On Windows, once in a while there is a Patch Tuesday when the only update is Internet Explorer, a program that I neither wanted, nor installed, nor opened since I got tired of it years ago. Clearly, I need to reboot my computer for this.

On Ubuntu, certain packages are labeled as needing a reboot, and when you update them the control menu thing with a gear in the upper-right corner turns red, and the Update utility says you should reboot. Then you know you should, but it doesn’t force you to.

EDIT: There’s also Ksplice, which was going be a standard until Oracle bought it, and Red Hat kpatch. Those allow you to update a kernel without rebooting. Most other programs still require restarting, but Linux benefits from a saner architecture, where the web browser isn’t an “integral part of the operating system,” and the font renderer for the GUI and for printing is not part of the kernel. You need to reboot less.

Your answer doesn't really address the question.

Jameskegel said that in any "mainstream distributions", after you run an update but before you reboot, the OS is running the updated libraries. I honestly don't understand how that is possible.

It's really quite simple: http://unix.stackexchange.com/a/74172/28974

Right but that very answer says:

> Newly created processes will use the updated contents, running applications will access the old version.

In other words, currently running code is still running the known-buggy version, exactly what I said originally that kicked-off this whole discussion.

No, what you said was: "until you reboot, your Linux box is still running the known-buggy code"

And then later in the same post (just so we're clear about what you said): "But unless you reboot after installing your Linux updates, your computer still has the bugs."

Linux does not require a reboot to update.

>How do they solve the problem without requiring, at minimum, closing all of the user's applications and restarting them, then closing all system services and restarting them? (At which point, you've basically done a de-facto OS restart.)

But this is not what you suggested, is it?

I don't understand this answer, and I don't recall "suggesting" anything.

Settle down. You seem to be taking some heat in the comments, so I'll recuse myself from this discussion, as I feel we are no longer making progress in an intellectual context.

It would help to "make progress in an intellectual context" if you'd deign to back-up the claim you made, which I now strongly suspect was simply incorrect from the start.

But hey, suit yourself.