how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
 reub2000Premium
join:2001-12-28
Evanston, IL | reply to nwrickert
Re: PCWorld:Why Linux on the Desktop Is Dead said by nwrickert:said by DarkSithPro:I spent a month experiencing Linux as a desktop OS. What I learned from the 30 Days With Ubuntu Linux experiment is that Linux is, in fact, capable of being a desktop OS. But, the whole 30 days felt like I was swimming upstream--constantly tinkering and finding workarounds to get everyday tasks done. What I have learnt from occasionally booting Windows, is that using WIndows is like swimming upstream - constantly tinkering and finding workarounds to get everyday tasks done. I guess it depends on what kind of every day tasks you need to do. Not to mention that windows does stupid **** like overwriting grub or not supporting extX filesystems.
--
My pbase gallery | |
 nwrickertsand groperPremium,MVM
join:2004-09-04
Geneva, IL
kudos:7
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| said by reub2000:Not to mention that windows does stupid **** like overwriting grub or not supporting extX filesystems.
Imagine if you could install Windows on an ext4 file system. You would be able to run updates, and almost never have to reboot the computer to complete the updating.
--
AT&T Uverse; Zyxel NBG334W router (behind the 2wire gateway); openSuSE 12.1; firefox 11.0 | |
| said by nwrickert:
Imagine if you could install Windows on an ext4 file system. You would be able to run updates, and almost never have to reboot the computer to complete the updating.
Using EXT2,3,4, rsfs, is not going to change the ability to update with out reboots.completely. thats the way the Linux evironment works v. the way something else... file permissions is one issue, but the way an OS loads drivers and other things and its vastly different in Linux, BSD, and other OS... | |
 JohnInSJPremium
join:2003-09-22
San Jose, CA
 ·PHONE POWER
 ·Comcast
| said by TuxRaiderPen: said by nwrickert:
Imagine if you could install Windows on an ext4 file system. You would be able to run updates, and almost never have to reboot the computer to complete the updating.
Using EXT2,3,4, rsfs, is not going to change the ability to update with out reboots.completely. thats the way the Linux evironment works v. the way something else... file permissions is one issue, but the way an OS loads drivers and other things and its vastly different in Linux, BSD, and other OS... My Ubuntu install wants to reboot after some kernel patches. I guess the magic failed. 
You *can* do updates in Windows and MacOS without reboots, unless the update is to something that can't be unloaded/reloaded. Just like Linux.
--
My place : »www.schettino.us | |
nwrickertsand groperPremium,MVM
join:2004-09-04
Geneva, IL
kudos:7 Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to TuxRaiderPen
said by TuxRaiderPen:Using EXT2,3,4, rsfs, is not going to change the ability to update with out reboots.completely. thats the way the Linux evironment works v. the way something else...
No, it is mostly a file system issue.
In Windows, you cannot update a file that is in use.
In linux, you can't either. But you can unlink the file in use, and put a replacement in the file system so that the next use of that file name will get the new version.
Updating Windows requires creating a task list of file updates to be made early in the next boot cycle before any application begins using that file. That's never needed with a linux or unix update, because of the different file system design. Sure, you might still want to reboot so that you start using the new versions. But the updating is complete even without a reboot, whereas it is not complete in Windows.
--
AT&T Uverse; Zyxel NBG334W router (behind the 2wire gateway); openSuSE 12.1; firefox 11.0 | | |
|
davePremium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:8 | said by nwrickert:In Windows, you cannot update a file that is in use. That's because the OS gives app code a *choice* in the matter, and most code that opens a file for reading is quite keen to request that no-one else be allowed to write to it while they're reading it. Or delete it while they're reading it.
It's not that NTFS absolutely prohibits process B from deleting a file that process A has open: it is that the programmer of A didn't want that to happen (or, this being Windows, I grant you that "didn't RTFM" is equally likely. Not that Linux programmers seem to RTFM more).
In linux, you can't either. But you can unlink the file in use, and put a replacement in the file system so that the next use of that file name will get the new version.
Sure, you might still want to reboot so that you start using the new versions. But the updating is complete even without a reboot, whereas it is not complete in Windows.
| |
|
