Slashdot Mirror
Oil Changes, Safety Recalls, and Software Patches (daemonology.net)
An anonymous reader shares a blog post: Every few months I get an email from my local mechanic reminding me that it's time to get my car's oil changed. I generally ignore these emails; it costs time and money to get this done and I drive little enough -- about 2000 km/year -- that I'm not too worried about the consequences of going for a bit longer than nominally advised between oil changes. I do get oil changes done... but typically once every 8-12 months, rather than the recommended 4-6 months. On the other hand, there's another type of notification which elicits more prompt attention: Safety recalls. There are two good reasons for this: First, whether for vehicles, food, or other products, the risk of ignoring a safety recall is not merely that the product will break, but rather that the product will be actively unsafe; and second, when there's a safety recall you don't have to pay for the replacement or fix -- the cost is covered by the manufacturer. I started thinking about this distinction -- and more specifically the difference in user behaviour -- in the aftermath of the "WannaCry" malware. While WannaCry attracted widespread attention for its "ransomware" nature, the more concerning aspect of this incident is how it propagated: By exploiting a vulnerability in SMB for which Microsoft issued patches two months earlier. As someone who works in computer security, I find this horrifying -- and I was particularly concerned when I heard that the NHS was postponing surgeries because they couldn't access patient records. [...] I imagine that most people in my industry would agree that security patches should be treated in the same vein as safety recalls -- unless you're certain that you're not affected, take care of them as a matter of urgency -- but it seems that far more users instead treat security patches more like oil changes: something to be taken care of when convenient... or not at all, if not convenient. It's easy to say that such users are wrong; but as an industry it's time that we think about why they are wrong rather than merely blaming them for their problems.
This isn't an article, it's a blog, nothing of any consequence is revealed or detailed.
One of the reasons you change your oil regularly, even if you are not putting a bunch of miles on your car, is because of the increasing levels of contamination in the oil by gasoline. Every time the engine is run small amounts of gasoline contaminate the oil. The gasoline affects the ability of the oil to lubricate and therefore contributes to excessive mechanical wear.
Additionally, the additives in the oil that improve it's viscosity performance, help it fight corrosion and add other beneficial effects do not have an indefinite life or stability, and will break down over time.
Much the same reason why you should not allow a fuel tank to sit for months on end without cycling gas through it, the chemicals are not stable forever.
"You can change your oil every 10 to 15000 km"
More like 25.000Km, even for some cars as old as the century.