That is an MS Teams Room system in the conference room, it runs Windows IOT. Whoever manages those rooms should have set the working hours of the room so it didn’t apply this update during business hours. By default the system updates at 2 or 2:30 AM, I forget... so might be a weird MS bug or someone fudged up a config
Source - installed a lot of these a few years ago.
only if you have a shitty computer full of garbage. My windows updates only take 2 minutes or less. even feature updates only take about 4 minutes to reboot.
Windows is only shitty if you don't know how to use it. Just because you know what the buttons do doesn't mean you know how to use it.
You have to cut Microsoft some slack on mandatory updates. They're still traumatized from the XP era when they were the platform of choice for botnets and "Windows security" was a laughing stock.
Tbh, if Linux had the same user base as windows had back then a large amount of people would postpone any update indefinitely and we'd be in the same shit.
Yeah it's a different game when your user base is tech savvy and self-selecting. When you have to deal with a billion non-technical people you have to be a lot more protective.
But even so Linux seems miles ahead. It's Microsoft who should be the most motivated to add things like AppArmor, Flatpak, immutable system, curated app repos, executable as a filesystem attribute etc. They're doing none of that, they plateaued at UAC and bundling their own antivirus.
They tried. UWP and the Windows Store did loads to boost security and make the source of apps verifiable, but people hated it and barely used it, so the holes they were supposed to patch stayed open. The store itself did have the problem that part of its raison d'être was to try and take a cut of the sales of all software for Windows, like Apple do for iOS, and UWP made certain things a pain or impossible (sometimes because they were inherently insecure), but UWP wasn't tied to the store and did improve even though it's barely used.
This already exists. It's labeled as "Traverse folder / execute file" in the UI.
NTFS permissions are also more powerful than the default Linux permission system. Instead of just being able to define permissions for a single user and single group, you can define them for an arbitrary number of users and groups.
I say "default Linux permission system" because you can actually use ACLs on Linux (getfacl and setfacl commands), they're just not used by default. They used to be common in businesses and schools, but these days everyone seems to store their files "in the cloud" and the permissions are managed there instead.
curated app repos
This is what the Windows store is supposed to be. There's also WinGet, but I'm not sure if it's curated.
NTFS permissions are just needlessly complicated and convoluted and create more problems than they solve for desktop use. They're more for server use, but then again, so are ACLs on Linux. If Windows would just use simple permissions like Linux does, it'd be a hell of a lot better.
The Windows store is also a sandboxed, heavily restricted pile of trash you can't even get at for most of its apps. And Winget has so many issues from its install scripts not working right to just being outright broken that it's not worth using. Even flatpak installs can be easily modified and used normally.
The excuses for using obsolete Windows continues by its paid shills and brainwashed users. Give it up.
The Windows store is also a sandboxed, heavily restricted pile of trash you can't even get at for most of its apps.
They changed that around the tine Windows 11 was released. Regular Win32 apps can be listed in there.
NTFS permissions are just needlessly complicated and convoluted and create more problems than they solve for desktop use.
What's an example of a problem they create?
If Windows would just use simple permissions like Linux does
I don't think using an antiquated permission system from the 1970s is the solution to anything. Being able to set permissions for only a single user and single group is very limiting, especially when there's background processes that run as other users. There's a reason later revisions of POSIX added ACLs.
The excuses for using obsolete Windows continues by its paid shills and brainwashed users.
lol I'm not a paid shill nor a brainwashed user; I just see pros and cons for all operating systems. Linux-based OSes do some things better, and Windows-based OSes do other things better. Even MacOS has its pros.
Sorry, but it just works and is much simpler, direct, and useful for desktop systems than the rat's nest that is NTFS permissions that was created for big business use with several groups of people with different access needs even among the groups instead of just simple, effective permissions that works with desktops and regular servers.
Supporting Microsoft and Windows now is just an admission that you have ignored all of the bad decisions, laughable security, bad engineering, and marketing over technology trash Microsoft has delivered since day one. It's time to abandon Windows and use a real OS. There is no longer a "pro" for Windows now that they're trying to screw over their users from every single direction.
Absolutely, but unless you're on a rolling release, it still won't be that long. For example, my homelab ubuntu server didn't get updated for over a month, but when I finally did run updates it finished after no more than a minute.
Depends a bit on hardware and network speed though.
It shouldn't be an issue even on a rolling release. I mean it's not like it installs every intermediary version of every package, it just jumps to the latest versions no? At least that's how I imagine it works.
My Computers are all reasonably modern and decetly spec'd, resources should not be an issue. Ubuntu also ships with a lot more pre-installed packages than tumbleweed does, but I get your point.
Bullshit, paid Windows shill. Even a brand new, high end PC on a fast internet with a fresh (non-OEM full of crap) install of Windows takes LITERALLY SEVERAL HOURS to fully update and often even minor updates will take at least an hour depending on what's being updated.
Don't give me that shit. You know it's a lie. Windows is trash.
When we first got a conference camera we got the older Conference Cam 3000 and our boss made us put it up there against my suggestion. When it came down for the decorator, I put it back up but under the TV and no one complained and there it stayed! It eventually died and since I’m the boss now pretty much I replaced it with the Rally which I really like. But I’ve put the speakers on the table underneath rather than wall mount, with some good distance between.
Strange how this room looks similar to mine, minus the ceiling art.
If you put microphones into the table, the audio will be horrible, catching up any surface acoustic waves from any noise on the table. Like if someone touches the table anywhere, this will be caught by the microphone. If someone puts down a hard item to the table anywhere (e.g. a pen, fingertips with fingernails, smartphone) you won't be able to hear anyone in the room through microphones due to the transient noise.
The audio will not be horrible. Those mics are designed to be mounted into tables with a particular mount. They are padded underneath to eliminate that vibration. Also, the Rally Plus system is only looking for voice signatures and has some very good AEC built into it.
My favorite windows update was when I was attending an onsite coding competition hosted my Microsoft. We were all in this large meeting hall that looked like a theater, and we spent first 10 minutes or so at the start of the competition just looking at Windows update, with the Microsoft rep apologizing to us, because his pc decided to do the "Forced update restart you cant postpone any more" literally two minutes into the presentation
I had windows do a large update in the middle of an exam once. Like the major version number changes or something, took probably like an hour and a half. I was quite lucky with the exact timing and the fact that I am usually able to finish exams quickly as I did end up having half an hour for the exam, but it did make the whole situation a bit more spicy than necessary.
Much as I always feel Microsoft has made some horrible missteps around automatic updates...I also think many many users are vocally and unabashedly following horrible update policies.
The biggest one is "Fuck you, Microsoft, I don't ever want to update." A simple truth about Windows is that it is currently the most popular operating system in the world. If that OS was Unix-based, the resulting truth would still be true: The most popular OS is going to be the most common target for vulnerabilities, hacks, malware, and exploits. Far more than an antivirus, keeping that computer up to date is the most important step for keeping it secure.
This is true not just of computers used to manage your bank account and nuclear launch codes, but of the swarm of "convenience" computers sitting inside a campus network that could spread a virus to everything on the Wi-Fi.
So, looking at this image, it's a shame on Microsoft moment if this update came from nowhere, or they once again blatantly ignored the configured update time. It's a shame on the campus moment if someone was repeatedly closing the "Time to update" popup.
Other systems like ChromeOS and Silverblue do atomic updates in the background and then switch on next restart. No waiting at screens like this. Heck even the conventional Linux update system, while far from foolproof, doesn't require waiting like this.
Fairly often if it wasn't for the whole fast startup thing, which isn't present in Linux land. I would say at least every couple of weeks, which is good enough for updates.
Perhaps the solution is to figure out how to update without restarting. It is a hard problem, but a forced restart is the same as a crash from a user perspective.
Years ago there was a screensaver that showed a fake "upgrading to Vista, please wait" screen. Just wait for someone to leave their computer unattended, download and set it as the screensaver, and wait for their reaction :)
I complained enough at my work about this that we shut off fast boot domain wide. I haven't had to have a "I know that you just turned your computer on but I need you to restart it. No, not shutdown and turn on, restart. Yes, they are different things." conversation in a couple years. Funnily enough I haven't seen anyone complain about the significantly longer start up times. I guess people just expect that from windows lol.
I think people just don't care about startup times. They do it maybe once per day (if they don't sleep and resume), and they probably get a coffee or something while it's starting up.
You vastly misunderstand both what I am talking about, and how updates work on both Windows and Linux.
You don't press shut down and then get a blue updating screen that stops you from doing anything on Linux. Go and update a Linux system and you will see what I am talking about. You run it just like a normal command or program.
Also yes they update the files on the drive while the system is running.
In addition to what was said by somebody else about atomic updates, even a simple update via package manager on a regular distro will do all the work up front, and not take extra time on next boot. Before you reboot, most things will continue working fine - and most of the remaining things that might not can be worked around.
Oh, no argument from me on that. And it's horrible that Microsoft is starting to make people choose between having a secure system and avoiding their adware bullshit.
This is why I went to Mac. I can set it to notify rather than auto update and it actually does that. So many times my work windows laptop has started an update as I am shutting it down for the night, delaying my departure.
This is on you. You prepare your computer ahead of time. Do updates the night before, check if everything works. You also have an empty battery?
Like I loathe windows as much as anyone, but this would never ever happen to me. I triple check it all, especially if it runs windows.
nah. at worst it's the lesser of two evils. the alternative is keeping a crushing majority of the user base vulnerable forever because virtually no one likes to voluntarily update their os.
No, they're terrible. Windows can and does know when a system is least in use and is supposed to handle this during those periods. Updates are important but this is an excessive and unnecessary way to fix the issue of people not performing their own updates.
Seconding this, I can't think of a time that I've actually had windows respect my configured update window.
I'd also like to point out how annoying it is that manually hitting the update button doesn't seem to do anything. If I hit the button I want to dedicate the full system resources to updating right now, not just keep doing what it was doing but add a skinny thing.
Pfffft it's so much easier to update when it doesn't shut your shit down for 1hr and instead downloads 573MB of updates in a tiny window you can leave up while going about your business and can choose when to do it by typing "sudo dnf update -y" and your password into said tiny window.
Besides, you can tell linux to auto update if you want, and you'll never notice it doing so in the background (well it'll likely tell you depending on the distro but if it didn't, you'd never notice as it is non-intrusive.)
the download does happen in the background. the installation is what requires shutting down. i only find out there's any update when the shutdown button is marked and whenever I'm done i tell it to install the update and shutdown. it's really not as bad as you guys desperately seem to want it to be.
Oh my mistake, I didn't mean to say the wrong part took 1hr+ and it was actually the other part, silly me. Meanwhile on linux there's still no such annoyance. You do know we all used to use windows and got fed up with it's bullshit and jumped ship right? You can stay a frog in boiling water all you want, those of us who jumped out of the pot can see the burner.
Lmao you really think "nuh uh the long annoying part isn't the download it's the install" is better than "well linux has neither issue" don't you? Bless your heart.
No u. Sorry to disappoint, I can't dedicate any more time than passing quips to this waste of a conversation though, unfortunately I do have a life outside of lemmy.
Was last night, and it wasn't even with your mom, surprisingly enough. Now shitting at work, why don't you get yourself a life and stop with the permanently online schtick?
That looks like a conference room PC, I would doubt OP even has any control over that and possibly didn't even have access to the room until right before
It isn't their computer.
It's likely on a campus domain managed by campus IT and should be configured with a sane update policy that automatically does this overnight when the systems aren't being used.
linux can have some pretty weird quirks though. (don't get me wrong I've been dailydriving linux for several years and I'm not going to use windows unless I'm forced)
one time I was about to do presentation, I has multiple files and windows in order to present the whole program we had developed, some powerpoint, demo, and the source code.
then came my time to do the presentation and I plugged in the hdmi cable and my fucking account just logged out. dunno if the session crashed or something, but I had to quickly scramble everything back since all my apps were closed lol.
Having been in a similar situation, I now bash script things like that, so it's ./present_dat_shit.sh and you're up and ready, even if things bug out. If it's a really important presentation, you can also add a live boot SSD backup if you're serious about redundancy.
Important question: is mesa? If not, then fuck Nvidia. If yes, then fuck Nvidia regardless, but karlherbst and other nouveau devs would like to get crashlogs if there was crash.
Sure, but are you really going to go find the building admin and argue with them to update all of their OS' to something they probably don't understand? Linux is primarily a power user platform, not a mainstream one.
They update on two Tuesdays a month, and have done that at least since XP. Even with the most reboot-keen settings, the update doesn't happen until the time of day you're least likely to be using the machine based on when you typically do it. It tells you when that time will be and gives you several hours of notice with a popup with the option to delay. Depending on the variant of Windows you're using, you have settings to delay a forced reboot for up to a week (Home), a month (Pro) or forever (Enterprise). Obviously, that's not enough to make sure no one ever gets updates forced on them when they don't want them, and it would be nice if there was a way to distinguish users who know what they're doing from users who don't so people who do could be given more power to control if and when they install updates, but it is enough to ensure that checking the equipment before you use it is enough, potentially two weeks in advance.
Correction: It updates every second Tuesday of the month. (Not including any potential "Preview" updates which might get released. Those are all optional updates, though.)
