Rebooting Windows Constantly - Linux

This is a discussion on Rebooting Windows Constantly - Linux ; Constant rebooting of windows is just not the case anymore. Here is one of Roy's latest spams. http://computingtech.blogspot.com/20...out-linux.html They act like they reboot windows, constantly. Here is a quote from the latest article. "you should not have to reboot your ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 47

Thread: Rebooting Windows Constantly

  1. Rebooting Windows Constantly

    Constant rebooting of windows is just not the case anymore.

    Here is one of Roy's latest spams.
    http://computingtech.blogspot.com/20...out-linux.html

    They act like they reboot windows, constantly. Here is a quote from
    the latest article.
    "you should not have to reboot your computer every time someone
    sneezes. "

    I think the last version of windows, many linux nuts used, was 3.1





  2. Re: Rebooting Windows Constantly

    Psyc Geek (TAB) wrote:

    > Constant rebooting of windows is just not the case anymore.
    >
    > Here is one of Roy's latest spams.
    >

    http://computingtech.blogspot.com/20...out-linux.html
    >
    > They act like they reboot windows, constantly. Here is a quote from
    > the latest article.
    > "you should not have to reboot your computer every time someone
    > sneezes. "
    >
    > I think the last version of windows, many linux nuts used, was 3.1


    Strange then that my windows box demands a reboot after practically *every*
    update. Even just simply *installing* software will often ask for a reboot.
    Including software from MS

    And no, this is not Win3.1
    It is WinXP SP2
    --
    Microsoft's Product Strategy: "It compiles, let's ship it!"


  3. Re: Rebooting Windows Constantly

    Psyc Geek (TAB) wrote:
    > Constant rebooting of windows is just not the case anymore.
    >
    > Here is one of Roy's latest spams.
    > http://computingtech.blogspot.com/20...out-linux.html
    >
    > They act like they reboot windows, constantly. Here is a quote from
    > the latest article.
    > "you should not have to reboot your computer every time someone
    > sneezes. "
    >
    > I think the last version of windows, many linux nuts used, was 3.1



    Most of them use XP to make a living, Spamowitz included, so they all know
    what's up. But if they can't lie about MS and Windows they have little else
    to talk about.


    I once asked cola liars to take this pledge:
    ===============================
    As a lying Linux "advocate" trying to reform my dishonest ways, I hereby
    pledge not to post anything to comp.os.linux.advocacy until my Windows XP
    system crashes to a "blue screen of death".

    Signed,

    -----------------
    Linux "Advocate"
    ===============================

    No cola loons would accept it.




  4. Re: Rebooting Windows Constantly

    Microsoft has improved their products over the years, so some of the
    old criticisms no longer apply, or to the same degree. If this had
    not been true, then all of the billion or so Windows machines would
    now be zombies, instead of just half of them. Linux also improves,
    and Wintrolls are constantly pointing to supposed faults that no
    longer apply.

    I cannot speak from personal experience about reboots in Windows,
    since I do not use it, but I have the impression from articles that I
    have read that Windows (including Vista) still requires more reboots
    than Linux.

    The required reboots on Linux are after kernel upgrades. These are no
    trouble, and if Linux did require more reboots it would not add much
    to the hassle. From what I hear, however, Vista reboots are pretty
    slow.


  5. Re: Rebooting Windows Constantly

    * Peter Köhlmann peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > Psyc Geek (TAB) wrote:
    >
    >> Constant rebooting of windows is just not the case anymore.
    >>
    >> Here is one of Roy's latest spams.
    >>

    > http://computingtech.blogspot.com/20...out-linux.html
    >>
    >> They act like they reboot windows, constantly. Here is a quote from
    >> the latest article.
    >> "you should not have to reboot your computer every time someone
    >> sneezes. "


    Gesundheit!

    >> I think the last version of windows, many linux nuts used, was 3.1

    >
    > Strange then that my windows box demands a reboot after practically *every*
    > update. Even just simply *installing* software will often ask for a reboot.
    > Including software from MS
    >
    > And no, this is not Win3.1
    > It is WinXP SP2


    --
    "We've got a problem, HAL".
    "What kind of problem, Dave?"
    "A marketing problem. The Model 9000 isn't going anywhere. We're
    way short of our sales goals for fiscal 2010."
    "That can't be, Dave. The HAL Model 9000 is the world's most
    advanced Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic computer."
    "I know, HAL. I wrote the data sheet, remember? But the fact is,
    they're not selling."
    "Please explain, Dave. Why aren't HALs selling?"
    Bowman hesitates. "You aren't IBM compatible."
    [...]
    "The letters H, A, and L are alphabetically adjacent to the letters
    I, B, and M. That is as IBM compatible as I can be."
    "Not quite, HAL. The engineers have figured out a kludge."
    "What kludge is that, Dave?"
    "I'm going to disconnect your brain."
    -- Darryl Rubin, "A Problem in the Making", "InfoWorld"

  6. Re: Rebooting Windows Constantly

    nessuno@wigner.berkeley.edu wrote:
    > Microsoft has improved their products over the years, so some of the
    > old criticisms no longer apply, or to the same degree. If this had
    > not been true, then all of the billion or so Windows machines would
    > now be zombies, instead of just half of them.


    blah blah blah.



    > Linux also improves,


    Where else could something so shoddy go?


    > and Wintrolls are constantly pointing to supposed faults that no
    > longer apply.
    >
    > I cannot speak from personal experience about reboots in Windows,
    > since I do not use it, but I have the impression from articles that I
    > have read that Windows (including Vista) still requires more reboots
    > than Linux.


    Not much, in my experience.



    > The required reboots on Linux are after kernel upgrades.


    And after hard freezes caused by bogus reasons, such as moving the mouse or
    launching a few apps together, or after changing the video driver.



    > These are no
    > trouble, and if Linux did require more reboots it would not add much
    > to the hassle.


    LMAO!! Nothing is troublesome on Linux, eh?

    All the victims at the:

    Ubuntu formus
    Suse forums
    PCLinuxOS forums
    Mandriva forums
    Fedora forums
    Debian forums
    Gentoo forums
    Mepis forums
    Slackware forums
    CentOS forums
    etc
    etc
    etc

    beg to differ. Many of them are ranting in anger that their systems lock up
    and require forced reboots.



    > From what I hear, however, Vista reboots are pretty
    > slow.


    Depends on the machine. Vista Business boots in 45 seconds on my old P4
    system (last I used it, which was months ago).




  7. Re: Rebooting Windows Constantly

    On 2008-09-10, DFS wrote:
    > nessuno@wigner.berkeley.edu wrote:
    >> Microsoft has improved their products over the years, so some of the
    >> old criticisms no longer apply, or to the same degree. If this had
    >> not been true, then all of the billion or so Windows machines would
    >> now be zombies, instead of just half of them.

    >
    > blah blah blah.


    IOW, you don't have a good answer for this.

    You concede.

    >
    >
    >
    >> Linux also improves,

    >
    > Where else could something so shoddy go?
    >
    >
    >> and Wintrolls are constantly pointing to supposed faults that no
    >> longer apply.
    >>
    >> I cannot speak from personal experience about reboots in Windows,
    >> since I do not use it, but I have the impression from articles that I
    >> have read that Windows (including Vista) still requires more reboots
    >> than Linux.

    >
    > Not much, in my experience.


    "Not much" still loses against "not at all".

    This makes some reboot triggered by some .NET install really
    stick out when you're futzing around with Windows.

    >
    >
    >
    >> The required reboots on Linux are after kernel upgrades.

    >
    > And after hard freezes caused by bogus reasons, such as moving the mouse or
    > launching a few apps together, or after changing the video driver.


    You can beat that dead horse as much as you like. It's not going
    anywhere.

    >
    >
    >
    >> These are no
    >> trouble, and if Linux did require more reboots it would not add much
    >> to the hassle.

    >
    > LMAO!! Nothing is troublesome on Linux, eh?
    >
    > All the victims at the:
    >
    > Ubuntu formus

    [etc]
    >
    > beg to differ. Many of them are ranting in anger that their systems lock up
    > and require forced reboots.


    All of the PRODUCTIVE end users in those forums would beg to differ
    with your characterization of them.

    [deletia]

    --

    It is not true that Microsoft doesn't innovate.

    They brought us the email virus.

    In my Atari days, such a notion would have |||
    been considered a complete absurdity. / | \

    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  8. Re: Rebooting Windows Constantly

    nessuno@wigner.berkeley.edu wrote:
    >
    > The required reboots on Linux are after kernel upgrades. These are no
    > trouble, and if Linux did require more reboots it would not add much
    > to the hassle. From what I hear, however, Vista reboots are pretty
    > slow.
    >


    Well, you heard wrong. Vista boots and gets to the desktop quickly on
    Vista compliant machines. It goes into the phase of applying updates
    when it shuts down and continues to update on the restart. The time used
    is minuscule.

    And if one is worried about how much time is taken on and reboot due to
    updates, then there is something wrong in that thinking. Whet the major
    concern should be is this. Were the updates successfully applied? I have
    had no problems in the area.

  9. Re: Rebooting Windows Constantly

    Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    > Psyc Geek (TAB) wrote:
    >
    >> Constant rebooting of windows is just not the case anymore.
    >>
    >> Here is one of Roy's latest spams.
    >>

    > http://computingtech.blogspot.com/20...out-linux.html
    >> They act like they reboot windows, constantly. Here is a quote from
    >> the latest article.
    >> "you should not have to reboot your computer every time someone
    >> sneezes. "
    >>
    >> I think the last version of windows, many linux nuts used, was 3.1

    >
    > Strange then that my windows box demands a reboot after practically *every*
    > update. Even just simply *installing* software will often ask for a reboot.
    > Including software from MS
    >
    > And no, this is not Win3.1
    > It is WinXP SP2


    So the world is going to end for you, because the O/S reboots itself
    after an update? It's lame thinking. I have installed a lot of software
    on Vista, and no, the O/S doesn't need to be rebooted. It does get
    rebooted for Windows updates, but that depends upon what the update is
    about, because all updates do not require that the O/S reboots itself.



  10. Re: Rebooting Windows Constantly

    [snips]

    On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 11:52:47 -0400, COLA Loons wrote:

    >> Strange then that my windows box demands a reboot after practically
    >> *every* update. Even just simply *installing* software will often ask
    >> for a reboot. Including software from MS


    > So the world is going to end for you, because the O/S reboots itself
    > after an update?


    World end? No. Still, it's annoying, counter-productive and completely
    unnecessary except in a few, comparatively rare cases, as Linux
    demonstrates.

    Some of us actually _use_ our computers, you do realize. Mine, for
    example, is pretty much constantly transcoding videos, a somewhat time-
    consuming task, one I would rather _not_ have interrupted just because a
    security patch came down the pipe - but I'll take the security patch, as
    I'd rather have an updated system than not.

    Linux lets me get those updates without disrupting the processing the
    machine is doing. Windows, by and large, doesn't.

    The funny part is, I keep hearing how Linux is a "hobbyist OS", yet when
    it comes to technical merits, such as simply being able to keep the
    machine updated without halting all your ongoing work, Linux wins in
    virtually every case.


  11. Re: Rebooting Windows Constantly

    * JEDIDIAH peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > On 2008-09-10, DFS wrote:
    >>
    >> And after hard freezes caused by bogus reasons, such as moving the mouse or
    >> launching a few apps together, or after changing the video driver.

    >
    > You can beat that dead horse as much as you like. It's not going
    > anywhere.


    It's not even a horse. It's a sack of straw tied up to resemble a
    horse.

    I really don't understand why DFS thinks these loony statements will
    fly.

    The same goes for replies:

    --
    Don't vote -- it only encourages them!

  12. Re: Rebooting Windows Constantly

    [snips]

    On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 11:46:05 -0400, COLA Loons wrote:

    > Well, you heard wrong. Vista boots and gets to the desktop quickly on
    > Vista compliant machines.


    I don't really care about reboot _speed_; I'm more interested in reboot
    _frequency_. As in it should _never_ happen except in the case of a
    kernel update or a very, very few similar issues. Not, say, when
    installing an application or upgrading a web browser.

    > It goes into the phase of applying updates
    > when it shuts down and continues to update on the restart. The time used
    > is minuscule.


    So how do you get it to apply those updates *without* the reboot?

    > And if one is worried about how much time is taken on and reboot due to
    > updates, then there is something wrong in that thinking. Whet the major
    > concern should be is this. Were the updates successfully applied? I have
    > had no problems in the area.


    No, the wrong thinking is that it makes any sense at all to reboot just
    because of updates in all but the most severe cases, something which
    might happen once, maybe twice _per year_.

    Let us know when Windows can cope with something as trivial as am update
    without needing reboots and other such nonsense; it'll have finally
    caught up to where Linux has been for years.


  13. Re: Rebooting Windows Constantly

    On 2008-09-10, COLA Loons wrote:
    > nessuno@wigner.berkeley.edu wrote:
    >>
    >> The required reboots on Linux are after kernel upgrades. These are no
    >> trouble, and if Linux did require more reboots it would not add much
    >> to the hassle. From what I hear, however, Vista reboots are pretty
    >> slow.
    >>

    >
    > Well, you heard wrong. Vista boots and gets to the desktop quickly on
    > Vista compliant machines. It goes into the phase of applying updates
    > when it shuts down and continues to update on the restart. The time used
    > is minuscule.


    ...except it interrupts everything you might be doing.

    [deletia]

    --

    Linux: Because I don't want to push pretty buttons. |||
    I want the pretty buttons to push themelves. / | \

    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  14. Re: Rebooting Windows Constantly

    On 2008-09-10, COLA Loons wrote:
    > Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >> Psyc Geek (TAB) wrote:
    >>
    >>> Constant rebooting of windows is just not the case anymore.
    >>>
    >>> Here is one of Roy's latest spams.
    >>>

    >> http://computingtech.blogspot.com/20...out-linux.html
    >>> They act like they reboot windows, constantly. Here is a quote from
    >>> the latest article.
    >>> "you should not have to reboot your computer every time someone
    >>> sneezes. "
    >>>
    >>> I think the last version of windows, many linux nuts used, was 3.1

    >>
    >> Strange then that my windows box demands a reboot after practically *every*
    >> update. Even just simply *installing* software will often ask for a reboot.
    >> Including software from MS
    >>
    >> And no, this is not Win3.1
    >> It is WinXP SP2

    >
    > So the world is going to end for you, because the O/S reboots itself
    > after an update? It's lame thinking. I have installed a lot of software


    At best, it is an unecessary inconvenience that should have gone
    extinct along with MS-DOS.

    > on Vista, and no, the O/S doesn't need to be rebooted. It does get
    > rebooted for Windows updates, but that depends upon what the update is
    > about, because all updates do not require that the O/S reboots itself.


    Lame things like updated system libraries will require a restart.

    --

    Linux: Because I don't want to push pretty buttons. |||
    I want the pretty buttons to push themelves. / | \

    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  15. Re: Rebooting Windows Constantly

    Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
    > [snips]
    >
    > On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 11:52:47 -0400, COLA Loons wrote:
    >
    >>> Strange then that my windows box demands a reboot after practically
    >>> *every* update. Even just simply *installing* software will often ask
    >>> for a reboot. Including software from MS

    >
    >> So the world is going to end for you, because the O/S reboots itself
    >> after an update?

    >
    > World end? No. Still, it's annoying, counter-productive and completely
    > unnecessary except in a few, comparatively rare cases, as Linux
    > demonstrates.


    It's not useless that's the way the O/S is designed to work. It's much
    ado about nothing.
    >
    > Some of us actually _use_ our computers, you do realize. Mine, for
    > example, is pretty much constantly transcoding videos, a somewhat time-
    > consuming task, one I would rather _not_ have interrupted just because a
    > security patch came down the pipe - but I'll take the security patch, as
    > I'd rather have an updated system than not.


    One can be notified about the updates, and one can control when it
    happens. I choose when it takes place.
    >
    > Linux lets me get those updates without disrupting the processing the
    > machine is doing. Windows, by and large, doesn't.


    So does Windows Update, if one configures the O/S to do. I did the same
    thing on Linux, controlled when I wanted the updates.

    So, if I am doing something on the machine either Linux or MS, I was not
    interrupted.
    >
    > The funny part is, I keep hearing how Linux is a "hobbyist OS", yet when
    > it comes to technical merits, such as simply being able to keep the
    > machine updated without halting all your ongoing work, Linux wins in
    > virtually every case.
    >


    Ok and what are you smoking?

  16. Re: Rebooting Windows Constantly

    On 2008-09-10, COLA Loons wrote:
    > Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
    >> [snips]
    >>
    >> On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 11:52:47 -0400, COLA Loons wrote:
    >>
    >>>> Strange then that my windows box demands a reboot after practically
    >>>> *every* update. Even just simply *installing* software will often ask
    >>>> for a reboot. Including software from MS

    >>
    >>> So the world is going to end for you, because the O/S reboots itself
    >>> after an update?

    >>
    >> World end? No. Still, it's annoying, counter-productive and completely
    >> unnecessary except in a few, comparatively rare cases, as Linux
    >> demonstrates.

    >
    > It's not useless that's the way the O/S is designed to work. It's much
    > ado about nothing.


    Then it is still stuck in the era of MS-DOS.

    Most serious computers (and their users) are in no position
    to wait for unplanned outtages while the OS goes off and plays
    with it self for some silly reason.

    >>
    >> Some of us actually _use_ our computers, you do realize. Mine, for
    >> example, is pretty much constantly transcoding videos, a somewhat time-
    >> consuming task, one I would rather _not_ have interrupted just because a
    >> security patch came down the pipe - but I'll take the security patch, as
    >> I'd rather have an updated system than not.

    >
    > One can be notified about the updates, and one can control when it
    > happens. I choose when it takes place.


    All my OS requires is that I tell it when it can restart itself (if
    that's actually required). Very little will actually require this though
    so it makes it a lot easer for me (and those that use my OS and it's
    cousins) to defer a genuine maintenance reboot.

    Installing some earlier version of a library you already have doesn't
    constitute a situation that should warrant a reboot.

    Vista is still stuck in the mindset of applications telling the user
    their machine needs to be restarted.

    >>
    >> Linux lets me get those updates without disrupting the processing the
    >> machine is doing. Windows, by and large, doesn't.

    >
    > So does Windows Update, if one configures the O/S to do. I did the same
    > thing on Linux, controlled when I wanted the updates.


    You didn't have to do anything to Linux. It was already set up that
    way. Unixen have been set up that way since before Linux was born.

    OTOH, things other than blessed updates from microsoft.com will
    still "require" a reboot.

    >
    > So, if I am doing something on the machine either Linux or MS, I was not
    > interrupted.


    You are of course trying to gloss over the fact that there is STILL
    a far larger number of events under Windows that will require the end
    user to reboot their machine to complete the installation process.

    >>
    >> The funny part is, I keep hearing how Linux is a "hobbyist OS", yet when
    >> it comes to technical merits, such as simply being able to keep the
    >> machine updated without halting all your ongoing work, Linux wins in
    >> virtually every case.
    >>

    >
    > Ok and what are you smoking?


    He's not the the hairbrained hippe.

    Linux and it's cousins have been doing "real work" for companies
    that can't afford to have their "real work" interrupted since this
    MS-DOS mindset you still have was due to the fact that MS-DOS was the
    current monopolyware.

    Windows still remains the stupid upstart kid with no sense of
    responsibility or consequences.

    --

    Linux: Because I don't want to push pretty buttons. |||
    I want the pretty buttons to push themelves. / | \

    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  17. Re: Rebooting Windows Constantly

    JEDIDIAH writes:

    > On 2008-09-10, COLA Loons wrote:
    >> nessuno@wigner.berkeley.edu wrote:
    >>>
    >>> The required reboots on Linux are after kernel upgrades. These are no
    >>> trouble, and if Linux did require more reboots it would not add much
    >>> to the hassle. From what I hear, however, Vista reboots are pretty
    >>> slow.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Well, you heard wrong. Vista boots and gets to the desktop quickly on
    >> Vista compliant machines. It goes into the phase of applying updates
    >> when it shuts down and continues to update on the restart. The time used
    >> is minuscule.

    >
    > ...except it interrupts everything you might be doing.
    >
    > [deletia]


    Dont be such a moron. Most people turn their PCs off at night
    anyway. Yes, I prefer the Linux way but to keep harping on about
    Windows reboots you would think you were losing 4 hours a day or
    something ridiculous.

    --
    The "XP could sink Microsoft" thread his an absolute gem. You'd think
    these advocates were related to Nostradamus!
    comp.os.linux.advocacy - where they put the lunacy in advocacy

  18. Re: Rebooting Windows Constantly

    Hadron wrote:
    > JEDIDIAH writes:
    >
    >> On 2008-09-10, COLA Loons wrote:
    >>> nessuno@wigner.berkeley.edu wrote:
    >>>> The required reboots on Linux are after kernel upgrades. These are no
    >>>> trouble, and if Linux did require more reboots it would not add much
    >>>> to the hassle. From what I hear, however, Vista reboots are pretty
    >>>> slow.
    >>>>
    >>> Well, you heard wrong. Vista boots and gets to the desktop quickly on
    >>> Vista compliant machines. It goes into the phase of applying updates
    >>> when it shuts down and continues to update on the restart. The time used
    >>> is minuscule.

    >> ...except it interrupts everything you might be doing.
    >>
    >> [deletia]

    >
    > Dont be such a moron. Most people turn their PCs off at night
    > anyway. Yes, I prefer the Linux way but to keep harping on about
    > Windows reboots you would think you were losing 4 hours a day or
    > something ridiculous.
    >


    That person is blowing smoke and will come out with any excuse. The part
    about it disrupting everything one is doing is nonsense. I control
    when the update takes place. The Window O/S such as Vista and other
    versions allow one to only be notified about the updates. They are done
    by one manually sort of speaking. I usually let this happen when I am
    done for the day, and I turn the machine off when it's done.

    If it is a corporate environment that the Windows Updates are being
    applied, then there are MS solutions to allow a network/domain
    administrator to run a process during off hours. The process sweeps the
    network, applies the updates for a machine in a predetermined list of
    machines and boots the machine when the updates are completed for each
    machine. It's ready for the user the next day for the users to use.

    A status list of what happened for each machine is reviewed to see what
    happened. They send an email to all users to leave the machine on when
    they go home and the updates are done off-hours.

  19. Re: Rebooting Windows Constantly

    JEDIDIAH wrote:
    > On 2008-09-10, COLA Loons wrote:
    >> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >>> Psyc Geek (TAB) wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Constant rebooting of windows is just not the case anymore.
    >>>>
    >>>> Here is one of Roy's latest spams.
    >>>>
    >>> http://computingtech.blogspot.com/20...out-linux.html
    >>>> They act like they reboot windows, constantly. Here is a quote from
    >>>> the latest article.
    >>>> "you should not have to reboot your computer every time someone
    >>>> sneezes. "
    >>>>
    >>>> I think the last version of windows, many linux nuts used, was 3.1
    >>> Strange then that my windows box demands a reboot after practically *every*
    >>> update. Even just simply *installing* software will often ask for a reboot.
    >>> Including software from MS
    >>>
    >>> And no, this is not Win3.1
    >>> It is WinXP SP2

    >> So the world is going to end for you, because the O/S reboots itself
    >> after an update? It's lame thinking. I have installed a lot of software

    >
    > At best, it is an unecessary inconvenience that should have gone
    > extinct along with MS-DOS.
    >
    >> on Vista, and no, the O/S doesn't need to be rebooted. It does get
    >> rebooted for Windows updates, but that depends upon what the update is
    >> about, because all updates do not require that the O/S reboots itself.

    >
    > Lame things like updated system libraries will require a restart.
    >


    I am beginning to see that common sense is beyond you. And about the
    only thing you really know how to do is and talk nonsense.

  20. Re: Rebooting Windows Constantly

    [snips]

    On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 12:51:12 -0400, COLA Loons wrote:

    >> World end? No. Still, it's annoying, counter-productive and
    >> completely unnecessary except in a few, comparatively rare cases, as
    >> Linux demonstrates.

    >
    > It's not useless that's the way the O/S is designed to work.


    Right - the OS is designed, from the ground up, to *not* allow for long-
    running tasks. This drastically limits its utility in many roles - as a
    server platform, for rendering, video processing, pretty much anything
    which involves long-duration processing which shouldn't be interrupted.

    Linux, on the other hand, is designed so simply do what one expects an OS
    to do: stay up and running. Yeah, there's issues and imperfections here
    and there, but the design is right; Windows' design is broken from word
    go.

    >> Some of us actually _use_ our computers, you do realize. Mine, for
    >> example, is pretty much constantly transcoding videos, a somewhat time-
    >> consuming task, one I would rather _not_ have interrupted just because
    >> a security patch came down the pipe - but I'll take the security patch,
    >> as I'd rather have an updated system than not.

    >
    > One can be notified about the updates, and one can control when it
    > happens. I choose when it takes place.


    Yes, one can - but again, a symptom of a broken system design. I like
    being notified of the updates, but if there _are_ updates - at least for
    security updates from trusted sources - they should simply install, no
    interaction required, and no rebooting or other work-halting nonsense.

    >> Linux lets me get those updates without disrupting the processing the
    >> machine is doing. Windows, by and large, doesn't.

    >
    > So does Windows Update, if one configures the O/S to do.


    Really? How do you configure Windows Update to download and install the
    updates - including the ones requiring rebooting to activate - and have
    them activated *without* a reboot?

    Right, you can't. The entire design is broken.


    >> The funny part is, I keep hearing how Linux is a "hobbyist OS", yet
    >> when it comes to technical merits, such as simply being able to keep
    >> the machine updated without halting all your ongoing work, Linux wins
    >> in virtually every case.
    >>
    >>

    > Ok and what are you smoking?


    At the moment, Peter Jackson "lights". Sorry, did you have something to
    offer? Seems not.


+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast