So true, this really highlights the risk of updates impacting critical systems vs critical systems being exposed to critical vulnerabilities. Its a real balancing act.
I don’t know exactly how crowd strike works, but this sounded like a “virus signatures” update (IE not a software update per se). And thats what caused the issue.
I think “real time virus protection” is why people use it so they expect the signatures to get updated asap/with little to no human intervention.
This is a crowd strike epic fail…for how they let their software blue screen systems with a virus signature update.
Mostly because it’s simply not that easy. Devs go where support is at and follow market share (2000s era Mac gamer memes.)
If you look at the Linux community as a whole it’s a wasteland of competing parties and standards. So it’s not developing for linux it’s developing for distros^hardware.
Windows is shit and it’s pretty well known that it’s getting worse… but it’s still the standard and unfortunately until Linux starts unifying and becoming more stable for developers it’s unlikely to become more compelling for the broader market to switch to.
TLDR; every time a new conflict breaks out hop in that thread and say “give peace a chance” and see how well that gets received.
Windows is actually steadily improving from a security point of view. MS is finally starting to deprecate ancient garbage like NTLM, UWP apps are sandboxed and there’s even talk of rewriting core libraries in Rust to make them memory safe.
This is true enough. In general though I think it’s finding a tipping point between investors and having a good OS. Per the usual every other OS pattern they follow it probably will be on the struggle bus until the next version.
More like a bountiful harvest. Even the dogshit programs windows users buy are mostly made with FOSS libraries.
The real answer is windows apologists don’t want to hear Linux users gloating about how this never happened to linux, and how dogshit their beloved os is
It’s a demonstration that if we focus on a common goal that Linux development can actually be pushed forwards. So this is definitely an improvement for end users - and I expect it will improve in the future… But broadly speaking there are too many requirements for some level of troubleshooting knowledge.
This is why you do staged rollouts of updates… not the entire planet at once.
And don’t have automatic updates enabled for critical infrastructure.
So true, this really highlights the risk of updates impacting critical systems vs critical systems being exposed to critical vulnerabilities. Its a real balancing act.
It actually highlights the risk of having unaudited third party software running on your critical infrastructure
I don’t know exactly how crowd strike works, but this sounded like a “virus signatures” update (IE not a software update per se). And thats what caused the issue.
I think “real time virus protection” is why people use it so they expect the signatures to get updated asap/with little to no human intervention.
This is a crowd strike epic fail…for how they let their software blue screen systems with a virus signature update.
No, you run Linux with automatic secutity updates turned on
Can somebody explain why the down votes?
Mostly because it’s simply not that easy. Devs go where support is at and follow market share (2000s era Mac gamer memes.)
If you look at the Linux community as a whole it’s a wasteland of competing parties and standards. So it’s not developing for linux it’s developing for distros^hardware.
Windows is shit and it’s pretty well known that it’s getting worse… but it’s still the standard and unfortunately until Linux starts unifying and becoming more stable for developers it’s unlikely to become more compelling for the broader market to switch to.
TLDR; every time a new conflict breaks out hop in that thread and say “give peace a chance” and see how well that gets received.
Windows is actually steadily improving from a security point of view. MS is finally starting to deprecate ancient garbage like NTLM, UWP apps are sandboxed and there’s even talk of rewriting core libraries in Rust to make them memory safe.
This is true enough. In general though I think it’s finding a tipping point between investors and having a good OS. Per the usual every other OS pattern they follow it probably will be on the struggle bus until the next version.
A wasteland of competing standards lol
More like a bountiful harvest. Even the dogshit programs windows users buy are mostly made with FOSS libraries.
The real answer is windows apologists don’t want to hear Linux users gloating about how this never happened to linux, and how dogshit their beloved os is
Are we talking linux deskop for usage at end points?
Seems odd, we CAN run servers on it but end points can’t be done properly.
I don’t know shit about shit but linux desktop was a pleasant surprise as a gamer.
Steams been a massive contributor to that.
It’s a demonstration that if we focus on a common goal that Linux development can actually be pushed forwards. So this is definitely an improvement for end users - and I expect it will improve in the future… But broadly speaking there are too many requirements for some level of troubleshooting knowledge.
That comment you answered to is full of shit, desktop Linux works fine for many companies. And no dev ever chooses Windows lol
Because “just run Linux lol” is unrealistic and naive, it gets said on every thread, and it gets incredibly tiring.
i guess running Windows PC is realistic and smart lol
When I have a very large, very expensive piece of manufacturing equipment whose control software only runs on Windows, yes, it is.
specific use case requires specific set up…
Exactly. Thus, downvotes.