Patch Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot

Patch Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot

Post by Freerid » Thu, 05 Apr 2007 12:33:07


Why the fsck does every fricken single M$ patch require a reboot!! Does
Micro$oft not understand the massive pain in the ass that is required to
schedule and coordinate downtime with users and reboot 100's of servers in
a data center?
 
 
 

Patch Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot

Post by Roy Schest » Thu, 05 Apr 2007 12:59:26

__/ [ Freeride ] on Wednesday 04 April 2007 04:33 \__


As AB says, reboot Microsoft. I think that Vista is intended to permit
updates without reboots, but I am not entirely sure (I don't use it).

--
~~ Best wishes

Roy S. Schestowitz | "Mod me up and I'll mod you 'insightful'"
http://www.yqcomputer.com/ | Open Prospects PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Tasks: 130 total, 1 running, 125 sleeping, 0 stopped, 4 zombie
http://www.yqcomputer.com/ - knowledge engine, not a search engine

 
 
 

Patch Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot

Post by AB » Thu, 05 Apr 2007 15:20:00

On 2007-04-04, Roy Schestowitz < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > claimed:

XP did that trick. The problem is many patches don't go into effect
until a reboot is done. So if you're trying to patch away a security
icky, you reboot or else.

I have serious doubts that Vista has changed that. They more than
likely have suppressed the nag dialog instead.

--
I started to make a list of all of the great Microsoft
innovations. Then I remembered CTRL-ALT-DEL is handled by
the BIOS.
 
 
 

Patch Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot

Post by Roy Schest » Thu, 05 Apr 2007 16:08:28

__/ [ AB ] on Wednesday 04 April 2007 07:20 \__


A quick Web search brought this up:

http://www.yqcomputer.com/ ,1895,1895276,00.asp

I'm not sure what they mean by "parts". Also, given the date, this feature
may have been lost. It was month before they "reboot" the development of
Longhorn (later to become Windows XP/2003 Server, then renamed "Vista"). So
the answer here is "I don't know"...

--
~~ Best wishes

Roy S. Schestowitz | Wintendo O/S: which virus do fancy today?
http://www.yqcomputer.com/ | RHAT Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
8:05am up 23 days 15:08, 7 users, load average: 0.91, 0.99, 1.00
http://www.yqcomputer.com/ - Open Source knowledge engine project
 
 
 

Patch Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot

Post by Roy Schest » Thu, 05 Apr 2007 16:31:42

__/ [ Roy Schestowitz ] on Wednesday 04 April 2007 08:08 \__


Correction: the article was published a few month /after/, not before,
Ballmer's "we needed reboot" or "development collapse". Maybe it's one among
the very few features that made it into Vista, which was developed in just 6
months (not 5-6 years as they would like you to believe) and tested for 9
(nowhere near long enough).

--
~~ Best wishes

Roy S. Schestowitz | Holey (sic) Cow! Longhorn is full of holes...
http://www.yqcomputer.com/ | GNU/Linux PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Mem: 514480k total, 482384k used, 32096k free, 4236k buffers
http://www.yqcomputer.com/ - next generation of search paradigms
 
 
 

Patch Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot

Post by ray » Thu, 05 Apr 2007 23:39:57


I don't know that they don't understand, I think it's just that they don't
give a rat's ass.
 
 
 

Patch Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot

Post by AB » Thu, 05 Apr 2007 23:42:13

On 2007-04-04, Roy Schestowitz < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > claimed:

These guys sure do make it hard to stop laughing at them, don't they?


That was probably one of those great ideas that were coming out, like
WinFS (which was a dead idea several times over the last 10 years or
so).

I'm thinking they used "parts" because they had no idea at the time if
they could even make it work. So they left it in deliberate obscurity
so nobody could hold them to anything more than a solitaire or notepad
update that could be performed without a reboot, I'm also thinking that
the "snapshot" idea was what killed it because they couldn't find any
way to implement it. Maybe they could do it if they had an hour or two
to "snapshot" things and save the right state to come back to. But that
would have ended up being worse than the reboot.

Speaking of WinFS, it was going to be included in Vista, and I think
they said it would be made available on XP. Then I recall seeing
sometime that they were going to have to make it available later for
Vista as well. Anybody know the status on that? I can't recall hearing
anything more on it for about a year. They ought to be pretty close to
releasing it, right?

--
A computer without Windows is like ice cream without ketchup.
 
 
 

Patch Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot

Post by The Ghost » Fri, 06 Apr 2007 01:10:46

n comp.os.linux.advocacy, Freeride
< XXXX@XXXXX.COM >
wrote
on Wed, 04 Apr 2007 03:33:07 GMT
<T%EQh.115280$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM >:

Not every patch or install requires a reboot -- though
many will. There's a fundamental issue involved: inodes.

On Linux, one can do the equivalent of

tar xzf pkgfile.tgz
cp pkgfile/some/where/or/other/executable /usr/bin/executable.new
mv /usr/bin/executable.new /usr/bin/executable

privileges permitting (I don't know precisely how install
works, but it's something like this) and if 'executable'
is running somewhere, no harm, no foul, unless 'executable'
tries to dynamically load something incompatible with it
(because a version changed) or execute something which
has been moved (forking is OK, AFAIK).

This is because /usr/bin/executable, when executed, becomes
an inode internally, and one can rename /usr/bin/executable
or even delete the name without harming the inode (though
if one deletes the name the inode will be reclaimed when
the process terminates, absent hard links). One can
also rename a file; apart from a corner case where
"mv filea fileb" is trying to rename one file to another but
both are actually hardlinks to the same file, it's fairly
straightforward. [*]

Hard links with inodes are very trivial, requiring little
more than management of a use count. (This is why the
number in ls -ld . shows up; each directory has two entries,
namely '.' in its own list, and its name in its parent's.
All other files show '1' unless they're hardlink somewhere
else. If a directory contains subdirectories, the use count
will be 2 more than the number of subdirectories, because
each directory has a '..' backpointer as well. find uses
this to its advantage by default; -noleaf may be required
on certain filesystems such as NTFS that don't follow this
use counting methodology. However, it appears 'ls -ld /c'
returns a 1 in that case anyway, and find still finds the
subdirectories.)

Of course it's probably a good idea to restart the
service anyway, which will cause a momentary interruption
of service, but one needn't restart the entire system.
Windows might finally be waking up to this methodology,
though it's hard to say at this point.

(Inode numbers, FWIW, can be seen with 'ls -i'. They won't
mean a heck of a lot to the user, though a software
engineer can have a routine do a stat() or fstat() on two
pathnames, then compare the st_dev and st_ino fields of
the stat structure to see if they're referring to the same
file or directory. File systems without inodes, such as
vfat, hack it; vfat in particular uses the first cluster
number as an inode, IINM. Not sure what Linux vfat does
for empty files. NFS introduces its own peculiarities,
which I'd have to look up.)

On Windows, things get a little more interesting. I don't
know the details, but if a file is in use (i.e., being
executed), one cannot overwrite it, move it, delete it,
rename it, or rename over it. (One wouldn't want to
overwrite over a Linux executable in use either -- and in
fact Linux disallows it with a "Text file busy" error,
ETXTBSY, 26. HP/UX, once upon a time way back when,
allowed the overwrite, but killed processes later with a
"page I/O error". Presumably this has been changed by now.
No problem on Linux renaming it or renaming over it,
though.)

Windows Installers therefore have to kludge around this.
Presumably they stuff an autostart into th
 
 
 

Patch Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot

Post by nessun » Fri, 06 Apr 2007 01:33:18


When they do, they'll make sure that you can't access it from Linux.
Just imagine a world in which we had real competition, even if Linux
still had a small share. One OS could advertise, "Works with Linux!"
Instead we have one beast (as in "Beast of Redmond") that spends more
effort trying to *** the competition than in providing secure, bug-
free software.
 
 
 

Patch Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot

Post by Winston Ei » Fri, 06 Apr 2007 03:01:13


As Ghost In The Machine will tell you, you're mistaken.




I've just finished installing KB925902. It does not require a reboot.
 
 
 

Patch Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot

Post by AB » Fri, 06 Apr 2007 03:05:22

On 2007-04-04, XXXX@XXXXX.COM < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > claimed:

I'm not too woried about all that. The Beast is eating itself. It'll
flop around and make a lot of scary noises while it dies. But it's
already dead for all intents and purposes.

The more they isolate themselves from the rest of the world through
lack of interoperability and adherence to standards, the more they
ensure they stay on the north side of the point of no return.

--
Microsoft: The company that made graphics files dangerous.
 
 
 

Patch Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot

Post by Roy Schest » Fri, 06 Apr 2007 13:35:41

__/ [ AB ] on Wednesday 04 April 2007 19:05 \__



http://www.yqcomputer.com/

MS: "For example, we should take the lead in establishing a common approach
to UI and to interoperability (of which OLE is only a part). Our efforts
to date are focussed too much on our own apps, and only incidentally on
the rest of the industry. We want to own these standards, so we should
not participate in standards groups. Rather, we should call 'to me' to
the industry and set a standard that works now and is for everyone's
benefit. We are large enough that this can work."

--
~~ Best wishes

Roy S. Schestowitz | Disclaimer: no SCO code used to generate this post
http://www.yqcomputer.com/ | GNU is Not UNIX | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
roy pts/3 Thu Apr 5 00:14 - 00:14 (00:00)
http://www.yqcomputer.com/ - proposing a non-profit search engine
 
 
 

Patch Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot

Post by AB » Fri, 06 Apr 2007 14:38:17

On 2007-04-05, Roy Schestowitz < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > claimed:


Too bad (for them) those days are over. Some day they'll know it. By
then it'll be far too late for them to try to overcome it, or to join
the bandwagon they missed.

--
A Microsoft Certified System Engineer is to information technology
as a McDonalds Certified Food Specialist is to the culinary arts.
 
 
 

Patch Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot

Post by Freerid » Sat, 07 Apr 2007 10:34:22


Really?

http://www.yqcomputer.com/

"Restart Requirement"

"You must restart your system after you apply this security update."
 
 
 

Patch Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot Reboot

Post by Roy Schest » Sat, 07 Apr 2007 12:33:19

__/ [ AB ] on Thursday 05 April 2007 06:38 \__


You mean ODF? It's only the beginning. But I'm sure that Bill and Melinda
will speak to as many politicians as they can in order to get OOXML (the
'monopoly enabler') honoured in some places. Adopt OOXML or we will let your
children die from hunger...

My statement above, while partly sarcastic, is partly backed by facts that I
will happily provide. There is a lot of political manoeeuvre and money)
involved in what should be a process whereby true and valid standards are
accepted.

--
~~ Best wishes

everytime you say things like this i just think of that cult of people
who send around .doc files. i dont want to communicate with people who
talk in .doc format, but they do not wish to use something else, so
they discredit those without word. --Ed, c.o.l.a.