• jet@hackertalks.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    You can not like windows, and also recognize that CrowdStrike isn’t from Microsoft - so a problem that CrowdStrike caused isn’t the fault of Windows.

    If that makes me a idiot by holding two different ideas in my head, so be it, but you are spending time with us, so thank you for elevating us!

    • Azzu@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      4 months ago

      I’m sorry, but distinguishing between different concepts is forbidden here. You go straight to jail.

    • gnutrino
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      I’m waiting for the post mortem before declaring this to not be anything to do with MS tbh. It’s only affecting windows systems and it wouldn’t be the first time dumb architectural decisions on their part have caused issues (why not run the whole GUI in kernel space? What’s the worst that could happen?)

      • jet@hackertalks.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        I agree it’s possible. But if you’re a software as a service vendor, it is your responsibility to be in the alpha and beta release channels, so if there is a show stopping error coming down the pipeline you can get in front of it.

        But more tellingly, we have not seen Windows boot loop today from other vendors, only this vendor. Right now the balance of probabilities is in the direction of crowd strike

        • gnutrino
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          I’m not sure how to break this to you but this is just an internet forum, not a court of law

          • jorp@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            The reason courts use it is because they value having true opinions. But you’re welcome to not value that indeed

            • psud@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              The reason courts have rules of how convinced one must be to declare guilt is because they dread punishing an innocent over allowing a guilty person free

              We aren’t in a position to hurt the probably guilty party so it doesn’t matter a bit of we jump to conclusions unfairly