I wanted very much to say the above. Doesn't sound like the author put very much effort into identifying what was going on, fails to understand that Windows is doing what it was intended to do for the non-technical users (i.e. updating), fails to understand that there are good reasons for wanting Windows to do that for non-technical users (even if they might not agree with those reasons), and doesn't bother to take any of the commonly known steps to avoid the issue (i.e. either let it update regularly or break the the update mechanism (not recommended)).
So what was the point of the article other than to demonstrate they don't have a clue as to how to properly operate Windows and can't be bothered to invest the time to do so? And if they couldn't be bothered to do so, what are the chances they actually bothered to learn how to operate Linux or any other OS at anything other than a surface level?
A "non technical" user will gift away a brand new with stickers on still Microsoft Windows laptop stuck on wake from sleep and the technical Linux/BSD user will throw it in the trash because life is too short.
So what was the point of the article other than to demonstrate they don't have a clue as to how to properly operate Windows and can't be bothered to invest the time to do so? And if they couldn't be bothered to do so, what are the chances they actually bothered to learn how to operate Linux or any other OS at anything other than a surface level?