an OS question
Nov. 14th, 2010 02:04 pmWhile waiting for assorted software updates to install today I found myself wondering... Mac OS and Windows usually need to reboot your machine to install updates. Yet I have, several times, seen Unix machines that I believe were being maintained with uptimes of more than a year. What's the deal? Is Unix just better able to support hot-fixes, or are Unix updates that rare? (Or am I wrong about the maintenance of those machines?) And if it's that Unix is better at updating, why does Mac OS, which is Unix-based, need to reboot so often? Mind, it's definitely better in this regard than when I was running Windows; this is a puzzle, not a rant.
Edit: Thanks for the comments thus far. I now understand more about how Unix is put together, and why Windows is different. Still not sure about Mac OS but comments suggest it could be UI-related (that is, the GUI might be more tied into the OS than is the case on Unix).
Edit: Thanks for the comments thus far. I now understand more about how Unix is put together, and why Windows is different. Still not sure about Mac OS but comments suggest it could be UI-related (that is, the GUI might be more tied into the OS than is the case on Unix).
(no subject)
Date: 2010-11-18 03:37 am (UTC)# # #
Many Linux/Unix admins don't want to reboot, hoping that the occasional (or not-so-occasional) kernel-based security hole won't affect them. I tend to consider that a bad idea these days.
That said, there's a (for-pay, although IIRC some distribution (Ubuntu?) has a reduced functionality version available to all registered users) technology called Ksplice that can patch a running kernel in many (most? all? haven't looked closely but I think the latter is impossible for logistical reasons) cases. It's been around for long enough that there could well be some Linux boxes with uptime > 1 year that use it to keep the kernel up to date on patches.