this post was submitted on 07 Jun 2024
1341 points (97.4% liked)
linuxmemes
19717 readers
322 users here now
I use Arch btw
Sister communities:
- LemmyMemes: Memes
- LemmyShitpost: Anything and everything goes.
- RISA: Star Trek memes and shitposts
Community rules
- Follow the site-wide rules and code of conduct
- Be civil
- Post Linux-related content
- No recent reposts
Please report posts and comments that break these rules!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Much as I always feel Microsoft has made some horrible missteps around automatic updates...I also think many many users are vocally and unabashedly following horrible update policies.
The biggest one is "Fuck you, Microsoft, I don't ever want to update." A simple truth about Windows is that it is currently the most popular operating system in the world. If that OS was Unix-based, the resulting truth would still be true: The most popular OS is going to be the most common target for vulnerabilities, hacks, malware, and exploits. Far more than an antivirus, keeping that computer up to date is the most important step for keeping it secure.
This is true not just of computers used to manage your bank account and nuclear launch codes, but of the swarm of "convenience" computers sitting inside a campus network that could spread a virus to everything on the Wi-Fi.
So, looking at this image, it's a shame on Microsoft moment if this update came from nowhere, or they once again blatantly ignored the configured update time. It's a shame on the campus moment if someone was repeatedly closing the "Time to update" popup.
Other systems like ChromeOS and Silverblue do atomic updates in the background and then switch on next restart. No waiting at screens like this. Heck even the conventional Linux update system, while far from foolproof, doesn't require waiting like this.
So does windows for the most part
Do you know how often users actually restart their machines without being forced?
Perhaps the solution is to figure out how to update without restarting. It is a hard problem, but a forced restart is the same as a crash from a user perspective.
Imagine if they replaced the crash screen with a fake automatic update.
Years ago there was a screensaver that showed a fake "upgrading to Vista, please wait" screen. Just wait for someone to leave their computer unattended, download and set it as the screensaver, and wait for their reaction when they're back :)
That's some oblivion on xbox shit right there. Hide a restart with a loading screen.
If Windows would actually shut the fuck down when asked to do so, this wouldn’t be a problem.
I complained enough at my work about this that we shut off fast boot domain wide. I haven't had to have a "I know that you just turned your computer on but I need you to restart it. No, not shutdown and turn on, restart. Yes, they are different things." conversation in a couple years. Funnily enough I haven't seen anyone complain about the significantly longer start up times. I guess people just expect that from windows lol.
I think people just don't care about startup times. They do it maybe once per day (if they don't sleep and resume), and they probably get a coffee or something while it's starting up.
Walk in, press on button, hang up jacket and get stuff out of bag, type in password, grab coffee.
That’s a pretty common morning pattern I see.
No Windows doesn't do atomic updates in the background, that's why there is the whole installing updates screen on reboot or shutdown.
Yes it does? As far as I'm aware even Linux can't apply updates to an active system.
You vastly misunderstand both what I am talking about, and how updates work on both Windows and Linux.
You don't press shut down and then get a blue updating screen that stops you from doing anything on Linux. Go and update a Linux system and you will see what I am talking about. You run it just like a normal command or program.
Also yes they update the files on the drive while the system is running.
Fairly often if it wasn't for the whole fast startup thing, which isn't present in Linux land. I would say at least every couple of weeks, which is good enough for updates.
The issue is some updates don’t contain just security fixes, but rather privacy invading features and advertising that make the OS shittier.
Oh, no argument from me on that. And it's horrible that Microsoft is starting to make people choose between having a secure system and avoiding their adware bullshit.
In addition to what was said by somebody else about atomic updates, even a simple update via package manager on a regular distro will do all the work up front, and not take extra time on next boot. Before you reboot, most things will continue working fine - and most of the remaining things that might not can be worked around.