• Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      20 days ago

      i mean you still update on your command, its just that you update all the stuff at once, and theres virtually almost always an update at a given time.

      • bdonvr@thelemmy.club
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        20 days ago

        Yeah and also you can just kinda do it in the background without much concern about it eating all your CPU or taking forever like Windows Updates does.

        Also won’t take several minutes when you shutdown to do the “Preparing Updates… Don’t shut off your PC” like Windows.

    • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      20 days ago

      I mean.

      You don’t have to update every day. Or whatever.

      My system is set to check for updates only once a month, because the rest of the time I want to be using it.

  • tomcatt360@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    20 days ago

    Meanwhile I update for fun on my Linux boxes every time I use them. The experience is just… Chef’s kiss

    • cRazi_man@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      20 days ago

      Windows making me update every time - rage

      Linux, first thing I open on startup is terminal for sudo zypper dup - joy

    • Crozekiel@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      20 days ago

      I fucking love running updates on garuda. Watching the little ASCII pacmans gobbling up the progress bar… And it doesn’t do it unless I tell it to so I never have the windows experience of “I just wanna play a game,oh look, 10 minutes of updates instead. Guess I’ll go make a sandwich…”

  • Supervisor194@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    20 days ago

    Windows 10 users, I’ve been using kill-update.exe for years now to only update Windows when I damn well want to.

    Disclaimer: before the inevitable dogpile, yes, this is bad practice. Yes there are many reasons why you might not want to do this. Yes, allowing your software to update itself whenever it wants is safer. No, I don’t care. If you don’t care either, this software might be for you.

    • thebestaquaman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      20 days ago

      Totally justifiable IMO. In my day-to-day life its much more important that my shit works when I need it to than that I get whatever potentially something-breaking latest hotfix patch for everything on my system. Put simply: My OS, and the packages I use, work. If I don’t update, I’m sure it will also keep working. When I have time for an update to break something, or want to pull in some new feature or patch, I’ll run an update.

  • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    20 days ago

    It’s because developers have stopped trusting users to update and not become an expletive filled customer service call when not updating inevitably leads to a security failure.

  • Ænima@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    20 days ago

    To turn away from the “go hard onto Linux” tropes, try Windows Update Blocker (WuB). I’ve been using it to pick when my machine, as well as friends and families machines, update. Every month or so, you need to turn updates back on by using it and updating the OS, but it can be scripted to enable/disable updates at any time, if you don’t feel like thinking about it. It not only blocks if but protects from reenabling updates by that fucking medic service that will try to turn it back on when the machine is idle.