3 ms·

It's a very fair point, and it is most _definitely_ possible (and not even particularly hard) to brick a linux system. However, I think the difference is that

It's a very fair point, and it is most _definitely_ possible (and not even particularly hard) to brick a linux system. However, I think the difference is that it's always due to an action you take. I do think this is something qualitatively different to when your machine decides to automatically update to windows 10, when your machine is not compatible with windows 10, and it bricks itself. If you randomly turn on a computer and it says "hold on, I'm updating" and then never turns on again without you ever agreeing to an update, I think you'd quite rightly be somewhat upset with it. Now, I don't even mind windows that much. I prefer other things, but I recognize the strengths of windows and I understand why people like to use it. At the same time, I think it makes sense to recognize the frustrations that windows can sometimes bring to some users.

trap_goes_hot 4y ago
Yes, there is a difference, but the auto-scheduling part is not the one that has the bug. The bug is that OS is in a borked state, and the update infrastructure cannot deal with it. This is what ends up bricking the system. (Using the loose definition of the term here, I understand that it doesn't literally damage the hardware) The overall big picture is the fact that most users don't want to be system administrators; they just want it to be managed automatically. However a subset of users, do want to administer the system and have a level of control, and this is where Microsoft screwed up, by not providing us those tools. At work we have our IT manage the updates on all of our machines, and they have managed to apply some kind of policy where they can control the updates. I am assuming this is only possible in a domain environment, and not on a stand-alone PC.