Hacker News Reader

Comment by reaperducer | Hacker News Reader

when you reason about it in a systems way, not having a default of "reboot" would be problematic from a security PoV.

It's very SV-bubble to assume that Microsoft's security needs are more important than him getting his work done.

As he stated, he missed a critical deadline. What if the client cancelled the contract because of that, causing him to go out of business? How does trying to sympathize with Microsoft feed his family?

No, the tech bubble is not more important than things that happen in the real world. Windows has security problems? Sure, all operating systems do. But Microsoft shouldn't shift its problems onto the users. That's just bad business, and bad ethics.

View on HN

I don't know that it's a bubble thing. I've never been even near SV (although I am a tech worker, so perhaps in some kind of a bubble), and I can see how there could be rational reasons for implementing automatic reboots. Some people might put of rebooting indefinitely, for instance, and not all of those would be doing it because they know what they're doing. If you're MS, you have to take into account a lot more than just users who know what they're doing.

I don't like the automatic reboots, and I'd agree it's not a good solution and I probably wouldn't have implemented it if I were making the decision, but I don't really see how finding reasons for why MS might reasonably want to do it is a SV bubble thing.

I've never been even near SV

The bubble isn't a geography, it's a mindset.

All the bubble leaders are 'retiring' to Texas and Florida.

Again, all addressable through Windows Update -> Advanced and some very simple once monthly manual update schedule on your work calendar. It is what I do, and it is really not hard at all. This is all discoverable on the web through a generic "control windows update" search. No special tools needed.

Once a month I update my work PC and three home PCs, all on the same day. Easy to remember, saves surprise updates and reboots.

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.

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 =)

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?

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com