Slashdot Mirror
Vista To Be Updated Without Reboots
UltimaGuy writes "Microsoft is working on a new feature for Windows Vista, known as Restart Manager, which will update parts of the operating system or applications without having to reboot the entire machine. From the article: 'If a part of an application, or the operating system itself, needs to updated, the Installer will call the Restart Manager, which looks to see if it can clear that part of the system so that it can be updated. If it can do that, it does, and that happens without a reboot.'"
There is no reboot, just a breif BSOD, then you're back at teh login screen.
Are you...Are you some kind of genius?
No, ma'am, I'm just a regular Slashdot reader.
Part of the problem has always been that their DLL manager couldn't clean itself up without a reboot.
OCO is Loco
So, with this new feature, will windows be ready for the desktop? Because it is years now that we hear "this year is THE year, it is ready for the desktop !"
Linux: Because rebooting is for adding hardware.
...of the new Restart Manager is the Dolby Stereo 5.1 system. It checks whether it can update without reboot, sees that there's no fucking way, then plays a sound behind your back - you turn and presto! - no reeboot needed!
How is this new, my {Unix| Mac| Linux} system has done this for years
Your mac most definitely has not done this for years. Even updating Safari requires a reboot on OSX. My mac can't go a week without Software Update asking for a reboot.
I dub the parent comment "Welcome to the flame of today". This isn't about unix, nor is it about competing with Unix. This is about fixing a long-standing user complaint. Why must there always be a comparison? Another fine example of "it doesn't matter how many problems get fixed, we'll be here to bitch about it anyway"
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
They are typically called System Administrators.
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
Look, we ain't talking about Unix or Linux here, we are talking about Windows.
Windows wasn't able to do this before, now it is.
What with the kid that keeps thinking that Windows and UNIX are the same and features in each have to mirror each other.
I wish the hell they would just make the the damned thing more stable in the first place.
Microsoft acts like a kid who won't eat his vegetables, won't do his homework, won't clean up after himself and won't take out the garbage and yells, "Hey, hey Ma look! I can balance a beachball on my nose! Aren't you proud of what a clever boy I am?"
I'd like to take Billg by the hair and tell him, "No Windows Vista for you young man until you fix all the broken crap in XP! And stop making faces at cousin Linus."
Insert witty sig here.
Why is it that every Microsoft solution involves a "manager"? They never seem to get to the point and just fix a problem. Instead, we get these grandiose stacks of hierarchy. It's like the French government is behind every design decision.
Same thing you do now - read and post to Slashdot!
What's with the kid that always crosses the finish line last and somehow always gets perceived as the leader?
Why does every topic have to come down to politics and the Bush administration?
Now if they could only make it so I don't have to restart Firefox every time I install a new extension.
Oops, wrong company...
But seriously, why do people criticize Microsoft so much for requiring occasional reboots when a much simpler application, Firefox, requires a restart every time an extension is installed. It seems like a browser extension would be much easier to load on-the-fly than an update to a core part of an operating system, so why not harp on Firefox? Is it because it isn't a Microsoft product? There are plenty of threads in this story's comments bashing Microsoft, saying it's about time they got their act together regarding reboots, etc. But what if Mozilla suddenly announced Firefox 1.5.1 would be able to load extensions on-the-fly? Everyone would cheer for Firefox and sing praises of such an innovative new feature. This story just reminded me of the double standard regarding Microsoft and, well, everyone that isn't Microsoft.
This new Windows feature sounds cool and it doesn't. I don't really care about rebooting, to be honest. It takes 30 seconds of my time (big deal). Stop adding things like this to Vista and just get it done and shipped. I'm still not going to use Vista for moral (DRM) reasons, but still... there must be some people who want it done sooner rather than later.
-William Brendel
Yes, well, with today's Unix infrastructure you can do remote server access, but can you do remote *desktop* access?
Sure you can adapt server tools like X11 to do remote access, but then remote desktop involves more: can you see your local hard drive from the applications on the desktop machine that you're remoting into? Can you see your local printer, so the printouts come where you are by default and not on the printer that is connected to the remote PC? Can you hear sounds played by applications when you remote into a PC?
Same thing with fast user switching... many people said, on Linux you have long been able to open many virtual consoles under different identities... Just Ctrl+Fn between them... Ah yes but what happens when you switch consoles? Notice how it doesn't ask for your password? Which makes it applicable in many settings, contrary to the Mac or Windows versions of fast user switching which do ask for password. Feature comes in late, but right.
As to changing OS components while running... Sure, Linux has had kernel modules, FreeBSD has had a microkernel... but is there a tool to automate dependency checking, to see which services need to be shut down, to actually shut them down / unload modules, and then relaunch services?
Unix OS's "can do" a lot of things, if you accept that many of the capabilities are pushed out of the OS onto the end-user. Actually if you start thinking this way, coding pure assembly in kernel mode actually has the most features!!
Except this already happens anyway. When a library is replaced the original is deleted, but the content still hangs around until all programs that rely on that library close, at which point the file system deletes the content.
All programs that start after library has been updated use the updated version.
The main issue is that in windows, two files can not exist under the same name (no concept of linking). (well, sort of. I am not sure if NTFS streams can be used for this.)
badness 10000
What happens when you upgrade a package?
When an opened file is removed from the file system, its directory entry is removed, but the inode stays on disk as long as the file stays open. So old libraries remain on disk as long as old programs are using them, which essentially creates a parallel world of different library versions---one accessible from the file system, and the other accessible from existing running programs with open file descriptors. When the program restarts, it then uses the new library.
I once had a signature.