Missing the exclamation
“When a new version is available, ubuntu upgrades itself,1 runs consistency checks, and presents you with a completely new and updated OS; all that without a reboot.”
Let’s just read that line again.
Is there any other operating system in the world that can do this? Is there any other operating system in the world that has a (business) model to do this? I’m just asking.
- With your permission of course, which is just a button-click; via the Update Manager. [←]
Normally, when Linux is upgraded, the kernel is also upgraded. Kernel updates happen even if there is no new major version of the OS, just to address bug/security fixes. That is one of the few occasions when a reboot is needed to use the new kernel.
With the above in mind, you cannot fully take advantage of an upgraded Linux box without rebooting, and applications that depends on the new kernel/libraries/etc may misbehave (often with crippling effects) if you do not do so. Bottom line, the assertion you quoted is not completely accurate, albeit very close to be. Most, if not all, applications can be upgraded with a simple restart of the application itself, not the OS.
To the question. Any UNIX alike system has the same behavior/capabilities (yes, Mac OS X included). In the case of Mac OS X, for the reasons previously cited, a reboot is always “insisted.”
Nov 16, 07 at 12:58A system reboot is required to make the changes effective only if a new kernel is amongst the updates; otherwise, no. Ubuntu notifies if a reboot is necessary.
Nov 16, 07 at 13:53I use Ubuntu Gutsy via an external hard drive (WD Passport 160 GB) as I don’t want to mess up the primary hard drive with Windows XP installation. I usually have problems during upgrades, more because the menu.lst in GRUB tends to be overwritten everytime the Kernel is compiled, defaulting the Ubuntu Kernel root location to the primary hard drive. When this happens I cannot boot into Ubuntu on my external hard drive. I need to boot via the Live CD and edit the menu.lst to change the root location.
Nov 19, 07 at 22:09That is pretty much the same concept for humble Windows too and has been the same way for many years. Any time you touch the kernel bits which are uploaded, system needs the reboot. Efforts have been on for Vista to migrate many non essential drivers to the userland.
Nov 20, 07 at 13:19Vidya Sagar: Here’s a bug report—this is what you’re experiencing, I presume? I didn’t have this problem while upgrading from Fiesty (7.04) to Gutsy (7.10), though. While it is indeed a bug, there is a tip to overcome the write-over on menu.lst (I haven’t tried it myself, though to verify this.) If you’re on external drive, life may be simpler: Just point your BIOS to the external drive (or USB) as the primary boot option. This way you don’t need the GRUB at all.
Govind: My point in the post has much less emphasis on the need to reboot an OS after a kernel upgrade; it’s rather more rooted towards being able to upgrade to an entire OS by the Update Manager. This is like being able to upgrade from XP to Vista or Tiger to Leopard via the Update Manager.
Do Windows XP users get the luxury of updating to Vista (version of choice, and entirely by paying online) purely via the Update Manager? The answer, I think, is no. Same goes for Mac OSX. Users instead go through a huge pain of backing up, data transfer, changing CDs, re-identify device drivers, hours of upgrade process, reinstall most used software. Can you imagine what a train wreck the current upgrade process in Windows or Mac OSX is?
Nov 20, 07 at 18:58Honestly ! if you are running a business with thousands of applications, the bigger problem will be application compatiblity, check out SMS server(and related bits like RIS etc) capabilities for an enterprise which takes care of the upgrade of the OS.
*p, .ini etc.
Nov 21, 07 at 10:57To answer your correct is it possible for consumer to directly upgrade to new OS - NO - not because it is not possible but beyond the trivial scenarios this matrix for testing becomes complex.
Do you really think it is not easy to transfer the bits down the line and have a listener on other side to pick it up, quiesce the system to halt and apply the patches and declare everything is ok? In future this might happen with all the proper slas in between. (one needs a neck to twist). We already to have the remote update service.
We recently acquired a smallfirm softgrid - where applications too can be virtualized inside a bubble and then as long as you support the basic stuff, you can move to new os. OS itself too can be upgraded for enterprise customers as said earlier.
Try creating bunch of applications which use native capabilities of OS apis and then do this over 20 years and come back and tell me fresh install is not required. Chances are these are cool to have features but they surviving the maze of upgrades are slim. Software is brittle because unlike most of the things it is malleable. One indirection is all it takes
The reason I am using GRUB is it gives me a multi boot option. I still hold the old Feisty Kernels (3 of them). I have a 160 gb external drive and am using 80 gb NTFS partition (as a buffer zone) where I store documents and other files created in Ubuntu, so that I can access them whilst running XP. However having Ubuntu on USB external drive prevents me from accessing USB flash drives or other external hard drives.
I did try the tip to prevent the menu.lst from being overwritten. I will have to wait for the next kernel upgrade to notice, whether it makes a difference
Nov 21, 07 at 11:41Application compatibility is a nightmare—I agree completely; partly a victim of its own huge success. In that sense, every OS is iterating in various degrees of forethoughts. To continue the non-software engineer kind of talk, could these allow any operating system to provide a painless upgrade experience to its users:
There are probably more, but I could only think of these.
Due to its Debian lineage, Ubuntu—as far as I am aware—has to a certain degree, a base system implemented (sort of base and ports split defined), which I presume makes the upgrade less painful.
Nov 21, 07 at 21:52You are totally inline with architectural thinking. Windows kernel follows same thinking unless major restructuring happens as in case of user mode driver framework-filters - these were brought only because bad third party drivers bloated the reputation and some of the ISVs needed this to be more accessible.
That team does not want to change anything - you are compeltely right about features do not die.
That unfortunately for many new age folks is two sided sword - which does not allow you to evolve.
Device communication with OS - this my friend has remained more or less same (just gets enhanced)and will change for specific class of drivers (buffer load bus of data vs small chunk here and there - see the USB/storage/video - new techniques need to evolve other wise you will always create lowest common denominator which maynot stand test of time.)
Challenge as usual is in the user land - notice versions of java/.net/native apis (which need to migrate due x reasons including obsoletion).
Microsoft realizes the ISV community and enterprises which are dependent on the ecosystem and involves most important ones in the design and development process/thinking very early on(3-4 years some times). So for enterprises for painless rollout we have the BDD and for ISV/developers and end users we have app compat toolkits for xp
vista
If you do get time - have a look at
Nov 22, 07 at 05:31Rob’s video
IO arch
Process management.
To really get simple ideas visit http://channel9.msdn.com/shows/Going_Deep
If so, then why doesn’t Vista enjoy the same driver privileges of XP, and why is Vista dogged with driver support problems that’s pouring over the internet?
Dec 2, 07 at 12:33