From a supposed "security expert"MacBytes said:
Link: Switching to Mac after 15 years of Windows, security expert says he's 'too stupid to use Macs'
Posted on MacBytes.com
Approved by Mudbug
So true. Rebooting after upgrading is the sole major problem that Winblowz and X share. If only someone could write a dual-kernal mod for X (it duplicates the machine, and reboots one kernal in a VM while the other keeps the system alive, and then they swap over and the old one is killed off as soon as it's finished whatever tasks it was given)shamino said:Now, if only Apple could get their software updates to work without rebooting. On my Linux PC, I can upgrade everything except for the kernel and the boot-drive's kernel module without a reboot. I've successfully upgraded everything else, inclduing video drivers, SCSI drivers (for non-boot drives), network drivers, and all kinds of user- and server-apps, without any rebooting. Apple (and Microsoft, for that matter) should be capable of the same.
And there's no reason Apple can't do this. OS X is based on a Mach-derived microkernel. It should be possible to repalce everything (except for the microkernel itself) without rebooting. But I'd be satisfied if they'd just do as well as Linux in this regard.greatdevourer said:So true. Rebooting after upgrading is the sole major problem that Winblowz and X share. If only someone could write a dual-kernal mod for X (it duplicates the machine, and reboots one kernal in a VM while the other keeps the system alive, and then they swap over and the old one is killed off as soon as it's finished whatever tasks it was given)
shamino said:And there's no reason Apple can't do this. OS X is based on a Mach-derived microkernel. It should be possible to repalce everything (except for the microkernel itself) without rebooting. But I'd be satisfied if they'd just do as well as Linux in this regard.
If it was "once every few months", I wouldn't care. But it's far more often than that.nagromme said:What is the harm of rebooting for system updates? I couldn't care less if I have to restart once every few months or not.
Please don't begin your post with insults and abuse. You just make everybody ignore the rest of your message.SPUY767 said:So what, you can keep you uptime clock running and try to break a record?
And it is a very bad design if any application interfaces that tightly with the OS. One of the problems with security and stability these days is that every two-bit application vendor wants to install system updates in order to fix a typo on a menubar.SPUY767 said:When changes are made to the operating systems, or any applications that interface tightly with the Operating System, the system should be rebooted.
I've never had "erratic" behavior from upgrading applications on my Linux boxes.SPUY767 said:The 45 seconds it takes my machine to reboot are not going to kink up my day all that bad; well, at least not as bad as some erratic behavior might.
This is a complete non-sequitor. The ability to perform hitless upgrades has absolutely nothing to do with the user interface.SPUY767 said:The state of linux right now, it pretty crappy despite the flames that I will have to endure for saying that. Sure, it's more stable tan windows, but if you haven't had at least some rudimentary college-level computer science classes, you're not going to be able to use it.
Well, then you're just special. Or you're installing buggy pre-release kernels. I push my Linux boxes hard every single day, and they have never crashed, even once. My hard drives are exported via NFS, and are accessed by 3-5 Sun boxes for hours at a time. Meanwhile, I'm editing, compiling and testing code locally (hitting many servers all over my office LAN.) There are two or three other people here who also use this computer for their work. Although it slows down when memory gets overcommitted, it keeps on running.SPUY767 said:And it's not nearly as stable as it's purported to be. I have written java scripts that have crashed linux, and they live in a sandbox. Linux has a way to go yet.
Just as an FYI the latest version of Windows Installer that came out about a month or two ago has DRASTICLY decreased the number of required reboots. The last 3 IE Updates (Even though the only reason I use IE anymore is for said updates.) has not required a reboot. They are getting closer to not needing to reboot at all. I fully expect that Vista will bring that down to almost nothing other then Service Packs. As for reboots. In my environment its doesnt really matter. Out SMS server can power on every computer in the office, install whatever patches are necessary, and power off so by the time morning comes no one even knows that a patch has even been installed. we implimented this in early Spring. Works like a dream. God I love the wake on LAN feature.shamino said:If it was "once every few months", I wouldn't care. But it's far more often than that.
Why should a patch to a web browser force a reboot? Or any application installation/update?
It's not Apple's fault that Google is sending an "incorrect password" error. So blame Google.GodBless said:Edit: I mean how silly the computer is for lying and telling me that I had the wrong password. I think Apple needs better programmers on their Mail application team. In this case I was not the problem, the computer was.