On Sun, 2018-06-03 at 18:21 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote: > On 06/03/18 17:57, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > > On Sun, 2018-06-03 at 05:56 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote: > > > On 06/03/18 05:43, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > > > > As has been said, this is an ongoing debate. Linux follows Unix in not > > > > forcing you to reboot except when switching to a new kernel (though > > > > rebooting if glibc changes is strongly encouraged). Running apps will > > > > continue to use old libraries even when new ones are installed and an > > > > old library will hang around until the last reference to it disappears, > > > > while new processes will use the new version. Unix (and Linux) has > > > > always worked like that. This is what some are calling 'live updating' > > > > or 'online updating'. In an earlier time we just called it 'updating'. > > > > The (relatively new) tracer program is designed to tell you when a > > > > process is using libraries whose packages have been updated since the > > > > process started (and hence that the library itself may now be > > > > obsolete), so you can decide if you want to restart them when > > > > convenient. In some cases it recommends that you reboot the system, but > > > > it's up to you when you do it. > > > > > > What you've said is not 100% accurate. > > > > > > While the majority of time you can delay rebooting and/or logout/login I have > > > observed times that delaying too long after many varied updates can and will result > > > in an unstable system with somethings not working quite right for no apparent > > > reason. A reboot fixes it. > > > > > > So, it is nice to think that one can run forever without rebooting after updates it > > > isn't always the case. Yes, YMMV. But I know I've been bitten by waiting "too" long > > > to reboot after multiple updates. > > > > What you said I said is not 100% accurate. I did not say that you can > > postpone reboots indefinitely, but that you can decide when it's > > convenient to reboot (or restart certain processes as the case may be). > > This implies that the user needs to have some idea of what he's doing. > > If he's not sure, by all means reboot, but the system doesn't force him > > to if it's not necessary. > > > > I may not have expressed it quite right. But it is *not* always true that "you can > decided when it's convenient to reboot". The system may, and has for me, decided > that it no long wished to do what I expected of it and thus decided for me that I > should reboot it. No matter if it were convenient or not. :-) All I can say is that has never happened to me in over 40 years of using Unix and Linux. The specific case you mention meant you had to logout of your DE, not that you had to reboot. I agree that rebooting was probably what I would have done in the same circumstances, simply because it's easier than thinking about it, but sometimes it really isn't convenient and you are never forced to do it. Even changing glibc or installing a new kernel doesn't force you. However I think we're now splitting hairs. My point is that the system should not take these decisions for you but let you decide for yourself. poc _______________________________________________ users mailing list -- users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/BC776IB7WCOENB6O45GDEUMDZVZARUGS/
