4 ms·

It's a bit more complicated than that I think. A common function of malware is to create "zombie" computers that are controllable en-mass to, say, DDoS a websit

It's a bit more complicated than that I think. A common function of malware is to create "zombie" computers that are controllable en-mass to, say, DDoS a website. This makes the prevalence of malware-ridden Windows machines a _common_ concern, rather than specific to Microsoft.

ArnoVW 6y ago
Exactly this is what I was getting at. 98% of Windows users don't care if their machine reboots, provided they don't lose work. This is precisely the 98% percent that are likely to get infected, and will cause havoc for all of us (not just themselves). Spam, DDoS, etc. Similar to how getting a vacination is not only good for you, but also for the rest of society. Mind you, I'm saying this from a perspective of someone who uses his machine to perform nightly jobs (learning models, ontology alignment, etc) So it's not like I haven't shared your pain =)
reaperducer 6y ago
A common function of malware is to create "zombie" computers that are controllable en-mass to, say, DDoS a website. Thanks for the explanation, but I'm well aware of malware. I wrote my own boot sector viruses back in 8-bit days. But the point still stands: Microsoft's practices stop him from doing his work, and could cost him his livelihood because it assumes that fixing its failures are more important than his work. What's the point of even having the computer if it can't be relied upon to do complex tasks?
- Conlectus 6y ago
  Nice! Apologies if I sounded condescending, you clearly are much more familiar than me :). I tend to agree, but I have difficulty when you scale the problem. No individual person benefits from having their computer rebooted enough to counteract the issues, but might everyone collectively? The utilitarian calculus becomes difficult. Though parallel solutions: better security testing or a capacity for live updates without a reboot, may be an answer.

ArnoVW 6y ago

Exactly this is what I was getting at. 98% of Windows users don't care if their machine reboots, provided they don't lose work. This is precisely the 98% percent that are likely to get infected, and will cause havoc for all of us (not just themselves). Spam, DDoS, etc. Similar to how getting a vacination is not only good for you, but also for the rest of society. Mind you, I'm saying this from a perspective of someone who uses his machine to perform nightly jobs (learning models, ontology alignment, etc) So it's not like I haven't shared your pain =)

reaperducer 6y ago

A common function of malware is to create "zombie" computers that are controllable en-mass to, say, DDoS a website. Thanks for the explanation, but I'm well aware of malware. I wrote my own boot sector viruses back in 8-bit days. But the point still stands: Microsoft's practices stop him from doing his work, and could cost him his livelihood because it assumes that fixing its failures are more important than his work. What's the point of even having the computer if it can't be relied upon to do complex tasks?

Conlectus 6y ago
Nice! Apologies if I sounded condescending, you clearly are much more familiar than me :). I tend to agree, but I have difficulty when you scale the problem. No individual person benefits from having their computer rebooted enough to counteract the issues, but might everyone collectively? The utilitarian calculus becomes difficult. Though parallel solutions: better security testing or a capacity for live updates without a reboot, may be an answer.