4 ms·

I would agree about the updates, except that since having the most recent build (1511) on most of my machines, they rarely reboot after updates. Sure, there wa

I would agree about the updates, except that since having the most recent build (1511) on most of my machines, they rarely reboot after updates. Sure, there was a spate of them for a while, but they were all schedulable. If the forced reboot is a problem because people honestly expect to keep work unsaved and open 24/7 for days on end then... I'm not sure what to say. If it's just the upgrade reboot, then it should be noted, shceduled and performed at a suitable time - which it has been done by many people already. Regular saving, backups, and scheduled maintenance should be a standard part of any computer setup. To pretend they don't exist is madness.

Silhouette 10y ago
Regular saving, backups, and scheduled maintenance should be a standard part of any computer setup. To pretend they don't exist is madness. And they are sensible precautions against system failure. However, system failures should only be caused by something unavoidable like hardware breaking or a sudden power outage, not by your own operating system pulling the rug from under you. Good operating systems have long supported extended 24/7/365 uptimes even with most security updates being applied. I have servers -- which get attacked, for real, far more than any workstation -- where the last time I needed to reboot them was when I chose to migrate to a new Linux kernel as part of a distro upgrade some number of years ago. There is simply no excuse for shipping a consumer OS in 2016 that interrupts average users every few days just to apply some updates. The need to do so betrays a deeply flawed underlying software architecture.