I get that legacy support sucks and nobody wants to do it, but the new product is just an ad serving platform under the guise of being an OS. Maybe try to release a good Windows platform before asking people zo switch to that, just a thought I had.
To Microsoft, being an automatic ad platform is WHY they consider it better than 10. They have zero incentive to release an OS that doesn't ad spam or datamine you.
Can you really say 10 is better than 7, though? 7 maybe better than vista, And 10 better than 8, But I maintain that it's a downward slope and that the versions keep getting worse overall
I don't understand how so many people are taking "Program with level 0 access shipped faulty code that caused the OS to refuse to boot until a single file is removed" as "Windows bad lmao". Not that I disagree with Windows bad, just the over liberal application and acting like this is some sort of Linux win.
Give me kernel level access and I can make anything refuse to boot
This article has a hard paywall, so I found another source.
According to this article it seems the impact was limited because it only effected the most recent Debian server release. So the issue was limited, discovered quickly, and easily fixed.
The recent windows issues was extensive for all windows machines, discovered after massive outages, and difficult to fix.
I'm not sure this is a win for Linux, but there a number of decisions that CrowdStrike made that failed to live up to the trust issue by WHQL certification.
I think that this didn't have the same extent for Linux is pure luck.
Believe it or not, CrowdStrike’s model forces updates and people pay a lot of money for it to “handle things” for them. I had to deploy it at a previous employer about 8 years ago. It was stupid.
Problem is, an individual computer user often isn’t the victim of that computer’s lack of updates.
Any time a site you like has been DDOSed, it’s often from thousands of zombie computers infected by some malware that their owners aren’t aware of. Those infections are generally made possible by unclosed security holes. So, you know…not updating.
I'm fine being part of a botnet if that's the trade off for not using windows 11. Just got it installed on my testing PC at work and I hate it so much.
You really don't understand how many millions of hours of human effort force updates have destroyed.
Yes, there should always be, ESPECIALLY IN CORPORATE ENVIRONMENTS, a point where the client can vet and approve the update.
This recent Crowdstrike problem is proof of it. You LITERALLY witnessed proof as 1/4 of the world basically shut down for the day. This would have been avoided in many cases if the update was vetted by the local IT teams.
No one forces you to update. People simply choose to run an OS where automatic updates are the default.
And that OS also lets you permanently disable automatic updates. It just doesn't give you a straight-forward GUI option for it.
Critically wrong in this case. Crowdstrike updates push outside of, and regardless of, os settings. This wasn't, and never was, an os issue, it's a crowdstrike issue. Good try though.