News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Broken by design: systemd by nly on Sunday February 09, 2014 @08:03PM (#7208420)
> systemd makes it impossible to upgrade without rebooting. This leads to "Linux" becoming the laughing stock of Windows fans, as happened with Ubuntu a long time ago.

This irked me. It's just an unnecessary comparison. The ZDnet article linked is, and always was, completely fallacious in comparing an OS critical update channel to a fully-fledged distro package manager. Having just bought a brand new Windows laptop this weekend, I found myself spending no less than 2 hours tirelessly updating and rebooting Windows, and searching for, and installing, driver updates manually. It's 2014 and it still sucks. Windows update and OEM updaters are, in my experience, piss-poor and don't pick up half of the updates available to your average system.

Frankly I think your average Linux desktop could easily risk doubling or tripling the number and frequency of reboots demanded, and you'd still not reach a significant fraction of the annoyance of Windows on that particular front.

Re:Broken by design: systemd by pekk on Sunday February 09, 2014 @08:34PM (#7208541)
And all the servers? They are supposed to just keep rebooting all the time as if they were Windows desktops?
Re:Broken by design: systemd by Jasper_ on Sunday February 09, 2014 @09:37PM (#7208763)
If you upgrade systemd or the kernel, yes, you should reboot your machine. Ideally, it shouldn't take more than a minute or two.
Re:Broken by design: systemd by josephkern on Sunday February 09, 2014 @10:30PM (#7208943)
Obviously not talking about servers here. Those RAID can take more than a few minutes to spin-up.
Re:Broken by design: systemd by btgeekboy on Monday February 10, 2014 @12:29AM (#7209315)
If you can't afford 3 minutes of downtime (how long a Dell PowerEdge R620 takes to start responding to ping again after a shutdown -r now), you really should reconsider running that service without a redundant system at the ready.