Windows 11 Update KB5063878 Causing SSD Failures

Nah, I used various Linux distros for years and the update problems happen there all the time, I think even more TBH, and require substantial technical expertise to fix them.

IMO, the only good way is "if it works, don't fix it", which means, no updates. People are seriously overhyping updates.

I stopped updating all the stuff - OSes, smart locks, android apps, TVs, BP monitors - I honestly had multiple update problems on ALL mentioned devices, multiple times. I only update the thing when I have an actual problem and there is changelog stating that the bug is fixed, or when I want a new feature. You can handle security in other ways in almost all the cases.

I think this IT update burden has gotten out of hand - I don't recall any other domain is like that - my car, my house, my bicycle, my glasses DO NOT UPDATE and its glorious - apart from physical damage, they work the same as yesterday.

I've also been using Linux for years (Arch, btw) and never had an update break my install or cause issues, I've only had to fix the Linux bootloader when Windows overwrote it after a major update, multiple times...

i seriously hope you don't apply this "who needs security updates, just secure it on a different level"-mantra to your profession :O

i get it for private/home stuff (even then it would make me uncomfortable, but i see the appeal).

Really? I love Arch, but even my hard core Linux friends warn me about update problems.

Agreed. Continuous updates are unnecessary if you have sane restrictions on your system, i.e. strict firewall, limit software being installed. Probably the only exception to that is the web browser itself, but even that can be mitigated to an extent by running with an ad blocker and javascript off by default.

It depends on context really. Security is a feature like anything else. In an ideal world I would agree with you, but professional security costs a lot of money and the stakeholder is not necessarily willing to pay for it versus actually observable features. Also, security might be irrelevant in a bunch of contexts, particularly with great recovery options (and absence of PII) that you need to have anyway and people are actually willing to pay for it as it covers grounds that overlap with security partially or totally.

Funny whenever people mention using Linux instead of windows there is always a user who claims Linux is broken, hard to use, while most Linux users live a peaceful and uneventful life.

Not only are they unnecessary, they are often best to be avoided. I recently had to reinstall Windows OS after I updated firewall software as after that VPN stopped working and some serious IT pros were not able to fix it (even with different clients tried). After we lost a couple of days, I reinstalled OS.

This ofc. happened at worst possible time.

I love and use Linux, what do you mean? Maybe a little bit too defensive that your favorite OS is not perfect?

I've had plenty of issues with Arch updates.

In fact; I have a laptop right now that hasn't received updates because there's a shared object that has been removed that `yay` depends on.

(this was from a long time ago).

I generally think that updates of the mainstream distro's like Debian will definitely *NOT* brick your system in almost any circumstance, and arch tends to be somewhat solid, but every once in a while something dire happens with arch which would make me not agree with the fact that updates are always seamless.

well if it is GNU(+linux) there are alternative mechanisms of action other than waiting for a corporation to act in your benefit. i think that is a giant difference.

I think the issue is that we excuse worse behaviour of Windows because of a preconceived notion that "Windows is easy and linux is hard".

The amount of registry hacks and debloat scripts and messed up updates I've had to endure on Windows makes my Linux experience seem very breezy by comparison to be perfectly honest with you.

The main issue I have with my own reasoning here is that about 20 years ago when I was getting into Linux: it was hard; and thus I learned a lot. Something that is a literal 2 second fix for me might take someone else 2 days or not be solvable. I can't really understand how hard others have it.

But: my mum ran Linux mint for the last 8 years without issue. So maybe it really is a skill issue. This woman is not tech literate like I am. So, there's that.

> Linux users live a peaceful and uneventful life.

So do most Windows users.

AUR issues are not arch issues

"AUR packages are user-produced content. These PKGBUILDs are completely unofficial and have not been thoroughly vetted. Any use of the provided files is at your own risk."

Usually just rebuilding a AUR package will fix most issues.

I would say it's fair, but then it leads to an interesting problem that could happen.

Build a tiny core, ask the community to extend: never be liable for any issue because important packages that are essentially required aren't part of the core and thus any criticism is invalid.

Not saying that's happening here, but it could happen by this definition.

But, ok, there are more issues anyway, for example it's pretty common that you have to update archlinux-keychain before an upgrade can succeed because the signing keys have rotated and someone has already packaged an update to something with the new key. That is definitely base.

I've been using Linux for decades and have had many times of installing updates breaking a machine to the point where I'd rather just reimage than try and fix the pile of issues. So many times of installing updates and now all the graphics don't work, now audio is broken, where did my network adapters go, etc. To the point that now most Linux things I touch, when I want to update I just deploy a fresh image rather than actually install updates. I can't really trust the state of the machine after a year of quietly installing updates.

A line item on my agenda today is actually helping a team figure out why when they do a release upgrade on their pet Ubuntu VM practically everything they care about on the box breaks and helping them plan out strategies to un-pet these workloads.

I've had a good share of Windows updates making a mess of things, don't get me wrong. But I've had plenty of bad updates in Linux over the years.

Yeah, arch is basically unusable without AUR, so that is semantic difference without grounding in reality. Many people use Arch becuase of its package manager.

Using a rolling release distro is not really a fair comparison. Little frequent updates are a lot easier than giant catastrophic ones.

I am sure your mum uses 0.000001% of Linux features. She could probably work equally well on Commodore 64 with browser and mail. So that amounts to nothing. Besides, she has you to fix any issues, and Mint is the recommended distribution to use if you are switching from Windows. So there's that.

Your own usage of Linux is irrelevant to the mainstream user. If you use anything for 20 years, you will probably be good with it if you care at least a bit. Most people don't care, it is a mean to an end. Hell, I am in IT since kindergarten and I don't care sometimes, it happens now and then that I just want some stuff to work without any issues.

Linux is harder than Windows. It can't be anything else, as it is not originally made for mainstream user, but for engineers and geeks. We came a long way since inception though and today many distros offer decent OS for mainstream user.

Arch isn't liable regardless. It's a community driven project run by volunteers without contracts.

>it's pretty common that you have to update archlinux-keychain before an upgrade can succeed because the signing keys

"Since 2022-07-29, the archlinux-keyring-wkd-sync.service and the associated systemd timer have been created and enabled by default"

https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Pacman/Package_signing#Upgr...

Yeah, my mum could work with a chromebook- but why does that matter- what are we talking about, ease of use or power users?

Because if its power users; having command of the whole operating system is just objectively better. Nothing hidden or forbidden and no oddities and quirks that are non-detiministic, indeterministic and actively prohibit debugging.

If its ease of use: then the easiest laptop operating system to maintain is… Linux (in the form of a chromebook).

That said, I really haven’t helped my mum with her laptop- I actually thought she didn’t use it because she didn’t ask me any support questions but it turned out that it “just worked” and she clicked the update pop-up once in a while like I asked her to.

> Linux is harder than Windows. It can't be anything else, as it is not originally made for mainstream user

This sounds like cope. Accessibility can be better on Windows for this reason… people being paid to drudge through an accessibility checklist- but the reality is not this. CommodoreOS was also built for humans and its harder to use than OpenBSD (which makes no apologies to non-power users). Your entire thesis here is bunk- there’s just countless examples of people thinking they know best for users but actively harming them instead (by hiding information or misleading them intentionally).

Listen, dude, this isn’t litigation.

The shit is broken sometimes, it’s ok, but we are here to be intellectually curious and have a discussion.

Lying to people about how broken it can be to update in reality is the opposite of that.

We aren’t here to pull down arch or the community; just here to spit facts.

I disagree that having to update a package which is also now a automatic service qualifies as broken. Sure there are issues but they are usually either self induced e.g. AUR, easily fixable e.g. keyring update or broadcasted publicly with a fix e.g. archnews.

At the end of the day arch is firmly a do it yourself distro where some user intervention is expected.

Right so,

> I've also been using Linux for years (Arch, btw) and never had an update break my install or cause issues

Is an anecdote that is worthy of being attacked with my own, given the context that people might come away thinking that Arch updates do not break their system.. right?

That is maybe how you feel but it obviously works just fine without it otherwise it would not be explicitly separated. I do not have more than a handful AUR packages none of which are essential or without alternative.

>Many people use Arch because of its package manager

True pacman is great but that has nothing to do with the AUR.

Right, just make sure that anecdote actually applies.

I've had far more Ubuntu distro upgrades break than succeed, and often without solutions online other than reinstall. Haven't had that issue with Arch since 2011. I use Ubuntu for work and Arch for personal so I've basically been using both full time for over a decade. Anecdotes be anecdotes