this post was submitted on 07 Jun 2024
1347 points (97.4% liked)

linuxmemes

21210 readers
163 users here now

Hint: :q!


Sister communities:


Community rules (click to expand)

1. Follow the site-wide rules

2. Be civil
  • Understand the difference between a joke and an insult.
  • Do not harrass or attack members of the community for any reason.
  • Leave remarks of "peasantry" to the PCMR community. If you dislike an OS/service/application, attack the thing you dislike, not the individuals who use it. Some people may not have a choice.
  • Bigotry will not be tolerated.
  • These rules are somewhat loosened when the subject is a public figure. Still, do not attack their person or incite harrassment.
  • 3. Post Linux-related content
  • Including Unix and BSD.
  • Non-Linux content is acceptable as long as it makes a reference to Linux. For example, the poorly made mockery of sudo in Windows.
  • No porn. Even if you watch it on a Linux machine.
  • 4. No recent reposts
  • Everybody uses Arch btw, can't quit Vim, and wants to interject for a moment. You can stop now.

  • 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
    [–] [email protected] 49 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)

    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.

    [–] [email protected] 24 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

    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.

    [–] [email protected] -5 points 5 months ago (4 children)
    1. So does windows for the most part

    2. Do you know how often users actually restart their machines without being forced?

    [–] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago (1 children)

    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.

    [–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Imagine if they replaced the crash screen with a fake automatic update.

    [–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

    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 :)

    [–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

    That's some oblivion on xbox shit right there. Hide a restart with a loading screen.

    [–] [email protected] 8 points 5 months ago (1 children)

    Do you know how often users actually restart their machines without being forced?

    If Windows would actually shut the fuck down when asked to do so, this wouldn’t be a problem.

    [–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

    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.

    [–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

    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.

    [–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

    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.

    [–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

    No Windows doesn't do atomic updates in the background, that's why there is the whole installing updates screen on reboot or shutdown.

    [–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

    Yes it does? As far as I'm aware even Linux can't apply updates to an active system.

    [–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

    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.

    [–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago

    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.

    [–] [email protected] 20 points 5 months ago (1 children)

    The issue is some updates don’t contain just security fixes, but rather privacy invading features and advertising that make the OS shittier.

    [–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago

    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.

    [–] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago

    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.