So if you want to overwrite a running service then you can either stop it, update it, and restart it (tricky to manage if it has dependencies, or is necessary for using the PC), or to shut down everything, update the files while the OS isn't (or is barely) running, and then restart the OS.
Linux does do this (try overwriting or truncating a binary executable while it's running and you'll get -ETXTBSY).
The difference is that Linux allows you to delete (unlink) a running executable. This will not free the on-disk space occupied by that executable (so anything you write to disk in the immediate future will not overwrite the executable, and it can continue executing even if not all of the executable has been paged in) until all references to its inode are freed (e.g. the program exits and there are no other hardlinks to it).
Then you can install a new version of the executable with the same name (since a file by that name no longer exists). This is what install(1) does.
So they moved to something more like the Windows style, where it downloads, reboots to apply and then reboots again freshly updated.
This what it said on the tin since forever for Linux systems, and it doesn't hurt.
Also, it surfaces long-running bugs so I can report them.
Linux will let you overwrite files "in use" (though the program(s) using them may not notice) and "file" is determined by a magic number, the inode - you can delete a file from a directory, really it's removing _that inode_, and put a new file in place with the same name, it's a _new_ inode. Programs that still have the file open are referring to the _old_ inode, which only goes away once everyone stops using it.
So actually you need to go round restarting your programs/services on Linux to get them to pick up changes (most package managers do that automatically), but at least it's _possible_ to make those changes without a reboot. Windows has to go into a special mode where nothing else runs, to be sure that it can update files.
Suse systems in general are just so much nicer to administer than RedHat or Debian/Ubuntu ones (imo of course).
Note that just replacing files on disk is not sufficient because all the running software would still have the old version.
In the first place it means the security issue could still be present in currently running software, in the second place exciting things can happen when two (or more?!) different versions try to talk to each other. Oh, and who's to say the whole file was fully loaded into memory (or wasn't partially paged out) - imagine the fun that would happen if you later page in data from a different version of the binary!
So you need to hot patch the running binaries. I don't really remember why it's not done in practice even though it's technically possible, I seem to remember the conclusion was that clustering (in whatever form) was the solution for high availability, rather than trying to keep a single machine running.
Most systems are technically capable of hot patching (if your exe file is mmaped, and you change the backing file, Bob's your uncle, unless your OS is no fun; which is why unix install pattern is unlink and replace rather than in-place updares). But most executables are not built to be hot patched, especially not without coordination.
Hot patching lets you make changes to your live environment with tremendous speed, but it also has risk of changing your live environment to an offline environment with tremendous speed. I'm a proponent of hot patching, and would love to be able to hot load all the things, but it has requirements and tradeoffs and most software isn't built for it, and that's probably the right decision for most things.
It doesn't matter if it was paged out, virtual memory is still just memory.
Paging out & restoring some memory doesn't know or care where the contents originally came from. It doesn't have an optimization that goes "Oh this chunk of memory is an executable file. I can skip writing this out to the swap file, and later when I need to restore it I can just read the original file instead of swap."
For files that a program opens, an open handle is an open handle. The entire file is available in whatever state it was at the time the handle was opened, modulo whatever changes this specific handle has made.
If a program closes and re-opens handles, then it always knew that the entire world could have changed between those 2 opens. Same if it opens non-exclusive. If it opens without exclusive or closes & reopens, then it's ok for the data to change between each access.
There are problems during updates, but they are much higher level and safer than that. Open file handles are open file handles, and currenly loaded exes are consistent and sane until they close. All the problems are in the higher level domains of processes interacting with each other.
I semi-regularly have to reboot my Linux system despite the kernel remaining unchanged.
Figured having 4 OS installations was already fairly niche that it was largely a self imposed issue. Looking forward to confirming that this fixes the issue in my use case.
I guess they know what's best for the user base, and this was obviously deemed not important. But boy did they get Copilot integrated in everything post haste.
Typical Microsoft hubris.
Until I read the story about how Steve Jobs was mad about the fact that Mac was slow to start and asked teams to fix it. Surprise, they fixed it.
And it's not like nobody could say anything at Microsoft. Someone on HN posted this email (originally from a different website):
https://www.techemails.com/p/bill-gates-tries-to-install-mov...
However, my guess is that this email got nowhere, because the experience of using Windows isn't so different decades later.
What this means is that 1) Microsoft is first and foremost a business oriented company, and what matters to them most is feature set, compatibility, support etc. As long as things mostly work, it's fine. Usability is at the bottom of the list. 2) Windows is just not important to Microsoft any more.
I bet that Satya Nadella has grumbles about bugs and ads in Windows 11, and likely has run into this specific bug first hand. But when he decides that "ads revenue trumps everything" and "these are just small bugs that don't really matter", he immediately forgets about it all.
That said, I don’t think I disagree with your diagnosis. I’m just afraid they’re lifting more bad parts than good.
IMO that's a far worse UX than update and shutdown turning the computer back on at the end.
[1] https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/406316/can-the-spa...
The fuck is Microsoft having all these engineers work all day on?
It's however difficult to verify these stories.
The "Saving Lives" story I'm referring to is unverified but it does at least come from directly someone who was there.
In 2003 already; Amazing!
Blame their customers. Those people accepted random reboots for decades.
What was different then was that Steve Jobs actually loved computers and used them. That is not the case for our modern computing behemoths (Microsoft or Apple).
Dogfooding is a thing, and having a person in power who can say "no" is important.
Probably race condition galore that was hard to repro.
That hubris combined with a whole bunch of decisions I resent/actively dislike and the hassle to opt out of things I never asked for is why for the first time since the late 80's I don't have any Microsoft OS's on any of my PC's.
I only used windows 11 for gaming and I don't really do that much anymore - I may have a look at steam/proton but not really in any hurry either.
90-95% of my computing life was spent inside Linux anyway.
It would be nice to have somethig like Asus or Dell XPS, with Ubuntu LTS fully working laptop hardware at Dixons, FNAC, Publico, Worten, Cool Blue, Saturn, Media Markt,..... but it ain't happening.
However after the netbook phase, that is yet to happen again.
Does your company not have hundreds to thousands of backlogged tickets and bugs? Are there not different teams for different parts of the system? No triage policy for prioritizing work?
This is a high-visibility bug that users complain about often.
Incredible.
After a few minutes I could see the blue glow of my Windows background shining on the wall.
Glad it is fixed!
Finally.
Which is odd because I was under the impression a restart is the only "true" shutdown due to fastboot behavior.
I didn't look too much into it and chalked it up to a quirk of Windows start menu behavior in tracking recent files.
1. Update and restart and prompt for bitlocker password and update and restart and prompt for bitlocker password and restart
2. Update and restart and prompt for bitlocker password and update and restart and prompt for bitlocker password and shut down (and restart)
Finally, they fixed the last bit of option 2
pity to those who have to work on/with this jank.
It is the denial that is so very Microsoft.
Well, guess that’s my mentally stability so slightly restored!
I also wonder if they'll ever fix the menu entry delay bug. At the moment neither of the "Update and ..." options is in the menu when you first open it. Opening the shutdown menu then checks if there are updates available to install and will then add those options, shifting the existing menu entries. Which makes it incredibly easy to quickly click on an option you didn't want.
cybrox•5h ago
Task failed successfully.