perishthethought@piefed.social to memes@lemmy.worldEnglish · 4 days agoWindows updatesi.imgflip.comimagemessage-square10fedilinkarrow-up1282arrow-down16
arrow-up1276arrow-down1imageWindows updatesi.imgflip.comperishthethought@piefed.social to memes@lemmy.worldEnglish · 4 days agomessage-square10fedilink
minus-squareExcessShiv@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkarrow-up3·4 days agoI mean, that’s the preferable way should OS should handle a borked update, it sure beats just bricking the computer.
minus-squaremarcos@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up2arrow-down1·4 days agoBeating turning the computer into a brick does not make it “the preferable way” to do it.
minus-squareConfused_Emus@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·4 days agoUpdate fails, OS rolls back failed changes. What would you prefer it to do?
minus-squareKanda@reddthat.comlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·4 days agoBoot into terminal and leave you staring at an empty prompt
minus-squareExcessShiv@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·4 days agoSo in the event of a failed update, what would be the preferable way to handle it then? I think automatically rolling back to a functional state before the update is pretty optimal.
I mean, that’s the preferable way should OS should handle a borked update, it sure beats just bricking the computer.
Beating turning the computer into a brick does not make it “the preferable way” to do it.
Update fails, OS rolls back failed changes. What would you prefer it to do?
Boot into terminal and leave you staring at an empty prompt
So in the event of a failed update, what would be the preferable way to handle it then? I think automatically rolling back to a functional state before the update is pretty optimal.