Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A Look At The Most Promising Next-Gen Linux Software Update Mechanisms

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    Originally posted by sdack View Post
    Or perhaps RedHat has become just as incapable as Microsoft. Ever thought about that?
    does it feel sweeter when you say 'sugar'?

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by pal666 View Post
      it is obvious that redhat management is smarter than you. rpm does not require reboot by itself, but some software can't survive its own reboot, so it is safer to do it in preboot environment
      *lol* You are absolutely right in assuming that we've always had reboots, but it's about reducing reboots. Yet you believe what RedHat is doing has to be right, because it's RedHat who is doing it. This is one of the oldest fallacies there are.

      Just tell me at which point you threw out system uptime in favour of getting the latest software and accepted reboots as part of your regular maintenance, because this is what you've done.

      And of course I must be living in an alternative universe, because what other reason could I have to disagree? Next thing you'll be telling me is that I'm unworthy of RedHat's glorious creations.

      The more RedHat becomes like Microsoft the more its users become like Windows users. Think on that on.

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by pal666 View Post
        does it feel sweeter when you say 'sugar'?
        You don't believe RedHat could ever become like Microsoft?

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by johanb View Post

          Newer != better

          Also, C11 is a thing if you believe that newer is better.
          Which is not true for C++ and rust.

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by pal666 View Post
            it is obvious that redhat management is smarter than you. rpm does not require reboot by itself, but some software can't survive its own reboot, so it is safer to do it in preboot environment
            Management that is smarter than the engineers, listen to yourself :L. The intent of the managers is to direct workflow not to code :P. Unless the managers became such by being good engineers. Seldom does that happen today(atleast in Europe/North America.)

            What are you talking about with this preboot stuff? I come from gentoo land and most packages follow a simple scheme for installation. Special exceptions being the c library, *dev, X11's xf86-input* stuff, and bios updates which require booting into POST. I only reboot because I am too lazy to type a few commands to update the kernel image on the fly and modprobe everything else in.

            So what are these one percent of cases that big Management companies seem to care so much about? It's not like their flashing their board's bios and installing new components on the fly? They have a kernel subsystem for hotswapping SCSI disks not much more you could ask for.

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by F.Ultra View Post
              Windows requires reboots since it's impossible to overwrite a .exe that is running or a .dll that is used by a running application on Windows. That Red Hat does pre-boot updates to be 100% sure that the update is atomic is due to the Commercial Enterprises that pay Red Hat big bucks to have a single and certified platform to run and to write software for.
              That is wrong. You cannot overwrite a running executable in Linux either. You will get a "text file busy" error.

              What you cannot do in Windows is unlink a running executable. You can however rename and move (unless specifically locked), and put an updated executable where the old one was.

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by sdack View Post
                Just horrible! The fact that "Rollback and Reboot" is shown as a single option makes me shiver. The user shouldn't be given the option (to reboot) at all when working with system updates.
                Hint: It's targeted at servers, so "users" are certified system administrators doing scheduled mainteneance, and when you do scheduled mainteneance to a server you know it will be either rebooted or go offline anyway.

                And stop thinking APT would somehow be worse. Any package manager can be broken by bad packages.
                This won't. It's called "atomic" and does stuff from pre-boot environment for a reason.

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by sdack View Post
                  You don't believe RedHat could ever become like Microsoft?
                  Uhm..... No.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by notanoob View Post
                    What are you talking about with this preboot stuff?
                    It's needed because many company-grade programs aren't terribly high-quality affairs, and you cannot just do an update-in-place ala apt/yum/zypper/whatever.

                    Please keep in mind that these things are supposed to distribute piece of shit software that is containerized with all its dependencies as the devs could not use the system's and so on.

                    It's not supposed to replace linux's current packaging systems.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by xnor View Post

                      That is wrong. You cannot overwrite a running executable in Linux either. You will get a "text file busy" error.

                      What you cannot do in Windows is unlink a running executable. You can however rename and move (unless specifically locked), and put an updated executable where the old one was.
                      Sorry that I didn't specify the exact details, didn't think that it was necessary in a discussion that otherwise was higher in the abstraction layer than on the inode levels. So yes you are correct that you cannot overwrite a running executable in Linux either (you can however with a shared library) but you can unlink it and put a new file with the same name there (i.e you can mv a file in place) which is why apt and yum can update a running system with new executables since they call mv instead of cp. This you cannot do with Windows, in Windows you can use the MoveFileEx() function together with the MOVEFILE_DELAY_UNTIL_REBOOT flag which will replace the file on the next boot if it was busy when you tried to overwrite it.

                      Yes you can rename the .exe and move in another file if it's not blocked as you write (lots if not all of the system files nowadays are locked however) but then you have the problem on what to do with the old renamed file.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X