Hacker News Reader

> They have a massive design flaw, and they didn't even mention that in the article.

From the article:

> This is why users who disabled Telemetry would see this problem resolved even though the problem is not related to Telemetry functionality itself and could have been triggered otherwise.

Don't spread FUD.

View on HN

I agree, they should have addressed the issue in the article so that there would be less uncertainty.

Telemetry traffic is multiplexed with user traffic on a single socket thread, per article. That creates a single point of failure where telemetry can affect user traffic.

Of course all network access is shared for a machine so it's not possible to not have a single point of failure, but there are different ways of slicing up the access.

You're grasping at straws with this argument. That it shares a thread is a technicality. I'm sure the socket management is asynchronous and telemetry wouldn't normally affect normal traffic. This was an infinite loop bug. What if it had been a memory corruption bug instead, would you be saying that telemetry needs to be a separate process, not just a separate thread? The design was reasonable. Dumb bugs can happen anyway and cause things not to work as designed. That's what happened here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com