Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I'd like to know why you think that, and also if you think that W10's unstoppable updates is the right way.


Not the grandparent, but I think the issue is that people want clients to have an uptime that is comparable to a server.

Windows Server has controllable updates and reboots. Win 10 - is a client OS and wasn't designed with the same level of hardening and shouldn't have the same uptime requirements.

The challenge is convincing the general public of this; people want a Ford Fiesta with the speed and features of a Audi R8, meaning they want the best of all worlds at reasonable cost and no penalties.

By forcing updates on clients, MS has eliminated a generation of machines being owned by various botnets. They've also made it relatively cheap to get a server in Azure should you have a temporary need for uptime (like a research project for a week).

That aside, some portions of those updates are bad (like removing functionality, pushing telemetry, etc), but the overall strategy of auto updating isn't a bad idea if they can convince people to adjust to it and use Server when they need stability.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: