25 Jan
2010
25 Jan
'10
12:24 p.m.
On Jan 25, 2010, at 12:11 PM, Dave McGuire <mcguire at neurotica.com>
wrote:
Wish I knew. My guess is "paranoia.". For IE, for example they may
not be able to reliably find and restart every running app that's
using an IE component (HTML renderer, etc) or they just don't trust
other apps, etc. They just want to make 100% sure that the patch gets
applied, upime be damned. We have enough problems getting people to
keep their machines up to date as it is. Most malware attacks
vectors that have been fixed for months, if not years...
Or they could just be chuckleheads.
Josh
On Jan 25, 2010, at 3:04 PM, Josh Dersch wrote:
Ok, that's cool. But..
Very cool. And if the driver crashes it just gets restarted, so the
system doesn't go down due to a horrible ATI driver...
It's
been patched, just nothing that requires a reboot. And as
you know, most UNIX-based OSs rarely require reboots for
patching. For example, I've replaced the Ethernet interface
drivers on this machine, hot, without rebooting.
I can (and do) replace video drivers on my Windows 7 boxes without
rebooting :) same for network and just about anything else. Now if I could just beat some sense into the
windows update guys so
they stop marking fixes to IE as "reboot required" when they're
clearly not...
...this is what I was going to ask about. Why do they do that?
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL