Well that's great, that's just f***in' great man. Now what the f*** are we supposed to do?

Linux

Quote from the Late, great Bill Paxton in Aliens:

“That’s it, man! Game over, man! Game over! What the f*** are we gonna do now? What are we gonna do?”

Coming a close second is Sigourney Weaver:

"I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."

Choose your adventure.

Stop using Windows?

Just a thought...

If I didn’t say it, someone else will :)

Nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure

So how do we get out of this chickenshit outfit?

Hold on a second. Our victim^H^H^H^H^H^Hcustomer base has a substantial dollar value attached to it.

but surely these things should be testable ? I would have thought that their contacts with hardware vendors would enable them to have pre-patch-release test builds that could be sent out and installed. To do so is in everyone's interest.

Why is it that the Linux distributions, with their much smaller budgets and not so good relationships with the hardware people, have a much, much lower incidence of borkage ?

"Why is it that the Linux distributions, with their much smaller budgets and not so good relationships with the hardware people, have a much, much lower incidence of borkage ?"

At a guess, because a greater proportion of changes are well-considered, and made by and/or go through people who care more (or at all).

But while I share your perception I am mindful that reported impact may be reduced by one or more of lower hardware diversity, lower user numbers, and higher probability of self-resolution.

Years ago, I was hired to do the server side of a project, and the customer hired another company to do the web front end. The differences in attitude between the two groups couldn't have been greater.

The back end people mostly came from avionics, which had a " if the software crashes, so does the plane " mindset. Every permutation was tested, and the front end complained that we were holding them up.

Once we shipped, we were done. The web side said they were done, too, so the customer then changed the site passwords, and they couldn't get in. And then the bug reports started to flood in.

They weren't back end issues, they were all web problems. Of course, the web developers said, you changed the passwords so we can't administer it. And by "administer", they meant debugging. To those of us in the back end, administering meant making backups, adding hardware for load balancing as demand grew, and things like that. But to the web team, software was never actually finished, it was a live thing that they just kept changing.

I see the same difference in mindset between the Windows and Linux arenas.

Windows has a much larger user base, a much larger range of hardware and software to support, and a far less technical user community, all of which makes testing more difficult. But they also have a different mindset of " if it doesn't work this week, we'll just put it in next week's patch ".

So slow and continuous problems with "patches"

Avoid at all costs

I just trialed Adobe LR for 20 min and cancelled. The OS overhead was 30%. On Linux it is 3% Adobe chose it. They just couldn`t require a RHEL or SEL and ship.

I set my updates to defer by 5 days and then wait to see if there are any snafus like this.

Horrible zero days, aged months. I was also installing 6500 (yes) updates to a core2duo 8G Mac. opensuse tw. It only used some more fan ;-)

This is what happens when you put LLM in charge of update release. I know, they haven't said this is the case, but given their push of copilot down engineers throats...

Do they even try any more?

Did something get past quality control? Erm... yes, it's very easy to slip past a - and I'm being generous here - department which is so far underfunded it's a wonder it exists at all. Quality control at Microsoft is abysmal. Their "OS" is riddled with bugs and fixes and patches all over the place to make it work. So much of what I encounter day-to-day with microsoft is inconsistent, flaky or poorly designed in the first place.

It wouldn't surprise me if the problem was the it's now so big and so old and so ill-conceived that nobody there has enough understanding to know how it is supposed to work. It's taken on a life of its own and the software engineers at MS probably need to spend a lot of time trying to second-guess how something is meant to work.

Unwieldy piece of shit.

So old that the people whose knowledge is key to the project are now either retired or passed on. I've got a feeling that the map of their code has sections labelled "Here Be Dragons"

Again - I've had to use "fix problems with windows update" - which I've had to use for the last two security updates.

Just updating the patch, by itself causes the system to crash, and corrupt the component store.

Running SFC -its OK, then DISm see's a problem - Restore health just comes up with an error after waiting ages while monitoring the CBM log.

But when I run "fix problems with windows update" it works

SFC is ok, and DISM reports no component store problems.

The whole process takes another 3 hours of wasted time MS, and my system spec is well capable of running Windows 11.

Other updates install no issues, its always security patches.

Fed up with this monthly farce MS

CS

Quality gates? What quality gates?!

Dell has just issued a tech bulletin saying that the latest Win 11 updates may cause some PCs to freeze when configured with wireless mice and keyboards when waking from hibernation.

You killed the phone and abandoned its users. We call them:computers

Perhaps the issue is the "cause to fail to run on incompatible hardware" incompatibility patch requiring another patch because Win11 still actually works on incompatible hardware by bypassing the patched patches ...

Just let us run it on older hardware, we know it does! We may be mad but you could make money out of us and we could have a stress-free life. Give up the fight!