391
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] shortwavesurfer@monero.town 95 points 9 months ago

So you mean they want windows to have something that Linux has had for 20 years? Android has also had this since ~2017 too.

[-] toastynugs@sh.itjust.works 109 points 9 months ago

My android phone and Linux computers all still want reboots after updates...

[-] PlexSheep@feddit.de 106 points 9 months ago

Linux only needs a reboot if you want to update the kernel, normally.

[-] lurch@sh.itjust.works 38 points 9 months ago

but in that case you can often kexec to restart linux faster, skipping the actual BIOS/UEFI boot.

also, some distros offer live patching of kernel code for $$$

[-] Rustmilian@lemmy.world 18 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

You don't need to pay money for live patching.
They really just make you pay for having them do it for you.

[-] Flipper@feddit.de 4 points 9 months ago

I think you forgot to mention what distro you are running.

[-] Rustmilian@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)
[-] uis@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago
[-] tool@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

Eh, it depends. Other low-level things (systemd, glibc, etc) need a reboot too.

[-] jbk@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 9 months ago
[-] shortwavesurfer@monero.town 3 points 9 months ago

"Colonel updates require a reboot, but just normal application updates do not. And most system updates do not. I partly misspoke about Android. I should have been more clear because I was referring to the A/B partition scheme, but yeah, to run the new system does require rebooting.

[-] kae@lemmy.ca 34 points 9 months ago
[-] crusty@lemmy.dbzer0.com 30 points 9 months ago

Colonel Kernel

[-] FaceDeer@kbin.social 13 points 9 months ago
[-] kae@lemmy.ca 23 points 9 months ago

😂 As a Canuck, we use both. But the computer term is definitely Kernel. Unless we're marching out on a battlefield....

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Seven bugs and crashes

[-] ilmagico@lemmy.world 47 points 9 months ago

I love linux and been using it for decades, personally and professionally, but no, linux doesn't have "hot patching" the same way as that article describes it. At most it can live patch the kernel (and only few distros actually use that), but definitely not for the last 20 years, and definitely not running processes. However, it does usually restart background processes after an update without requiring a reboot, but in my experience, often times the system becomes unstable after several such updates and rebooting is effectively necessary (though not forced, and that's why I like it).

[-] PrefersAwkward@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago

Yeah, the security in knowing that if you're way top busy right now, you don't have to install or even download any updates. And you don't have to worry your system will suddenly become crashy, glitchy, and unstable because it decided on its own to install some things and let you know you can reboot whenever.

It's so freaking annoying I have to use Windows at work. It takes liberty to do what it wants and then my workflow gets hosed.

I get that there is security, but if you force updates, I should have some kind of notice or "hey, we need to install mandatory updates. You can schedule in the next 24 hours when or you can get them over with"

[-] BearOfaTime@lemm.ee 5 points 9 months ago

For the home user, this is a giant PITA for which I wholly blame MS.

For business machines, I lump the company IT in with MS, because there are Policies for this stuff they should be managing.

I say this as an IT person responsible for things like this. The first rule is don't fuck with user machines during business hours, the second is to allow them to postpone stuff as needed.

Can only imagine getting an update, then a reboot, while I'm on an outage call trying to get a critical system back up. And hoping my laptop comes back up and my VPN still works.

[-] deranger@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

Can’t say I’ve experienced forced reboots on either my home or work PC; I always have gotten an option.

Do you have to ignore updates for a while until they’re forced? I’m pretty quick with updating when I’m notified- typically that evening when I’m done with the computer.

I’ve been building my own windows PCs since 99, using every main version of consumer Windows except ME. Never been forced while in the middle of something.

[-] BearOfaTime@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago

With Win10 and later (I honestly don't remember with Win 8), by default updates happen in the background, and will be applied and a reboot scheduled.

It won't necessarily force a reboot, but it can reboot when you're not there. I've had updates with reboot happen when I was away for 30 minutes, on a machine I was setting up and hadn't yet configured policies.

[-] PrefersAwkward@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

The updates quietly happening in the background are still a problem because they can't be paused or canceled and they use a lot of sysrme resources to get done. And when they're complete, your experience is less stable till the reboot.

I usually notice them when my work computer slows down and things start having more bugs than usual. My work computer has very respectable specs

[-] locuester@lemmy.zip 0 points 9 months ago

I agree, but this echo chamber doesn’t accept such alternate realities.

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Security? HA! If business realized they could eliminate 85-95% of their attack vectors by getting rid of Windows, we’d all be better off.

They won’t, though. Realize it.

Edit: Oh i see, you meant security patches. Yes, true. I stand by my hinged rant though.

[-] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 9 months ago

Current versions of windows literally let you set an update reboot window. So set up the times you use it, and then forget about it and let it install whenever it wants.

I honestly, and sincerely, do not understand all the hate Windows gets with current updates. The alternative at the moment is “hope the user remembers to update” which we have seen in action and which does not work.

Is it annoying when you don’t set things up properly? Sure! But that’s a failing on the users side.

I’ve been using Windows for decades, and the last time I had it unexpectedly reboot for an update was years ago. Because I’ve actually taken the 10 minutes to understand the system, and how to configure it to do what I want.

[-] PrefersAwkward@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I haven't used Windows 11 interestingly, so I don't know if they've changed their update habits, and I wouldn't be surprised either way. Windows 10 is the last edition I've used. Since Windows 8, I had plenty of issues with Windows and Microsoft, and it got worse every release. I'll bullet-form my personal complaints at the bottom of this page.

My final straw for Windows 10 in my personal life was a forced restart, and I had all my update settings where I wanted them, and still, I lost a really important session to that reboot. Since I was pretty comfy with Linux, I went that direction. Since then, Linux has gotten more user-friendly and plays videogames, way more than Mac. It's still not something I recommend to most people, but probably someday, it'll get to a Mac or Windows ease of use.

At work, most of us haven't been migrated to Windows 11 from Windows 10, and I still get updates installing in the background a lot, causing issues even on our Windows servers. I'm sure our ops team can tune these abhorrent update defaults, but it's just a frustrating experience nonetheless.

I think a prompt or reminder could go really far to let the user configure that during setup.

Here are some of my complaints over time:

  • Force installs and bloat. Inclusion of bloat by default. Reinstallation of bloat on updates.
  • Resetting of my settings and registry edits regularly.
  • Ads on the desktop
  • Needless nagging to use their other bullshit like Onedrive. You think it's good? Great! Let me uninstall it and use the cloud providers of my choice.
  • Forcing an inferior start menu without a choice to use alternatives or the old ones.
  • Windows tracks insane amounts of users' data and actrivities, and I do not trust them to admit to all the tracking they do but the tracking they admit to doing is already mind-boggling.
  • Windows 10's forced upgrade and Windows 10 popup scandals were completely dishonest and disgusting, and I have not heard enough apologies for what they did. This personally affected me and broke a bunch of crap before Windows 10 was even well-baked.
  • A history of forced updates. A history of forced reboots. A history of lost work. This is me and my family. It sounds like Windows has reverted some of their worst practices, but the precedent is set, and I'll never trust Microsoft to stick to it.
  • The Windows seeker's scandal personally affected me. They put all sorts of beta garbage on my computer without telling me. This caused a loss of files. They've made a resurgence on their unethical behaviors in the browser space. I have faith they'll continue to revisit their other old habits. Look up Embrace-Extend-Extinguish and it'll get you started. IE was their old baby. Edge is the new one.
  • Buying and killing small companies and studios, such as Rare, a bit like EA had done
  • Moving away from some of the nice things earlier Windows versions did, like a start menu with a neat list of organized and searchable programs.
  • Having just 1 UI experience that isn't super customizable and breaking 3rd party UIs.
  • Fullscreen popups and nonsense over nothing
  • Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior has been a factor most of my life. They still push the boundaries of anti-competitive behavior to the Nth's degree. Again, that reading on Embrace-Extend-Extinguish will give you a taste of their BS.
  • Having fewer features and techs than Linux that I like to use, such as specialty filesystems, IO schedulers, process schedulers, swapping systems (ZRAM/ZSWAP) etc. Being stuck on NTFS (are you kidding me?) REFS is too little too late and you can't even boot off it
  • Way worse IO/Disk performance and features
  • inferior memory management

Overall, I don't want to do business or help in the success in an organization I do not like by offering up my data, watching their ads, and using their products less than necessary. I like some of the things Bill Gates has done, but it doesn't change any of my views on this.

[-] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 9 months ago

This is a weird response to one comment on a specific thing.

You’re essentially saying “yeah well that might be fixed but here’s a bunch of unrelated things you didn’t talk about that I don’t like.”

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[-] PrefersAwkward@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I felt like clarifying that the updates issues I faced were the last straw and that if anyone was interested, I listed the other reasons I quit working with them and never looked back. That's why I wrote all that at the bottom.

Even if Microsoft does some things right, they still have a history of doing things wrong and have a bevy of other dark patterns. I do not trust them to get it right anymore. They could go back to their old ways tomorrow and I wouldn't be surprised. Thankfully, it's not my problem except at work

[-] ComplacentGoat@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 months ago

Win 11 Pro user here. It doesn't care what time you set for updates, it'll do them when it feels like anyway, or annoy the piss out of you with notifications.

[-] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 9 months ago

Annoy you with notifications, yes. But if it’s restarting outside the window set, you’ve likely messed something up.

[-] ComplacentGoat@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

It might be that I don't leave the PC on all the time, I just hit sleep. But still, it shouldn't strong arm me into updating after a day or two of the download. Also hate having to RegEdit Edge off the thing after each one.

[-] umbrella@lemmy.ml 12 points 9 months ago

yeah but even if you need a reboot, linux just needs a regular reboot.

not that long ass 25-minute windows update reboot

[-] flying_sheep@lemmy.ml 3 points 9 months ago

I frequently reboot, so for me, something like SteamOS’s a/b atomic update process would be ideal: no instability, no forced reboot.

[-] vox@sopuli.xyz 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

you still need to reboot your linux machine or relogin if you updated a process that's currently running (and in most cases most system processes can't be just restarted) (...and otherwise you'll just stay at the old version bit with new data which might cause some instability)

yes, there's kernel hot-patching but it only affects the kernel, only viable for minor and security upgrades, does not come pre-configured on most consumer distros and not really suitable for home use.

[-] Ephera@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 months ago

And you're saying, you expect Microsoft to come up with something better?

[-] vox@sopuli.xyz 1 points 9 months ago

not really, this probably only applies to minor updates

this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2024
391 points (96.4% liked)

Technology

59583 readers
2299 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS