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