From: zeke@nosuchmail.com   
      
   "Peter Köhlmann"  wrote in message   
   news:ik5722$5ki$01$1@news.t-online.com...   
   > Ezekiel wrote:   
   >   
   >>   
   >> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro"  wrote in message   
   >> news:ik4fpe$8ak$2@lust.ihug.co.nz...   
   >>> In message ,   
   >>> Justin   
   >>> wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> Two god damn hours to install SP1?  Good God, Microsoft is honestly   
   >>>> trying to piss off their customers.   
   >>>   
   >>> And you can't even continue doing work while the update is installing.   
   >>> Unlike Unix/Linux systems, Windows won't let you replace files that are   
   >>> curently in use by a running process. So you have to stop everything   
   >>> until   
   >>> the update is done.   
   >>   
   >> "You have to stop everything..." is simply a lie.   
   >   
   > No. It is just not completely right. You can continue working.   
   > If you ignore the nag-Screens about needing the reboot   
      
   "You have to stop everything..." is a binary thing. Either you do or you   
   don't. It's like being "a little pregnant."   Larry once again sticks his   
   foot in his mouth.   
      
      
      
   >>> Even Linux updates that require a reboot only need downtime for the   
   >>> actual   
   >>> reboot, not for the installation of the update.   
   >>   
   >> So in both cases you end up rebooting.   
   >   
   > No. You need the reboot only for a kernel change in linux.   
      
   Technically correct. Most non-kernel upgrades don't require a reboot. But   
   people certainly won't be able to continue running their apps while the   
   X-server restarts either.   
      
      
   > No point in doing that on linux for non-kernel updates   
      
   Unless something like the Ubuntu update manager tells the user to reboot   
   which it often does. Very few people are going look through the log-files to   
   see if they really need to reboot or not.   
      
      
      
      
   >> Some files are copied before the   
   >> reboot - others after the reboot. It's a distinction without a practical   
   >> difference.   
   >   
   > Oh, it *has* a practical difference. On linux, all updated programs will   
   > start   
   > with the updated version as soon as you launch a new instance.   
   > Or, if it is a running daemon, as soon as you initiate a restart of it.   
      
   Exactly what "practical" benefit does the user get from this? Unless there   
   was something grossly wrong with the previous version the benefit is a   
   theoretical one more than a "practical" one.   
      
      
      
   > On windows, as long as you did not reboot, you still get the old ones   
      
   Which isn't ideal either. And having different apps and different instances   
   of the same app all running with different versions of libraries isn't that   
   great of a "practical benefit" either.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)