Goodbye Linux: Why am ditching linux and going back to Windows 10

On 07/10/2019 15:02, Weatherman wrote:


Look who's talking!

Governments around the world should start giving electric shocks to
pedos and gay man like you:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-49838964



--
With over 1,000,000 million devices now running Windows 10, customer
satisfaction is higher than any previous version of windows.

In article ,

Kenny McCormack says...

The typical user is going to find his machine more-or-less useless during
this period.

This user finds that there is no noticeable effect and is usually
unaware that an update is taking place until the Restart Windows pop up
appears.


--
Ken

On 07/10/2019 15.31, nospam wrote:
In article , Kenny McCormack
wrote:

One thing i really hate about windows and macOS is that a machine that
hasn't been used in a little while will spend the first 5-10 minutes upon
first use checking for updates from the various "stores" or applications
that automatically check. Rendering the machine almost useless during that
time. Then you need to respond to each of the notifications that this Tom,
Dick or Harry application needs to be updated/restarted. Such a PITA.

only because you set it to auto-update.

Totally false and wrong.

it's exactly correct.

Auto-update is the default setup (in W10). Nobody has to (or ever would) set
that.

if they don't want auto-updates, they need to disable it.

not disabling it tells the system you *want* automatic updates. it
can't read minds. it's doing what it's told to do.

It is impossible to disable on W10 home. Maybe with convoluted tricks
that stop working after some update.

....

it's also not useless while it's checking and downloading updates.

Again, from your point-of-view, not from that of the typical user.
The typical user is going to find his machine more-or-less useless during
this period. Also, he probably thinks that "best practice" is to not mess
with it while it is doing this - and it it hard to argue otherwise - again,
from the perspective of the typical WinBlows user.

it's not useless while updates are being downloaded in the background.

only when the system needs to reboot is it a problem.

It puts my CPU at 90% load or more for hours (my laptops are not
powerful). Doing all the updates after a month of not booting Windows
often takes two or three days, with a few reboots.

Also, there is not a mode for "do all updates now, nothing else and
finish it up as fast as possible". I leave it alone on a table, go away,
and when I come back it is waiting for my permission to reboot or do it
after my work day. Thus, it takes days.


only when a reboot is required is it an annoyance, and win10 likes to do
that at inopportune times.

You got that right.

along with the rest.



Like having to go out in a hurry, power off the machine, and *then* it
says it is going to apply some updates, which takes an hour. And another
on the next boot.

I'd rather trigger updates manually when I'm ready for it. And then do
it as fast as possible and get it over.

And that is updates to the system. Many apps update separately on their
own, and some require a reboot.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 07/10/2019 16.16, Unsteadyken wrote:
In article ,

Kenny McCormack says...

The typical user is going to find his machine more-or-less useless during
this period.

This user finds that there is no noticeable effect and is usually
unaware that an update is taking place until the Restart Windows pop up
appears.

Not in my case. The CPU is almost at full load for hours.


--
Cheers, Carlos.

😉 Good Guy 😉 wrote:
On 07/10/2019 15:02, Weatherman wrote:


Look who's talking!

Governments around the world should start giving electric shocks to
pedos and gay man like me:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-49838964




Yeah, especially you.

On 10/7/19 8:41 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 07/10/2019 15.31, nospam wrote:
In article , Kenny McCormack
wrote:

snip)

Auto-update is the default setup (in W10). Nobody has to (or ever would) set
that.

if they don't want auto-updates, they need to disable it.

not disabling it tells the system you *want* automatic updates. it
can't read minds. it's doing what it's told to do.

It is impossible to disable on W10 home. Maybe with convoluted tricks
that stop working after some update.

nospam is partly correct. The screenshot he links is 5 years out of date!

You can disable updates on a Mac, but those settings are in at least 2
places, System Preferences and the App Store.

snip

--
Ken
MacOS 10.14.6
Firefox 69.0.2
Thunderbird 60.9
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

On 10/7/19 8:16 AM, Unsteadyken wrote:
In article ,

Kenny McCormack says...

The typical user is going to find his machine more-or-less useless during
this period.

This user finds that there is no noticeable effect and is usually
unaware that an update is taking place until the Restart Windows pop up
appears.

This effect seems to be linked to how the user operates his system. I
was presented with a W10 laptop that was used just a few minutes every
week, and then turned off. The owner wanted me to reinstall W10.

After looking at the system, which was basically unusable, I *slowly*
was able to get to Updates and Security, and discovered the huge backlog
of updates in the queue.

I left the computer running, and 22 hours later, all updates were
installed, and the system ran fine. G I told the owner to turn it on
once in a while, and then just leave it alone for few hours.

The owner contacted me again about a month ago, same thing. I asked him
if he'd followed my advice, and "Nope". LOL Told him to leave it on,
and now the system is fine, again.




--
Ken
MacOS 10.14.6
Firefox 69.0.2
Thunderbird 60.9
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

In article ,
Jim H wrote:
On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 14:07:10 -0000 (UTC), in
, Alfonso P Cutaway
wrote:

No need to worry about malware, spyware, keystroke loggers, or the
Biggie...Ransomware...only available on Windows....not on Linux.

Linux is vulnerable to viruses targetted at Linux, but it has the
advantage of being rare enough as a desktop system that it isn't
prevalent enough to compose a critical mass.

Exactly. What folks like "Brian Dee" will never understand is that the
unpopularity (and difficulty of use) of Linux is a feature, not a bug!

I'm 100% serious.

(Really, I am. This is one of those situations where people will insist on
assuming that I'm joking. But I'm not.)

--
"He is exactly as they taught in KGB school: an egoist, a liar, but talented - he
knows the mind of the wrestling-loving, under-educated, authoritarian-admiring
white male populous."
- Malcolm Nance, p59. -

On 07/10/2019 18.18, Ken Springer wrote:
On 10/7/19 8:16 AM, Unsteadyken wrote:
In article ,
Â* Kenny McCormack says...

The typical user is going to find his machine more-or-less useless
during
this period.

This user finds that there is no noticeable effect and is usually
unaware that an update is taking place until the Restart Windows pop up
appears.

This effect seems to be linked to how the user operates his system.Â* I
was presented with a W10 laptop that was used just a few minutes every
week, and then turned off.Â* The owner wanted me to reinstall W10.

After looking at the system, which was basically unusable, I *slowly*
was able to get to Updates and Security, and discovered the huge backlog
of updates in the queue.

I left the computer running, and 22 hours later, all updates were
installed, and the system ran fine.Â* GÂ* I told the owner to turn it on
once in a while, and then just leave it alone for few hours.

The owner contacted me again about a month ago, same thing.Â* I asked him
if he'd followed my advice, and "Nope".Â* LOLÂ* Told him to leave it on,
and now the system is fine, again.

Yep. This is highly inconvenient to people like me, that double boot,
with Linux being the default.

About 4 hours ago, I booted Windows 10H on my laptop, and told it to
search for updates. Now I look at it again, and it is waiting for the
non busy hours to reboot - I have not used the machine at all in this time.

Normally I hate the machine rebooting without it being told to, because
I'm looking or waiting at some thing, like postprocessing photos. But
when I tell it to update I want it to do all the updates and reboots
ASAP and get it over.

Then there is the issue that when it reboots on its own it will default
to Linux, so when I come back I have to reboot manually, and then tell
it to scan for updates a second time, till there are no more updates,
and only then I can fully use the machine. In the end, more than one day
to do updates.

So now it want to install accumulates updates to 1903.

And it is going at 100% CPU, so I can not work with the machine till it
finishes.



--
Cheers, Carlos.

In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:

The typical user is going to find his machine more-or-less useless during
this period.

This user finds that there is no noticeable effect and is usually
unaware that an update is taking place until the Restart Windows pop up
appears.

Not in my case. The CPU is almost at full load for hours.

then something is wrong.

In article ,
Unsteadyken wrote:



The typical user is going to find his machine more-or-less useless during
this period.

This user finds that there is no noticeable effect and is usually
unaware that an update is taking place until the Restart Windows pop up
appears.

yep.

In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:

it's also not useless while it's checking and downloading updates.

Again, from your point-of-view, not from that of the typical user.
The typical user is going to find his machine more-or-less useless during
this period. Also, he probably thinks that "best practice" is to not mess
with it while it is doing this - and it it hard to argue otherwise - again,
from the perspective of the typical WinBlows user.

it's not useless while updates are being downloaded in the background.

only when the system needs to reboot is it a problem.

It puts my CPU at 90% load or more for hours (my laptops are not
powerful). Doing all the updates after a month of not booting Windows
often takes two or three days, with a few reboots.

then something is wrong with your system.

and didn't you say you don't use windows?

Also, there is not a mode for "do all updates now, nothing else and
finish it up as fast as possible". I leave it alone on a table, go away,
and when I come back it is waiting for my permission to reboot or do it
after my work day. Thus, it takes days.

click the update button settings.

i do that at *my* convenience so i won't get a 'restart now' at the
wrong time.


Like having to go out in a hurry, power off the machine, and *then* it
says it is going to apply some updates, which takes an hour. And another
on the next boot.

leave the system on.

I'd rather trigger updates manually when I'm ready for it. And then do
it as fast as possible and get it over.

you can do that quite easily.

And that is updates to the system. Many apps update separately on their
own, and some require a reboot.

apps shouldn't require a reboot unless they install a driver, which is
the exception.

In article , Ken Springer
wrote:

Auto-update is the default setup (in W10). Nobody has to (or ever would)
set
that.

if they don't want auto-updates, they need to disable it.

not disabling it tells the system you *want* automatic updates. it
can't read minds. it's doing what it's told to do.

It is impossible to disable on W10 home. Maybe with convoluted tricks
that stop working after some update.

nospam is partly correct. The screenshot he links is 5 years out of date!

close enough to make the point that disabling auto-update on a mac is
very easy.

You can disable updates on a Mac, but those settings are in at least 2
places, System Preferences and the App Store.

app store updates do not interrupt anything.

mac system updates sometimes do, such as security updates or dot
updates.

On Mon, 07 Oct 2019 19:30:17 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:


And it is going at 100% CPU, so I can not work with the machine till it
finishes.


Microsoft has you on a leash.

And you're paying($$$) them for it.

What a deal!

On 07/10/2019 17.55, Jim H wrote:
On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 14:07:10 -0000 (UTC), in
, Alfonso P Cutaway
wrote:

No need to worry about malware, spyware, keystroke loggers, or the
Biggie...Ransomware...only available on Windows....not on Linux.

Linux is vulnerable to viruses targetted at Linux, but it has the
advantage of being rare enough as a desktop system that it isn't
prevalent enough to compose a critical mass. It's relatively safe from
viruses because it's uncommon enough to not be worth the effort to
target.

That's not the only reason, possibly not the main one - fewer users yes,
but still many millions; MsDOS had viri when there were only a few
million users, transmitted via floppy sharing :-)

For example, if I receive a Linux virus via email, it will not
automatically run on arrival, and even clicking on it will not run it.
Open is not "run".

The user has to extract it manually and change its attributes to
executable, an action that should rise his alarms. Then it would not run
as administrator (thus limited damage), unless the virus instructions
are to run it as root and the user is so naive and has the password.

Also, as Linux is more difficult than Windows (ahem!) the typical Linux
user knows more about the system than the typical Windows user.

Then the designer of the virus has to cope with the fact that there are
hundreds of variants of Linux: he doesn't know what the unknown target
machine will have in it. It is possible that the virus crashes.


It would be easier a virus using javascript on PDF, but I don't know PDF
readers supporting JS on Linux (adobe does no longer distribute). Or
using a macro in LibreOffice, which could target both Windows and Linux
users; however, the default in LO is to disable macros.

--
Cheers, Carlos.