Re: I've thought better of Linux

Robert Uhl <eadmund42@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> cstacy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Christopher C. Stacy) writes:
> >
> > My experience on Windows is that when more updates (for either the OS,
> > or for the well-integrated Norton security) are needed, icons appear
> > in the tray, I click on them, and then sometimes afterwards it tells
> > me to reboot. Totally painless.
>
> [snip]
>
> > If I were Joe Luser, or his mother, on Linux, there is absolutely no
> > chance that I would figure it out. Windows is infinitely superior to
> > Linux in that way.
>

> Ummm...security updates are that easy with Red Hat. And on Fedora
> it's a simple 'yum update'. Which reminds me...

I used to run RedHat 9 for a server.
It worked well for me.
That was supposed to be the stable system,
but given it's poor reputation, when they
dropped it and announced that either very
expensive "Enterprise" charges would ensue,
or else that "bleeding edge" Fedora was the
replacement, I decided to try something else.
Debian Woody was the answer.

Then I wanted a desktop, so I got Sarge.
I like apt and Synaptic.

> And of course a reboot is never required.

Well, that's just not true.
(You admitted as much in the subsequent paragraph).

The reason that you "have to" reboot Windows after
applying packages is so that the running applcations
will pick up the new shared libraries. I think you
reboot so that it's all coherent -- the registered COM
components and DLLs will all be in syncg in the next
"CurrentConfiguration" part of the registry.
In Linux, you usually have the option of just restarting
the application. In either case, there's an outage,
and you pick when that will occur in your production schedule.
On either operating system, you can usually just continue to
run the existing applications until it's convenient to boot.
That's why most patches on Windows don't make you reboot,
some of them offer, "No, I will reboot later" or "Click Cancel
to Reboot later", and only the grossest changes to the main
part of the OS try to insist that you reboot immediately.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: How workable is Vista?
    ... clicks almost the moment it boots up; I don't have to wait for all the startup applications to finish before I can get responses to anything I do. ... The main reason NT 3.51 was more reliable and stable than any windows version before or since is that the gui and drivers were in user space, ... There is no practical need to do updates to the original versions. ... In the most of cases you can continue safely without reboot even if they required it. ...
    (comp.arch.embedded)
  • Re: How workable is Vista?
    ... reliable and stable than any windows version before or since is that the gui and drivers were in user space, ... There is no practical need to do updates to the original versions. ... In the most of cases you can continue safely without reboot even if they required it. ... unless a double/triple redundant system is ...
    (comp.arch.embedded)
  • Re: Computer performs little better after rebooting
    ... Reboot and ... ... Download, install, run, update and perform a full scan with the ... Download/Install the latest Windows Installer: ... select just _ONE_ of the high priority updates ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Computer slowed to a crawl
    ... If Windows XP 32-bit... ... Reboot and ... ... Download, install, run, update and perform a full scan with the ... select just _ONE_ of the high priority updates ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support)
  • Re: GRRRR!!!
    ... I have a linux system, and generally> it doesn't need rebooting. ... apparently it's time for me to just set up a> completely separate box...with Windows. ... Meaning that when you plug the computer back in and reboot it, it needs to be reset from the router to assign it an internal ip. ...
    (alt.2600)