Very Computer

Hi, LinuxUniverse!

Yesterday was my luck day.  Date: 9-9-99
I got one NT admin tried Linux and helped
installed it on his office machine. His first
word, "God!  it  can boot this fast?"
His NT on the same machine boots in almost
5 minutes.  With Linux it  only took 1.5 min.
The same number of services were started.
Now he's getting hooked.

Ferdinand

Quote:> Hi, LinuxUniverse!

> Yesterday was my luck day.  Date: 9-9-99
> I got one NT admin tried Linux and helped
> installed it on his office machine. His first
> word, "God!  it  can boot this fast?"
> His NT on the same machine boots in almost
> 5 minutes.  With Linux it  only took 1.5 min.
> The same number of services were started.
> Now he's getting hooked.

As a frequent (almost exclusive) user of NT (as opposed to Win9x),
reboot times are of so little concern to me that they could take an hour
and I wouldn't care.  Why?  Because NT has to be rebooted so
infrequently, unless it's running on *hardware, that it is totally
irrelevant.

I'm assuming the 1.5 minutes figure is significant because Linux spends
a lot of time being rebooted?

Far from it.  Typical up times for Linux is measured in months if not
years.  The reason boot time is significant is if Linux is going to be used
on home systems in place of Windows 9x.   A typical home user will boot up
the machine, do so work, and then power it off when done.   The difference
between 5 minutes and 1.5 minutes can be important to a user like that.

Gary

Get real. NT boxes have to be rebooted for all sorts of changes in
configurations. With linux these changes can be done on the fly without
rebooting. The only time I reboot a linux system is to change the
kernel, install new hardware or to test some new boot sequence.

Blaming software problems on hardware was used back when IBM was the
dominate computer company. The old joke goes

How many IBM programers does it take to fix a problem?

none, It's a hardware problem!

Now, "IBM programers" can be changed to "NT sys admins" or "WinTrolls"
but the excuse works as well for microsoft as it did for IBM.

Cute.  Doesn't change the fact that NT, on decent hardware, is rock-
solid, and on *hardware, well, you get what you deserve. :)

As to "have to be rebooted for all sorts of things", that, too, is
changing.  Mind you, I rarely had to reboot NT anyways, other than when
installing or removing hardware - which, on a typical PC, requires
powering down, so I'm not sure how Linux wins in this area - so I'm not
sure just how frequent this is supposed to be.

Perhaps you're speaking of things such as installing some application
which wants to update some locked system DLL, and as such, says "You
must reboot before using this application".

Sadly, this is a vendor problem for the most part.  First, it's actually
pretty rate to _require_ an update of a system DLL; a lot of vendors
(usually small-time operations or individuals, but not always) forget to
do proper version and date checking, so they update things needlessly -
and sometimes incorrectly.  I've also seen cases where incorrect use of
tools such as SourceSafe led to bogus updates and reboot requests.

And, lastly, NT allows you to "slide one under" existing DLLs.  It's a
sadly little known way to update system and other locked DLLs without
requiring reboots.

In any case, I so rarely have to reboot NT that the whole issue is moot
from my standpoint.

<SNIP> Some stuff about WinNT and Linuw as usual </SNIP>

Quote:> And, lastly, NT allows you to "slide one under" existing DLLs.  It's a
> sadly little known way to update system and other locked DLLs without
> requiring reboots.

How do you do that ?

Quote:> In any case, I so rarely have to reboot NT that the whole issue is moot
> from my standpoint.

Paul 'Z' Ewande who always like to learn new stuff

That's one of the advantages of Linux.  The package manager is part of any
standard distribution.    If  a vender did ship a copy of   a library package
along with their product, the package manager will do version and dependency
checks  and prevent an incompatable library from being installed.  Linux also
allows multiple versions of a library to be installed on one system.  The
application then chooses (based on how it was linked) which version it will
use.

Gary

internet.fr says...

The problem with trying to update a DLL is that it may be locked; that
is, you can't delete it.  You can, however, generally rename it.

If you want to update a DLL which may be locked, take a three-step
process:

1) Try to delete it then copy in the new one.
2) If that fails, rename the old one then copy in the new one.
3) If that fails, schedule for update on boot.

Note that if you succeed in the rename process, you can add a "remove on
reboot" for the old version, thus avoiding leaving a mess behind.

Blame where blame is due.  When you can show me a version of Linux
that'll run rock-solid *no matter* what hardrware I  throw at it - a
dead HD, a fried CPU, etc - then get back to me.

Quote:> > As to "have to be rebooted for all sorts of things", that, too, is
> > changing.  Mind you, I rarely had to reboot NT anyways, other than when
> > installing or removing hardware - which, on a typical PC, requires
> > powering down, so I'm not sure how Linux wins in this area - so I'm not
> > sure just how frequent this is supposed to be.

> ^^^^ then you may want to stick to posting about what you are sure of.

Gee, did I *say* I knew how Linux fared here?  No, I didn't.  Pay
attention, Brainiac.

Quote:> Yes, but for win2000, you will need to reboot for about 20 different
> changes (from the mouth of MS and posted earlier in the newsgroup).

Down from about 90 in previous versions.  Hmm; I did say it was getting
better, didn't I? :)

Quote:> Linux only needs reboots for 1 and that is installing a new kernel.
> Linux wins in that it can stay up and available more than windows.

Well, bully and good!

Quote:> > Sadly, this is a vendor problem for the most part.  First, it's actually

> Now blaming the vendor.

You have a problem with blaming the people responsible?  Must be an
interesting world you live in.  "George screwed up - so let's can
Frank."

Bizarre.

Quote:> > And, lastly, NT allows you to "slide one under" existing DLLs.  It's a
> > sadly little known way to update system and other locked DLLs without
> > requiring reboots.

> Never seen a install program ask this...

Nor would it.  If and when it happens, it would be invisible to the
user.

Quote:> > In any case, I so rarely have to reboot NT that the whole issue is moot
> > from my standpoint.

> Try running an NT server in a fast changing environment that requires as
> close to 100% up time as possible. you will find that the point is *FAR*
> from moot from an administration standpoint

If you have to mangle your server config often enough for this sort of
thing to be a problem, I'd tend to suspect what you really need is to
hire a net admin who knows what he's doing.

Good luck with that one, Matt's got tunnel vision.

Quote:>> Yes, but for win2000, you will need to reboot for about 20 different
>> changes (from the mouth of MS and posted earlier in the newsgroup).

>Down from about 90 in previous versions.  Hmm; I did say it was getting
>better, didn't I? :)

Actually, I found NT4 improved on that count after SP4 too.  The thing might
ask for a reboot but if you ignore it the next registry refresh started the
service or device anyway.

Quote:>> Linux only needs reboots for 1 and that is installing a new kernel.
>> Linux wins in that it can stay up and available more than windows.

>Well, bully and good!

Please keep in mind, that they don't count switching to single user mode
(thereby being useless to network users) and returning to multi user mode as
rebooting, even though switching an init level is by definition
reinitializing the system. The system is just as unavailable during that
process as if it rebooted.

Quote:>> > Sadly, this is a vendor problem for the most part.  First, it's
actually

>> Now blaming the vendor.

>You have a problem with blaming the people responsible?  Must be an
>interesting world you live in.  "George screwed up - so let's can
>Frank."

>Bizarre.

>> > And, lastly, NT allows you to "slide one under" existing DLLs.  It's a
>> > sadly little known way to update system and other locked DLLs without
>> > requiring reboots.

>> Never seen a install program ask this...

>Nor would it.  If and when it happens, it would be invisible to the
>user.

>> > In any case, I so rarely have to reboot NT that the whole issue is moot
>> > from my standpoint.

>> Try running an NT server in a fast changing environment that requires as
>> close to 100% up time as possible. you will find that the point is *FAR*
>> from moot from an administration standpoint

>If you have to mangle your server config often enough for this sort of
>thing to be a problem, I'd tend to suspect what you really need is to
>hire a net admin who knows what he's doing.

ROTFLOLHS.

I guess he never heard:

Poor Prior Planning begets*Poor Performance.

     ``kill -HUP 1'' is reinitializing the system, but if you call that
     a reboot I think that you won't even find any NT advocates who agree
     with you.

     And you certainly don't have to take the machine to singleuser to
     upgrade things other than the kernel, unless the package management
     program is the Unix equivalent of ``you need to reboot now [Yes]
     [Ok]''.

                   ____
     david parsons \bi/ A firm believer in just leaving the NT and Unix
                    \/                                 machines running.

See, blaming the hardware AGAIN!

Quote:

> As to "have to be rebooted for all sorts of things", that, too, is
> changing.  Mind you, I rarely had to reboot NT anyways, other than when
> installing or removing hardware - which, on a typical PC, requires
> powering down, so I'm not sure how Linux wins in this area - so I'm not
> sure just how frequent this is supposed to be.

^^^^ then you may want to stick to posting about what you are sure of.

Yes, but for win2000, you will need to reboot for about 20 different
changes (from the mouth of MS and posted earlier in the newsgroup).
Linux only needs reboots for 1 and that is installing a new kernel.
Linux wins in that it can stay up and available more than windows.

Quote:> Perhaps you're speaking of things such as installing some application
> which wants to update some locked system DLL, and as such, says "You
> must reboot before using this application".

I'm talking updating networking information.

Quote:

> Sadly, this is a vendor problem for the most part.  First, it's actually

Now blaming the vendor.

Quote:> pretty rate to _require_ an update of a system DLL; a lot of vendors
> (usually small-time operations or individuals, but not always) forget to
> do proper version and date checking, so they update things needlessly -
> and sometimes incorrectly.  I've also seen cases where incorrect use of
> tools such as SourceSafe led to bogus updates and reboot requests.

Haven't seen this problem with linux. If an app has a problem, it's the
apps problem and the OS stays up and running.

Quote:> And, lastly, NT allows you to "slide one under" existing DLLs.  It's a
> sadly little known way to update system and other locked DLLs without
> requiring reboots.

Never seen a install program ask this...

Quote:

> In any case, I so rarely have to reboot NT that the whole issue is moot
> from my standpoint.

Try running an NT server in a fast changing environment that requires as
close to 100% up time as possible. you will find that the point is *FAR*
from moot from an administration standpoint

:> Now blaming the vendor.
: You have a problem with blaming the people responsible?  Must be an
: interesting world you live in.  "George screwed up - so let's can
: Frank."
: Bizarre.

The OS should protect the user from bad vendors.

cu bart

Name one that allows third party software that does.

Quote:>cu bart

Dark, spec in distance.  That's the light at the end of the tunnel Matt.

Quote:

>> Actually, I found NT4 improved on that count after SP4 too.  The thing
might
>> ask for a reboot but if you ignore it the next registry refresh started
the
>> service or device anyway.

>Wow, this make me feel REAL GOOD about NT! If you can't believe what it
>tells you to do, what can you believe from the OS?

Pay attention down in your dark hole. Those prompts are generated by scripts
that are mostly downward compatible to Win9x and most times give you the
CHOICE of rebooting or not.

Quote:

>> >> Linux only needs reboots for 1 and that is installing a new kernel.
>> >> Linux wins in that it can stay up and available more than windows.

>> >Well, bully and good!

>> Please keep in mind, that they don't count switching to single user mode
>> (thereby being useless to network users) and returning to multi user mode
as
>> rebooting, even though switching an init level is by definition
>> reinitializing the system. The system is just as unavailable during that
>> process as if it rebooted.

>I never have to switch to single user mode. At worst I have to
>reinitialize a single process, taking far less time than an NT reboot.

So you don't really administer anything huh?

Quote:

>> >> > Sadly, this is a vendor problem for the most part.  First, it's
>> actually

>> >> Now blaming the vendor.

>> >You have a problem with blaming the people responsible?  Must be an
>> >interesting world you live in.  "George screwed up - so let's can
>> >Frank."

>> >Bizarre.

>I blame where blame is due... WINDOWS... Until MS accepts the fact that
>MS products are flawed they will never improve. This blaming hardware
>and vendors is just blowing smoke to hide real flaws in the software.

Matt, if you ever open your eyes all you'll see are feathers.