b) did, following up on a post by 
> Carlos. I'm sure it wasn't on purpose, but you make me seem to have 
> written something that in fact I disagreed with. I did write the 
> following paragraph, which you quoted:
> 
> > > Which seems odd. I don't have one, yet Settings shows my PC is 
> > > enrolled for Extended Security Updates. I just used the Power Shell 
> > > script that was discussed a couple of weeks ago ago.
> > 
> > I missed that apparently.
> 
> As well as a proper attribution.

There's quote markers, right? You can see the difference between the
quotes, no? Do you want me to quote the entire thing until it's +100
lines and then I add 3 lines?

-- 
s|b

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#188489 — Re: Site claims there is a simple way to keep W10 updated for EU users. [OT]

On 2025/10/19 21:34:52, s|b wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2025 09:55:47 -0700, Stan Brown wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, 18 Oct 2025 20:45:27 +0200, s|b wrote:
>>> On Thu, 16 Oct 2025 12:04:32 -0700, Stan Brown wrote:
>>>
>>>>> AFAIK you don't even have to use it at least every 60 days. The only
>>>>> requirement is to have a Microsoft account.
>>
>> I did not write that, you (s|b) did, following up on a post by 
>> Carlos. I'm sure it wasn't on purpose, but you make me seem to have 
>> written something that in fact I disagreed with. I did write the 
>> following paragraph, which you quoted:
>>
>>>> Which seems odd. I don't have one, yet Settings shows my PC is 
>>>> enrolled for Extended Security Updates. I just used the Power Shell 
>>>> script that was discussed a couple of weeks ago ago.
>>>
>>> I missed that apparently.
>>
>> As well as a proper attribution.
> 
> There's quote markers, right? You can see the difference between the
> quotes, no? Do you want me to quote the entire thing until it's +100
> lines and then I add 3 lines?
> 
I always leave the attribution lines up to the one with one less than
the maximum number of >s _in the lines I'm quoting_; I _do_ snip text
I'm _not_ responding to.

In the above (where I for once _haven't_ snipped anything), the line(s)
with the most >s are the couple beginning AFAIK - which (in this post)
have five >s; unfortunately, someone before me has snipped the relevant
attribution line (which would have had four >s by the time I quoted it).


-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Who wants a theremin? I’m selling mine it hasn’t been touched.
- @mizu1153 ~2020
I will swap you for my 2nd hand parachute. Never opened.
- @adenmac2810 ~2025/3

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#188532 — Re: Site claims there is a simple way to keep W10 updated for EU users. [OT]

On Sun, 19 Oct 2025 22:37:41 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

> I always leave the attribution lines up to the one with one less than
> the maximum number of >s _in the lines I'm quoting_; I _do_ snip text
> I'm _not_ responding to.
> 
> In the above (where I for once _haven't_ snipped anything), the line(s)
> with the most >s are the couple beginning AFAIK - which (in this post)
> have five >s; unfortunately, someone before me has snipped the relevant
> attribution line (which would have had four >s by the time I quoted it).

I select text and then hit R (post followup). This way only the selected
text is quoted. I always figured one could see the difference between
the quote markers. I would either have to quote everything and then
start editing or add the attribution lines myself.

One can also go back in the discussion watching the messages in the
thread or by using the message-ids in the References header.

I'll try and remember in the future; Stan and JP, quote only the message
before, no context.

-- 
s|b

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#188539 — Re: Site claims there is a simple way to keep W10 updated for EU users. [OT]

s|b <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2025 22:37:41 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> 
> > I always leave the attribution lines up to the one with one less than
> > the maximum number of >s _in the lines I'm quoting_; I _do_ snip text
> > I'm _not_ responding to.
> > 
> > In the above (where I for once _haven't_ snipped anything), the line(s)
> > with the most >s are the couple beginning AFAIK - which (in this post)
> > have five >s; unfortunately, someone before me has snipped the relevant
> > attribution line (which would have had four >s by the time I quoted it).
> 
> I select text and then hit R (post followup). This way only the selected
> text is quoted. I always figured one could see the difference between
> the quote markers. I would either have to quote everything and then
> start editing or add the attribution lines myself.

  As John indicated, the common method is to snip (with snip-marks) what
you're not responding to. You do the reverse, only quote what you're
responding to.

  Perhaps you could ask other (responsible) ForteAgent users, how they
selectively quote while preserving the attribution lines.

  There's a poster who is very good at minimal quoting / new text, while
providing proper attribution, but he's using Thunderbird, so that's
probably of little help.

> One can also go back in the discussion watching the messages in the
> thread or by using the message-ids in the References header.

  One could do that, but most people don't/won't and consequently often
draw the wrong conclusion, i.e. assume that what was quoted was written
by the person in the attribution line.

> I'll try and remember in the future; Stan and JP, quote only the message
> before, no context.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#188541 — Re: Site claims there is a simple way to keep W10 updated for EU users. [OT]

On 20 Oct 2025 13:52:40 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:

>   As John indicated, the common method is to snip (with snip-marks) what
> you're not responding to. You do the reverse, only quote what you're
> responding to.

I've been doing it like that for over 30 years and I'm not the only one.
Weird that only now it becomes a problem for some. I leave quotes for
context; I don't do it on purpose to put words in other's mouths.
 
>   Perhaps you could ask other (responsible) ForteAgent users, how they
> selectively quote while preserving the attribution lines.

Perhaps.
 
>   There's a poster who is very good at minimal quoting / new text, while
> providing proper attribution, but he's using Thunderbird, so that's
> probably of little help.

Very.
 
>   One could do that, but most people don't/won't and consequently often
> draw the wrong conclusion, i.e. assume that what was quoted was written
> by the person in the attribution line.

Frank added to list 'only his quotes'.

I will kill filter this subthread, so you can go have an interesting
discussion about quoting. Have fun!

-- 
s|b

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#188542 — OT: quoting (was: Re: Site claims there is a simple way to keep W10 updated for EU users. [OT])

On 2025/10/20 14:52:40, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> s|b <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Oct 2025 22:37:41 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>
>>> I always leave the attribution lines up to the one with one less than
>>> the maximum number of >s _in the lines I'm quoting_; I _do_ snip text
>>> I'm _not_ responding to.
>>>
>>> In the above (where I for once _haven't_ snipped anything), the line(s)
>>> with the most >s are the couple beginning AFAIK - which (in this post)
>>> have five >s; unfortunately, someone before me has snipped the relevant
>>> attribution line (which would have had four >s by the time I quoted it).
>>
>> I select text and then hit R (post followup). This way only the selected
>> text is quoted. I always figured one could see the difference between
>> the quote markers. I would either have to quote everything and then
>> start editing or add the attribution lines myself.

But, your post did include the "JPG wrote" line. Oh, I see, your client
(the one that understands the "R") inserts that based on the author of
the post you're responding to. That doesn't work, however, if the text
you're responding to was itself quoted.>
>   As John indicated, the common method is to snip (with snip-marks) what
> you're not responding to. You do the reverse, only quote what you're
> responding to.

Yes, in Thunderbird I click followup, and then snip the bits I'm not
responding to - but leaving in the attribution lines up to the one that
shows who wrote what I _am_ responding to. (I will admit that if the
first bit I'm responding to isn't the oldest part, and I _am_ responding
to an older part lower down, I tend not to add further attribution lines.)

As Frank indicated, it's usually a good idea to indicate where you've
snipped - I use "[]", short for "[something snipped here]", and I think
since I started doing that (years ago!) it's been picked up by others;
others have their own indication - "<snip>" is popular. If you don't
indicate snippage, it can _sometimes_ appear misleading - as if someone
said something that was actually said by someone else, or - if the bits
either side of the snip are by the same person - as if the person being
quoted said those two things adjacent, which they didn't.>
>   Perhaps you could ask other (responsible) ForteAgent users, how they
> selectively quote while preserving the attribution lines.
> 
>   There's a poster who is very good at minimal quoting / new text, while
> providing proper attribution, but he's using Thunderbird, so that's
> probably of little help.
> 
>> One can also go back in the discussion watching the messages in the
>> thread or by using the message-ids in the References header.
> 
>   One could do that, but most people don't/won't and consequently often

Indeed - it's a lot of effort. And remember anything on usenet that
involves the reader in extra effort is generally Not A Good Thing -
since it compares many people having to make that effort, versus only
one poster having to make some effort. (That sounds awfully pi, and I
don't mean to, but YCSWIM I think.)

[]

>> I'll try and remember in the future; Stan and JP, quote only the message
>> before, no context.
No, removing too much context is almost as bad as not removing enough:
quoting without context (of what has gone before) can also be confusing.
An old rule of thumb - and break the rule occasionally, I do - is that
about four levels of quoting is the maximum advisable; by that time,
those following the thread will have seen what went before enough times,
and it can get confusing, and older material can have become irrelevant
too, as people add things, or the thread drifts greatly (as, looking at
the subject, this one has done!) The four-levels rule is why a lot of
news clients wrap at 72: 72 was never a common width of terminals, but
80 was - and 72 allows four lots of "> " to be added (note the space!)
before you start getting long and short lines.Having said that this
thread has drifted, I've tweaked the subject - using a couple more
conventions:
1. <new subject> (was: Re: <old subject>)

because _some_ news clients recognise that format, and in _subsequent_
posts, trim the (was: Re:) bit;

2. I've added OT (off-topic) to indicate it isn't really a Windows-10
subject. (To some extent, some would say I ought also to have
cross-posted to a more appropriate newsgroup, and set followups
accordingly, but I don't usually do that - apart from anything else, I'd
have to follow an increasing number of newsgroups! Using OT is a
compromise - those who really don't want to see OT posts can filter on it.)

-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

We need a reversal of the old saying: "DON'T do unto others as you would
have them NOT do unto you."
Paraphrase from "The Moral Maze", 1998-11-21: it was an attempt - quite
good I thought - to get a modern [and non-specific] version.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#188559 — Re: Site claims there is a simple way to keep W10 updated for EU users. [OT]

On 2025-10-20 15:52, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>> I select text and then hit R (post followup). This way only the selected
>> text is quoted. I always figured one could see the difference between
>> the quote markers. I would either have to quote everything and then
>> start editing or add the attribution lines myself.
>    As John indicated, the common method is to snip (with snip-marks) what
> you're not responding to. You do the reverse, only quote what you're
> responding to.
> 
>    Perhaps you could ask other (responsible) ForteAgent users, how they
> selectively quote while preserving the attribution lines.

Thunderbird works the same, see above.

I highlighted your two paragraph and the one before from s|b, hit follow 
button. Everything else except the highlight gets removed. There is no 
attribution to s|b.

But everybody should know that the paragraph with single quotes doesn't 
belong to Frank, it is obvious.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#188576 — Re: Site claims there is a simple way to keep W10 updated for EU users. [OT]

On 21/10/2025 10:16 am, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2025-10-20 15:52, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> I select text and then hit R (post followup). This way only the selected
>>> text is quoted. I always figured one could see the difference between
>>> the quote markers. I would either have to quote everything and then
>>> start editing or add the attribution lines myself.
>>    As John indicated, the common method is to snip (with snip-marks) what
>> you're not responding to. You do the reverse, only quote what you're
>> responding to.
>>
>>    Perhaps you could ask other (responsible) ForteAgent users, how they
>> selectively quote while preserving the attribution lines.
> 
> Thunderbird works the same, see above.
> 
> I highlighted your two paragraph and the one before from s|b, hit follow 
> button. Everything else except the highlight gets removed. There is no 
> attribution to s|b.
> 
> But everybody should know that the paragraph with single quotes doesn't 
> belong to Frank, it is obvious.
> 
... but, in your reply, as I read the quotes, "But everybody should know 
that the paragraph with single quotes (now double quotes) *does* belong 
to Frank."

In this, my reply, your words, Carlos, have one set of '>' whilst 
Frank's (to which you, Carlos, responded) have two '>'.

Or am I mis-understanding things??
-- 
Daniel70

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#188587 — Re: Site claims there is a simple way to keep W10 updated for EU users. [OT]

On 2025-10-21 12:53, Daniel70 wrote:
> On 21/10/2025 10:16 am, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2025-10-20 15:52, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>> I select text and then hit R (post followup). This way only the 
>>>> selected
>>>> text is quoted. I always figured one could see the difference between
>>>> the quote markers. I would either have to quote everything and then
>>>> start editing or add the attribution lines myself.
>>>    As John indicated, the common method is to snip (with snip-marks) 
>>> what
>>> you're not responding to. You do the reverse, only quote what you're
>>> responding to.
>>>
>>>    Perhaps you could ask other (responsible) ForteAgent users, how they
>>> selectively quote while preserving the attribution lines.
>>
>> Thunderbird works the same, see above.
>>
>> I highlighted your two paragraph and the one before from s|b, hit 
>> follow button. Everything else except the highlight gets removed. 
>> There is no attribution to s|b.
>>
>> But everybody should know that the paragraph with single quotes 
>> doesn't belong to Frank, it is obvious.
>>
> ... but, in your reply, as I read the quotes, "But everybody should know 
> that the paragraph with single quotes (now double quotes) *does* belong 
> to Frank."

Frank has two, so he is the second poster mentioned in the attribution 
paragraph. And in this reply it has three. This is the standard.

> 
> In this, my reply, your words, Carlos, have one set of '>' whilst 
> Frank's (to which you, Carlos, responded) have two '>'.
> 
> Or am I mis-understanding things??

No. What's the problem? :-?

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#188579 — Re: Site claims there is a simple way to keep W10 updated for EU users. [OT]

On 2025/10/21 0:16:55, Carlos E.R. wrote:

[]

> Thunderbird works the same, see above.
> 
> I highlighted your two paragraph and the one before from s|b, hit follow 
> button. Everything else except the highlight gets removed. There is no 
> attribution to s|b.
> 
> But everybody should know that the paragraph with single quotes doesn't 
> belong to Frank, it is obvious.
> 
There are two aspects to this.

1. Misattribution. As you say, experienced users will recognise that, if
you're quoting what A said and that included something B said, that A
didn't say what he quoted B as saying. But sometimes that isn't
_immediately_ obvious, especially to newcomers.

2. Who is B? If you snipped all but A's attribution line, we may know
that A didn't say what he quoted, but we don't know who B _is_.


-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"If even one person" arguments allow the perfect to become the enemy of
the good, and thus they tend to cause more harm than good.
- Jimmy Akins quoted by Scott Adams, 2015-5-5

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#188588 — Re: Site claims there is a simple way to keep W10 updated for EU users. [OT]

On 2025-10-21 15:37, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> On 2025/10/21 0:16:55, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> 
> []
> 
>> Thunderbird works the same, see above.
>>
>> I highlighted your two paragraph and the one before from s|b, hit follow
>> button. Everything else except the highlight gets removed. There is no
>> attribution to s|b.
>>
>> But everybody should know that the paragraph with single quotes doesn't
>> belong to Frank, it is obvious.
>>
> There are two aspects to this.
> 
> 1. Misattribution. As you say, experienced users will recognise that, if
> you're quoting what A said and that included something B said, that A
> didn't say what he quoted B as saying. But sometimes that isn't
> _immediately_ obvious, especially to newcomers.

They should learn.

> 
> 2. Who is B? If you snipped all but A's attribution line, we may know
> that A didn't say what he quoted, but we don't know who B _is_.

Yes, that's a bug in software like Thunderbird and it is the reason I 
avoid using that feature, unless I only highlight single quoted (>) text.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#188495 — Re: Site claims there is a simple way to keep W10 updated for EU users. [OT]

On Sun, 19 Oct 2025 22:34:52 +0200, s|b wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2025 09:55:47 -0700, Stan Brown wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, 18 Oct 2025 20:45:27 +0200, s|b wrote:
> > > On Thu, 16 Oct 2025 12:04:32 -0700, Stan Brown wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > AFAIK you don't even have to use it at least every 60 days. The only
> > > > > requirement is to have a Microsoft account.
> > 
> > I did not write that, you (s|b) did, following up on a post by 
> > Carlos. I'm sure it wasn't on purpose, but you make me seem to have 
> > written something that in fact I disagreed with. I did write the 
> > following paragraph, which you quoted:
> > 
> > > > Which seems odd. I don't have one, yet Settings shows my PC is 
> > > > enrolled for Extended Security Updates. I just used the Power Shell 
> > > > script that was discussed a couple of weeks ago ago.
> > > 
> > > I missed that apparently.
> > 
> > As well as a proper attribution.
> 
> There's quote markers, right? You can see the difference between the
> quotes, no? Do you want me to quote the entire thing until it's +100
> lines and then I add 3 lines?

That's a straw man, unworthy of you. 

Just don't snip out an attribution line of text that you quote. It's 
not rocket surgery.

-- 
"The power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by 
those who don't have it." --George Bernard Shaw

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#188505 — Re: Site claims there is a simple way to keep W10 updated for EU users. [OT]

On 2025/10/20 4:57:57, Stan Brown wrote:

[]

> Just don't snip out an attribution line of text that you quote. It's 

Exactly.

> not rocket surgery.
> 
I rather like that line!


-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

What’s the point of having laurels if you can’t rest on them?
- Tom Lehrer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#188543 — Re: Site claims there is a simple way to keep W10 updated for EU users. [OT]

On Mon, 20 Oct 2025 09:59:09 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> 
> On 2025/10/20 4:57:57, Stan Brown wrote:
> 
> []
> 
> > Just don't snip out an attribution line of text that you quote. It's 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> > not rocket surgery.
> > 
> I rather like that line!

Thanks. It's not original with me, but I can't remember where I first 
encountered it. This reddit thread suggests a number of possible 
origins
> https://www.reddit.com/r/etymology/comments/53x9xz/what_is_the_origin_of_the_term_rocket_surgery/
but none of them rings a bell with me.

-- 
"The power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by 
those who don't have it." --George Bernard Shaw

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.os.windows-10

csiph-web