Are people not using auto-update?
This issue is exactly why I only occasionally install updates, and if I do I wait a while for the canaries to leave the coal mine. I've been a user of macOS, distros of Linux, and Windows for years, and in every one of them there was the inevitable update that made the OS unusable. It happens rarely but, when it does, it's a miserable experience.
Otherwise Linux is pretty damn rock solid. These days "it just works" applies to Linux more than any other OS.
And with the new Nvidia-less Dell Precision 5400 the system runs cool and quiet to boot.
Linux isn't what it used to be...
Granted it wasn't strictly "bricked", but I think no-wifi meets some of the bars for unusable.
So yes, bad updates do happen.
https://linuxreviews.org/Linux_Kernel_5.5_Will_Not_Fix_The_F...
They should be fixed by now, but basically the latest LTS kernel was broken for 3-4 months on many Intel GPUs.
On a PC pretty much the only thing that can brick the machine is a BIOS update.
This auto-updating treadmill we've been sold on is really beneficial for developers, but it causes some major problems for end-users.
I have honestly lost track of the number of times I have had an update cripple a device. My iPad got ruined, my PS3 lost Linux, iTunes removed p2p music sharing in a deceptive update, Cisco gutted residential routers and forced people onto their crummy new platform[2]... I could go on and on. And this isn't even counting Android. I had a friend lose Miracast support in an Android update, minutes before he had to give a presentation.
And those are all examples of updates functioning as intended, even though they are against the interests of the users. I can add more citations if anyone is curious.
So no, if you use your device for anything important, then don't update it until you've made a backup, and had a chance to read up on any potential problems. It really says something that in this day and age, I've had to become much more vigilant about backing up my data than ever before.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21064663
[2]: https://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/06/29/1425210/cisco-pushi...
How so? If anything, I think it's just as bad for developers, who expect a stable foundation to be able to build on.
One thing I really don't like about it, is how it forces you to spend more money on the latest hardware you don't need. Something is broken when I can't use a three year old phone to pay a parking ticket in my city. And they can just scoff at me and say that it is my fault for daring to go two years without buying a new device.
Being evergreen means that any vulnerabilities in DRM and platform integrity are swept away under a tide of updates. As long as you are constantly pushing updates, and making it very hard for people to use an out of date version, you don't have to worry nearly as much.
Finally, in the bigger picture, it strategically makes sense because it keeps your competitors aiming at a moving target.
Why do you think it is easier to install an older operating system than it is to install an older version of Chrome? Do you really think it is solely about your security and safety? Of course not. They don't care about end user security or privacy nearly as much as they do about keeping their platform secured. In fact, it is still easy to buy out a trusted Chrome extension and attack users. There is still no possible way to disable extension updates. Google knows about this and they won't change their architecture in any major way; they just keep the updates and revocations rolling and rolling, and any users who are hurt by this are an acceptable loss.
I feel like Microsoft somewhat had that problem solved --- if I just want to create a basic Windows GUI app, and know that I don't need any of the newer features, I can create one binary which will work from Win95 onwards.
On the other hand your developing environment can suddenly change, what worked fine yesterday requires a complete rewrite the next day.
I've seen that happen with most of the other platforms; and relevantly to this article, Apple is a good example of constant breaking change.
1) they take ages to complete and I want to run them on my schedule instead of being forced to take a 40-60 minute chunk out of my schedule. 2) there's always a risk of an update breaking something and if that happens, I'm OK with being a few days/weeks behind.
In recent years, big OSX updates are effectively a beta release until the second service release or so. Also, they have been enormously underwhelming in the sense that I can barely tell them apart. There's generally very little in them that I need/want. I don't use any of the bundled software (mail, icloud, the office stuff, etc). All I care about is being able to run my browser (Firefox), Homebrew, some games (quite a few less as of Catalina), and development tools like vs code, intellij, docker.
I actually updated my imac to the latest Catalina last weekend, and applied the fix we're discussing here a few days ago to be able to run the latest x-plane beta with a new rendering engine that uses metal (and vulkan elsewhere); it complained it needed the latest driver. Didn't break anything for me luckily. My mac book pro is not getting the supplemental upgrade until I know it's not going to ruin my day.
The Apple updater system can target specific machines (not sure if it’s by serial or MAC address or what).
I do not want point and click military intelligence RCE capability on my machines.