Andrew Halliwell wrote:
> DFS wrote:
>> Jerry McBride wrote:
>>> DFS wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Linux crashes, a lot. Many applications don't always work. I spend
>>>> far more time keeping Linux going than I ever did with Windows."
>>>> http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=14453
>>>
>>>
>>> Results 1 - 10 of about 2,670,000 for windows just crashes. (0.27
>>> seconds)
>>
>> Results 1 - 10 of about 1,930,000 for Linux just crashes .
>>
>> And with an installed base of less than 1/100th of Windows'
>
> Playing the old google game again doofy?
> You know as well as ANYONE that "linux just crashes" can encompass an
> entire universe of alternative meanings.
>
> "linux just works, windows crashes"
>
> will be a match for example.

"Windows just works, Linux crashes" would match McBride's search, so the
false positives cancel each other out and we're left with evidence Linux
blows.

As if everyone didn't know it already.



> As would
>
> "As I wave goodbye to all the car crashes on the bend I used to live
> on and move into my new house, I just can't wait to get my linux
> machine connected to the new broadband line"
>
> So just stop it with the useless search crap, eh? Everyone knows it's
> the most transparent lie you constantly come up with which proves
> only one thing...
>
> Your stupidity for expecting anyone to believe it is unbelievable.

It's very believable, even if it's just anecdotal. And of course you don't
say a word to Jerry McBride.

"DFS" writes:

> Andrew Halliwell wrote:
>> DFS wrote:
>
>>> In my experience, maybe 2 in 10 installs or updates require a Windows
>>> reboot.
>>
>> And yet 8 out of 10 request it of the user...
>> Hmmmm... *rubs chin* Why is that?
>
> I don't know why you lie. That's a question for you, your parents, and a
> shrink.
>

Be careful. He does have a degree you know. So he must know what he's
talking about!

--
This year with the release of XP, they are actually behind. The end days
are near for the BIOS reading inferior OS. It is inevitable.
comp.os.linux.advocacy - where they put the lunacy in advocacy

DFS wrote:
> It's very believable, even if it's just anecdotal. And of course you don't
> say a word to Jerry McBride.

I didn't notice that one until I'd posted...
So shame on you too jerry.
But as for you Doofy...
You've used the google argument lots of times over the past 4 years.
So you were the one who deserved all the scorn. You just demonstrated a
total inability to learn. Either that, or just posting to cause trouble.

I wonder which... probably both in your case.

--
| spike1@freenet.co.uk | |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't |
| in | suck is probably the day they start making |
| Computer science | vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge |

DFS wrote:
> Andrew Halliwell wrote:
>> DFS wrote:
>
>>> In my experience, maybe 2 in 10 installs or updates require a Windows
>>> reboot.
>>
>> And yet 8 out of 10 request it of the user...
>> Hmmmm... *rubs chin* Why is that?
>
> I don't know why you lie. That's a question for you, your parents, and a
> shrink.

Every 3rd party update (and most microsoft ones) on windows I've seen has
said "windows will reboot now" or asks the user if he wants to.

If that's no longer the case... Well, tough, we can only talk about our own
experiences.

SO, are you claiming that software updates DON'T either demand a reboot or
ask the user if he wants to anymore?
--
| spike1@freenet.co.uk | Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
| in |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
| Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |

The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> I'd say it depends on the hardware. I wish I could find it
> but a GCC segv during kernel rebuilds used to be mentioned
> in a FAQ as being the result of a too-low power supply.

Or faulty memory or an overheating CPU.
In fact, a multiple branched looping kernel compile was used to test linux
systems over night where I used to work. using the -j 10 to ensure maximum
memory and system load. If the compile failed it indicated a hardware
problem that warranted extra investigation.

--
| spike1@freenet.co.uk | Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
| in |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
| Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |

Andrew Halliwell writes:

> DFS wrote:
>> Andrew Halliwell wrote:
>>> DFS wrote:
>>
>>>> In my experience, maybe 2 in 10 installs or updates require a Windows
>>>> reboot.
>>>
>>> And yet 8 out of 10 request it of the user...
>>> Hmmmm... *rubs chin* Why is that?
>>
>> I don't know why you lie. That's a question for you, your parents, and a
>> shrink.
>
> Every 3rd party update (and most microsoft ones) on windows I've seen has
> said "windows will reboot now" or asks the user if he wants to.
>
> If that's no longer the case... Well, tough, we can only talk about our own
> experiences.
>
> SO, are you claiming that software updates DON'T either demand a reboot or
> ask the user if he wants to anymore?

My question is simply "so what". It takes about 2 minutes. Is it ideal?
No. Do the benefits of using SW targeted at XP outweigh any minor
downtime? It would seem so ....

--
"At BT Global, our crown jewels are the services we supply to our
customers. With jNetX we own the intellectual property for our
services, allowing us to evolve the services as and when required."
Mark Kent,Head of Technology Strategy,COLA Hypocrite

Andrew Halliwell wrote:
> DFS wrote:
>> Andrew Halliwell wrote:
>>> DFS wrote:
>>
>>>> In my experience, maybe 2 in 10 installs or updates require a
>>>> Windows reboot.
>>>
>>> And yet 8 out of 10 request it of the user...
>>> Hmmmm... *rubs chin* Why is that?
>>
>> I don't know why you lie. That's a question for you, your parents,
>> and a shrink.
>
> Every 3rd party update (and most microsoft ones) on windows I've seen
> has said "windows will reboot now" or asks the user if he wants to.
>
> If that's no longer the case... Well, tough, we can only talk about
> our own experiences.
>
> SO, are you claiming that software updates DON'T either demand a
> reboot or ask the user if he wants to anymore?

This isn't that difficult, lamer:

"In my experience, maybe 2 in 10 installs or updates require a Windows
reboot."

"DFS" writes:

> Andrew Halliwell wrote:
>> DFS wrote:
>>> Andrew Halliwell wrote:
>>>> DFS wrote:
>>>
>>>>> In my experience, maybe 2 in 10 installs or updates require a
>>>>> Windows reboot.
>>>>
>>>> And yet 8 out of 10 request it of the user...
>>>> Hmmmm... *rubs chin* Why is that?
>>>
>>> I don't know why you lie. That's a question for you, your parents,
>>> and a shrink.
>>
>> Every 3rd party update (and most microsoft ones) on windows I've seen
>> has said "windows will reboot now" or asks the user if he wants to.
>>
>> If that's no longer the case... Well, tough, we can only talk about
>> our own experiences.
>>
>> SO, are you claiming that software updates DON'T either demand a
>> reboot or ask the user if he wants to anymore?
>
> This isn't that difficult, lamer:
>
> "In my experience, maybe 2 in 10 installs or updates require a Windows
> reboot."
>
>

Halliwell really is unable to read. Sometimes his replies seem to bear
no similarity to what went before. He is a classic case of mouth in
motion before brain is in gear.

--
Bwahahahahahahahah - Anyone else think that this announcement from the MS
marketing machine was anything other than a last ditch attempt to try and
foster *some* interest in XP ?
comp.os.linux.advocacy - where they put the lunacy in advocacy

Andrew Halliwell wrote:
> DFS wrote:
>> It's very believable, even if it's just anecdotal. And of course
>> you don't say a word to Jerry McBride.
>
> I didn't notice that one until I'd posted...
> So shame on you too jerry.

Spare us your silly admonishments, net-nanny.


> But as for you Doofy...
> You've used the google argument lots of times over the past 4 years.

And rightly so. It's the best place to find evidence of how cruddy Linux
is.

When a bunch of fools say "Linux just works!" I can find thousands more who
say it just doesn't.

On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:15:06 +0100, Andrew Halliwell wrote:

> DFS wrote:
>> Andrew Halliwell wrote:
>>> DFS wrote:
>>
>>>> In my experience, maybe 2 in 10 installs or updates require a Windows
>>>> reboot.
>>>
>>> And yet 8 out of 10 request it of the user...
>>> Hmmmm... *rubs chin* Why is that?
>>
>> I don't know why you lie. That's a question for you, your parents, and a
>> shrink.
>
> Every 3rd party update (and most microsoft ones) on windows I've seen has
> said "windows will reboot now" or asks the user if he wants to.
>
> If that's no longer the case... Well, tough, we can only talk about our own
> experiences.
>
> SO, are you claiming that software updates DON'T either demand a reboot or
> ask the user if he wants to anymore?

So it's a 2 minute reboot for Windows vs having to use crap Linux slopware
24x7.

I'll wait the 2 minutes thank you.

--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

DFS wrote:
> And rightly so. It's the best place to find evidence of how cruddy Linux
> is.

Thought as much.
Not read a WORD I said.
What evidence? Fool.

Googling "linux just crashes" isn't evidence of anything but your own
ignorance of the most basic google usage.
--
| |What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crack|
| spike1@freenet.co.uk |in the ground beneath a giant boulder, which you|
| |can't move, with no hope of rescue. |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc |Consider how lucky you are that life has been |
| in |good to you so far... |
| Computer Science | -The BOOK, Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy.|

DFS wrote:
> This isn't that difficult, lamer:
>
> "In my experience, maybe 2 in 10 installs or updates require a Windows
> reboot."

I didn't ask that, did I.
I don't give a damn if it "Requires" a reboot.
DO they ASK the USER if HE wants to REBOOT even if they DON'T demand it?

Because the users you claim find linux too hard are just as likely to take
the "do you want to reboot now?" as a prompt TO reboot.

GODS your thick.
--
| spike1@freenet.co,uk | "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | |
| in | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
| Computer Science | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Andrew Halliwell

wrote
on Mon, 16 Jun 2008 18:14:10 +0100
<2kjii5-ofl.ln1@ponder.sky.com>:
> DFS wrote:
>> And rightly so. It's the best place to find evidence of how cruddy Linux
>> is.
>
> Thought as much.
> Not read a WORD I said.
> What evidence? Fool.
>
> Googling "linux just crashes" isn't evidence of anything but your own
> ignorance of the most basic google usage.

Considering Linux the kernel *does* crash (actually,
a call to panic()) if it can't find sh or init[*],
one could say there's a kernel of truth here, but way
away from the intent of the notion, which appears to be
that a Linux-based solution is far more unstable than a
Windows-based one -- which I for one cannot support as
a notion, absent further data, and it may depend on what
solution one is considering.

The same could be said of NTOSKRNL.EXE or FreeBSD's kernel,
whatever its name is, if either one can't find its support
files/areas.
[*] there are a few technical issues here if one is using
a distro with initrd. Properly set up, such a distro
won't panic as Linux will readily find what it needs within
the initrd, but might ask some questions as to where to
find the system root disk -- questions that aren't asked
by Linux per se, but by the init script (I don't know its
exact name, and it may depend on distro) somewhere in the
initrd image.

If the bootscript finds the root, of course, it will do
a pivot() and continue the boot process. In Gentoo, the
boot line includes real_root= to tell the bootscript where
to look.

--
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
GNU and improved.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Andrew Halliwell

wrote
on Mon, 16 Jun 2008 18:16:23 +0100
<7ojii5-ofl.ln1@ponder.sky.com>:
> DFS wrote:
>> This isn't that difficult, lamer:
>>
>> "In my experience, maybe 2 in 10 installs or updates require a Windows
>> reboot."
>
> I didn't ask that, did I.
> I don't give a damn if it "Requires" a reboot.
> DO they ASK the USER if HE wants to REBOOT even if they DON'T demand it?

AFAIK, the Windows user [+] is always asked via a dialog,
if the installer thinks a reboot is needed (which is not
necessarily the same as whether one really is needed;
most installers are a little conservative about it).
It will not reboot on its own without authorization
(someone has to click). One may have a minor problem if
one does not reboot; I'll admit I have no idea whether two
or more installs both requiring reboots will have problems
in their "safe copy areas", or wherever they put their
pending updates. The registry of course contains info --
somewhere -- on where to copy these files during system
restart, and the startup sequence includes processing
that info.

The actual phrasing of that dialog is along the lines of

"Windows requires a reboot to finish the installation."

[reboot now] [reboot later]

though it presumably depends on installer, installer script, etc.

For its part Linux reboot requirements are rare, and that's
because Linux filesystems look at the world in an entirely
different fashion. Briefly put, one reason Windows needs
pending updates to be installed during the next system boot
is because Windows NTFS locks executable files and DLLs; a
process cannot replace them. Linux can't either, really,
but Linux *can* delete the entries in the directories
to those files, place new entries in the directories,
or simply replace existing entries; the old file is still
available to those processes initially opening it, though
the new file will be opened by subsequent processes.[*]

A daemon restart (not a system restart) will close that old
file, releasing its storage, and load the new one, if all
goes well. Daemon restarts are not quite as disruptive as,
nor do they take as long as, system restarts, though restarting
Apache or JBoss might confuse things for session-oriented
server users trying to get work done through their browsers.

But so would a system restart. ;-)

>
> Because the users you claim find linux too hard are just as likely to take
> the "do you want to reboot now?" as a prompt TO reboot.
>
> GODS your thick.

It does get subtle. ;-)

[+] actually, the system administrator, but a lot of
Windows systems are set up a little sloppily regarding
the differentiation of same.
[*] to be pedantic about it, a rename() will replace the
inode entry, which is all a directory has anyway, along
with the name; the actual inode contains pointers to
the blocks with the data. The actual directory lock is
very brief. A usecount within the inode will indicate
whether it is still in use; if 0, the space will be
reclaimed and only then the inode deleted.

--
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
Is it cheaper to learn Linux, or to hire someone
to fix your Windows problems?
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

"Moshe Goldfarb." wrote:
>
> On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:15:06 +0100, Andrew Halliwell wrote:
>
> > DFS wrote:
> >> Andrew Halliwell wrote:
> >>> DFS wrote:
> >>
> >>>> In my experience, maybe 2 in 10 installs or updates require a Windows
> >>>> reboot.
> >>>
> >>> And yet 8 out of 10 request it of the user...
> >>> Hmmmm... *rubs chin* Why is that?
> >>
> >> I don't know why you lie. That's a question for you, your parents, and a
> >> shrink.
> >
> > Every 3rd party update (and most microsoft ones) on windows I've seen has
> > said "windows will reboot now" or asks the user if he wants to.
> >
> > If that's no longer the case... Well, tough, we can only talk about our own
> > experiences.
> >
> > SO, are you claiming that software updates DON'T either demand a reboot or
> > ask the user if he wants to anymore?
>
> So it's a 2 minute reboot for Windows vs having to use crap Linux slopware
> 24x7.
>
> I'll wait the 2 minutes thank you.
>

_One_ two minute reboot per week drops you below the 'four nines' uptime
metric (99.98%). In production systems, that is an issue.


--
Paul Hovnanian paul@hovnanian.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have gnu, will travel.

On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:02:13 -0700, Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:

> "Moshe Goldfarb." wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:15:06 +0100, Andrew Halliwell wrote:
>>
>>> DFS wrote:
>>>> Andrew Halliwell wrote:
>>>>> DFS wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> In my experience, maybe 2 in 10 installs or updates require a Windows
>>>>>> reboot.
>>>>>
>>>>> And yet 8 out of 10 request it of the user...
>>>>> Hmmmm... *rubs chin* Why is that?
>>>>
>>>> I don't know why you lie. That's a question for you, your parents, and a
>>>> shrink.
>>>
>>> Every 3rd party update (and most microsoft ones) on windows I've seen has
>>> said "windows will reboot now" or asks the user if he wants to.
>>>
>>> If that's no longer the case... Well, tough, we can only talk about our own
>>> experiences.
>>>
>>> SO, are you claiming that software updates DON'T either demand a reboot or
>>> ask the user if he wants to anymore?
>>
>> So it's a 2 minute reboot for Windows vs having to use crap Linux slopware
>> 24x7.
>>
>> I'll wait the 2 minutes thank you.
>>
>
> _One_ two minute reboot per week drops you below the 'four nines' uptime
> metric (99.98%). In production systems, that is an issue.

Production systems also tend to not install every update that comes along.
They look and see what applies, what problems they might be having that may
be fixed and act appropriately.
More often than not it follows the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"
methodology.

It's the home users that are patch crazy.

--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

"Moshe Goldfarb." wrote:
>
> On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:02:13 -0700, Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
>
> > "Moshe Goldfarb." wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:15:06 +0100, Andrew Halliwell wrote:
> >>
> >>> DFS wrote:
> >>>> Andrew Halliwell wrote:
> >>>>> DFS wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> In my experience, maybe 2 in 10 installs or updates require a Windows
> >>>>>> reboot.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And yet 8 out of 10 request it of the user...
> >>>>> Hmmmm... *rubs chin* Why is that?
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't know why you lie. That's a question for you, your parents, and a
> >>>> shrink.
> >>>
> >>> Every 3rd party update (and most microsoft ones) on windows I've seen has
> >>> said "windows will reboot now" or asks the user if he wants to.
> >>>
> >>> If that's no longer the case... Well, tough, we can only talk about our own
> >>> experiences.
> >>>
> >>> SO, are you claiming that software updates DON'T either demand a reboot or
> >>> ask the user if he wants to anymore?
> >>
> >> So it's a 2 minute reboot for Windows vs having to use crap Linux slopware
> >> 24x7.
> >>
> >> I'll wait the 2 minutes thank you.
> >>
> >
> > _One_ two minute reboot per week drops you below the 'four nines' uptime
> > metric (99.98%). In production systems, that is an issue.
>
> Production systems also tend to not install every update that comes along.
> They look and see what applies, what problems they might be having that may
> be fixed and act appropriately.
> More often than not it follows the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"
> methodology.

Production systems are more likely to be kept corrent with security
patches than home systems.
Given competent administration, that is. I used to work at an outfit
with multiple flavors of *NIX and Windows systems when it got hit by the
Code Red virus (I was a UNIX admin. among other things at the time).

The Windows admins refused to believe that systems that were not running
IIS web servers could have been infected (the infection was spread via
buffer overflow http requests). So they never applied IIS security
patches. This in spite of the fact that they used web based
adminitration tools to manage their systems. What did they think was
handling the administration pages?

Windows has got so many interlocking dependencies that its difficult to
tell which patches apply and which don't. Microsoft didn't even know.

So now, they apply everything that comes along.

> It's the home users that are patch crazy.

Not really. Most of the home systems I've seen are about one service
pack behind.

--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Quantum Mechanics: The dreams stuff is made of.

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:55:12 -0700, Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:

> "Moshe Goldfarb." wrote:

> Production systems are more likely to be kept corrent with security
> patches than home systems.
> Given competent administration, that is. I used to work at an outfit
> with multiple flavors of *NIX and Windows systems when it got hit by the
> Code Red virus (I was a UNIX admin. among other things at the time).
>
> The Windows admins refused to believe that systems that were not running
> IIS web servers could have been infected (the infection was spread via
> buffer overflow http requests). So they never applied IIS security
> patches. This in spite of the fact that they used web based
> adminitration tools to manage their systems. What did they think was
> handling the administration pages?

Sadly the IT field is riddled with incompetent people and it seems to be
getting worse.


> Windows has got so many interlocking dependencies that its difficult to
> tell which patches apply and which don't. Microsoft didn't even know.

I tend to agree that with Windows and Microsoft software in general the
descriptions of what the patches do is sometimes very vague.
Also, they can't possibly test every combination of software/hardware with
the patch so it gets even more risky.

> So now, they apply everything that comes along.

A bad approach IMHO.
Still though, you can get separate patches but you have to know what you
are looking for and that is not always easy.

IBM does it the right way with their AS/400 line.
They have single PTF's (patches) and then they have a CUM which is a
cumulative patch including all the previous ones.
All patches are described in detail as well.
I'm sure they don't let on to everything but most of the important stuff is
described.


>> It's the home users that are patch crazy.
>
> Not really. Most of the home systems I've seen are about one service
> pack behind.

By patch crazy I mean that every time something new comes along the home
users install it willy nilly without regards to the implications.
IOW they don't read the instructions.

Most systems I have seen have auto system updates enabled which of course
is crazy.


--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/