You're viewing a single thread.
This might take several minutes
...or itcould take several hours
Then failed half way through, and needed another hour to "reverse changes".
It says "several" but I think it means "many", important distinction to make there Microsoft.
"If you play your cards right and allow recall ;)"
or itcould take several hours
only if you have a shitty computer full of garbage. My windows updates only take 2 minutes or less. even feature updates only take about 4 minutes to reboot.
Windows is only shitty if you don't know how to use it. Just because you know what the buttons do doesn't mean you know how to use it.
Trigger warning! Updating my linux systems takes 15 seconds ;)
And you can postpone it to whenever you want, also post thesis defence.
You have to cut Microsoft some slack on mandatory updates. They're still traumatized from the XP era when they were the platform of choice for botnets and "Windows security" was a laughing stock.
Tbh, if Linux had the same user base as windows had back then a large amount of people would postpone any update indefinitely and we'd be in the same shit.
Yeah it's a different game when your user base is tech savvy and self-selecting. When you have to deal with a billion non-technical people you have to be a lot more protective.
But even so Linux seems miles ahead. It's Microsoft who should be the most motivated to add things like AppArmor, Flatpak, immutable system, curated app repos, executable as a filesystem attribute etc. They're doing none of that, they plateaued at UAC and bundling their own antivirus.
They tried. UWP and the Windows Store did loads to boost security and make the source of apps verifiable, but people hated it and barely used it, so the holes they were supposed to patch stayed open. The store itself did have the problem that part of its raison d'être was to try and take a cut of the sales of all software for Windows, like Apple do for iOS, and UWP made certain things a pain or impossible (sometimes because they were inherently insecure), but UWP wasn't tied to the store and did improve even though it's barely used.
executable as a filesystem attribute
This already exists. It's labeled as "Traverse folder / execute file" in the UI.
NTFS permissions are also more powerful than the default Linux permission system. Instead of just being able to define permissions for a single user and single group, you can define them for an arbitrary number of users and groups.
I say "default Linux permission system" because you can actually use ACLs on Linux (
getfaclandsetfaclcommands), they're just not used by default. They used to be common in businesses and schools, but these days everyone seems to store their files "in the cloud" and the permissions are managed there instead.curated app repos
This is what the Windows store is supposed to be. There's also WinGet, but I'm not sure if it's curated.
NTFS permissions are just needlessly complicated and convoluted and create more problems than they solve for desktop use. They're more for server use, but then again, so are ACLs on Linux. If Windows would just use simple permissions like Linux does, it'd be a hell of a lot better.
The Windows store is also a sandboxed, heavily restricted pile of trash you can't even get at for most of its apps. And Winget has so many issues from its install scripts not working right to just being outright broken that it's not worth using. Even flatpak installs can be easily modified and used normally.
The excuses for using obsolete Windows continues by its paid shills and brainwashed users. Give it up.
The Windows store is also a sandboxed, heavily restricted pile of trash you can't even get at for most of its apps.
They changed that around the tine Windows 11 was released. Regular Win32 apps can be listed in there.
NTFS permissions are just needlessly complicated and convoluted and create more problems than they solve for desktop use.
What's an example of a problem they create?
If Windows would just use simple permissions like Linux does
I don't think using an antiquated permission system from the 1970s is the solution to anything. Being able to set permissions for only a single user and single group is very limiting, especially when there's background processes that run as other users. There's a reason later revisions of POSIX added ACLs.
The excuses for using obsolete Windows continues by its paid shills and brainwashed users.
lol I'm not a paid shill nor a brainwashed user; I just see pros and cons for all operating systems. Linux-based OSes do some things better, and Windows-based OSes do other things better. Even MacOS has its pros.
antiquated permission system from the 1970s
Sorry, but it just works and is much simpler, direct, and useful for desktop systems than the rat's nest that is NTFS permissions that was created for big business use with several groups of people with different access needs even among the groups instead of just simple, effective permissions that works with desktops and regular servers.
Supporting Microsoft and Windows now is just an admission that you have ignored all of the bad decisions, laughable security, bad engineering, and marketing over technology trash Microsoft has delivered since day one. It's time to abandon Windows and use a real OS. There is no longer a "pro" for Windows now that they're trying to screw over their users from every single direction.
True
It depends how out of date you are.
Absolutely, but unless you're on a rolling release, it still won't be that long. For example, my homelab ubuntu server didn't get updated for over a month, but when I finally did run updates it finished after no more than a minute. Depends a bit on hardware and network speed though.
It shouldn't be an issue even on a rolling release. I mean it's not like it installs every intermediary version of every package, it just jumps to the latest versions no? At least that's how I imagine it works.
Right, but my tumbleweed install gets 100+ package updates per week, whereas ubuntu gets like 20
Yes. The question comes down to how many of these you need. And do you have the resources for it?
My Computers are all reasonably modern and decetly spec'd, resources should not be an issue. Ubuntu also ships with a lot more pre-installed packages than tumbleweed does, but I get your point.
Troll successful lol
How does that "garbage" affect update time?
if your computer is full of crap it will be slow.
Not necessarily true
Bullshit, paid Windows shill. Even a brand new, high end PC on a fast internet with a fresh (non-OEM full of crap) install of Windows takes LITERALLY SEVERAL HOURS to fully update and often even minor updates will take at least an hour depending on what's being updated.
Don't give me that shit. You know it's a lie. Windows is trash.
or it could take several hours
Would give you enough time to get your mouse drivers working on Linux then
What's mouse drivers, precious?
They have tiny tiny cars sweetheart