I mean, shouldn’t you be able to refuse updates anyway ? Like if there is you don’t like or that will break your workflow in the update, shouldn’t you be able to accept the risks and keep the old version indefinitely ?
tormeh@discuss.tchncs.de 1 day ago
I don’t like Windows, but at the point where the laptop updates automatically hasn’t it been bugging you about the update for hours or even days? I generally file complaints about bad update timings in the “fucked around and found out” folder
Takapapatapaka@tarte.nuage-libre.fr 1 day ago
CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de 1 day ago
No, not on a business owned device. The updates should give warnings, of course. Some companies don’t seem to know how to supply those warnings before mandating the install, for some reason.
Jesus_666@lemmy.world 1 day ago
My company uses a third-party deployment platform that gives you dialog with a 60 minute countdown and a button to start immediately. And I think the deployment dialog can’t pop up if you’re not on the computer. Because nobody likes nonsense like five minute countdowns that can start while the screen is locked.
mumblerfish@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Companies lock out the computer because it is lacking updates rather than have it working. Apple broke ssh on all their macs with an update for three months or so. Managed to postpone it for a while until the called and said I have to update or be locked out. Luckily I had postponed it for so long that the next update arrived just like a week later.
Takapapatapaka@tarte.nuage-libre.fr 1 day ago
When you say “companies”, do you mean Apple/Microsoft or the company you’re working for/with ?
mumblerfish@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I meant the one you are working for
spitfire@lemmy.world 1 day ago
No, because devices need to be compliant, there needs to be an unskipable deadline. Otherwise everyone would just defer.
Takapapatapaka@tarte.nuage-libre.fr 1 day ago
Do they really imperatively need to be compliant ? (i genuinely don’t know, but it seems weird to me, it feels like i can just postpone updates indefinitely on linux)
Or is this that it’s way better to be compliant, so companies need to enforce it on their computers (but individuals may not have this need) ?
spitfire@lemmy.world 1 day ago
You can postpone them but it’s a risk. Companies try to mitigate risks, because they don’t want to get hacked or fined because they don’t follow regulation. And to be honest it’s in your best interest to be up to date too. It’s not such a pain in the ass to reboot your computer every once in a while :)
mrgoosmoos@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
nope. it can just come out of nowhere sometimes.
Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
Not in the EU region lol
OwOarchist@pawb.social 1 day ago
Still, though, I prefer an OS where I can fuck around in that regard and not find out.
Anivia@feddit.org 1 day ago
It really is a situation where you can’t make everyone happy. If you don’t force users to update eventually you get situations like WannaCry, where millions of PCs get hit by ransomware exploiting a vulnerability that was patched two months ago
OwOarchist@pawb.social 1 day ago
It really is a situation where you can’t make everyone happy.
Well, you could make a lot more people happy by making the update process less invasive.
It’s particularly egregious that Windows not only needs to restart to apply updates (sometimes multiple times), but that these update restarts take much longer than normal restarts. Even if a Linux distro did force you to update, it still wouldn’t be as problematic, because Linux can update in the background, without interrupting you – and if it needs a restart in order to apply those updates, the restart doesn’t take any longer than restarting the computer normally. You never come across the uniquely Windows issue of “I can’t use my computer at all for the next 45 minutes because it’s updating.”
If the Windows update process wasn’t so invasive and debilitating, people might not put it off so much. (Also, if people could trust that Windows updates would actually make their computer better, rather than worse… When you use forced updates to arbitrarily change user settings, to push spyware and bloatware, to shall we say strongly encourage the use of features that nobody asked for … well, of course that makes people reluctant to update.)
Sprocketfree@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
This. I never got why ios or Ms can’t take this route. It’s insane to not just update the files on disk then reboot. I’d like to think there’s a technical reason that couldn’t do this but considering it’s ms I’m not sure that’s why.
rounding_error@lemmy.today 1 day ago
Honestly I don’t even remember, this was a long time ago, but if I recall the shitass Dell computer I was given had an SSD that repeatedly disconnected and required a forced reboot. Updates were managed automatically by the org so I don’t think I was ever prompted to update during my short tenure. When I powered the shitter on Windows decided it was apparently a good time to update.