[Geobunny]

Ok, just a forewarning, I'm going to have a wee rant here.

In the last two weeks, Apple's Software Update mechanism has tried to force me to restart my machine no less than four times!

First time was for a security update (fair enough)
Second was for the exact same security update with the addition of one configuration file for the FTP server. Since when was a restart required to replace a damned config file?! Even more annoying is the fact that I don't even need it cos I don't use Apple's FTP server - ssh runs constantly and has built-in sftp support. At the very most, just restart ftpd. This ain't rocket science!
Third, and this one REALLY takes the biscuit, was an update for iChat. Come on Apple, iChat is not (correction, SHOULD not be) an integrated part of the OS and therefore an update should not require a restart. The fix mentioned could easily have been incorporated into the application itself.
Fourth is an update to Java. This one I can almost understand in that Java is a framework which is core to a lot of applications and Apple wouldn't want to delete and replace it with a newer version while some Java apps were still open. But still, would it really be that hard to do this without a restart?

It's fairly trivial to establish which files are in use and by which applications, therefore a demon process could sit watching the files to be changed and perform the actual changeover only when no processes are using said files. Alternatively, pop up a dialog box requesting the user to quit certain applications while the changeover takes place.

We use slackware linux on the servers at work and the only time they get restarted is for a kernel upgrade (ie. very infrequently)

The whole update thing used to be only slightly irksome, however this recent spate of updates has really got me irritated. I'm aware of the fact that I can ignore specific updates (and I did so for the iChat update) but I'm loathe to do so for such things as security updates as there may have been other unmentioned differences. I'm also a Java developer, so should really do that update too. It just gets very tiring sometimes.

Am I alone in this or does anyone else have anything to throw into the ring?

[ManOfSteal]

Uptime is of no relevance to me...if all I need to do is a 30-second restart and in return I get a fix and/or a new application, I'm a happy camper...time well spent..

[drive-thru]

I understand your need to rant/vent.

If four restarts (three as you didn't do the iChat update) in two weeks is your biggest problem then I'd say that's pretty good going.

I guess if you're in the middle of a project it can get a bit frustrating, but you can always close Software Update and wait until you're done working, then let it run by itself and restart when done.

I didn't notice a live updating statement of your uptime in your sig, so I'm guessing your frustrations aren't due to a reduction in uber-geek bragging rights.

[zachs]

You don't have to. At least not right away when it tells you to. Just force-quit Software Update when the Restart/Shutdown dialog pops up. Then you can restart when you feel like it.

[wataru]

Boo-freakin'-hoo. Send feedback, and then get over it. Or switch to a different OS if you think that will help.

[Geobunny]

I'm aware of the fact that I don't have to restart (you don't even need to force-quit, the dock menu does it cleanly) however I'm afraid that if I don't, I'll shortly experience odd behaviour which would more-or-less prompt a restart anyway.

Drive-thru, you're absolutely correct, I'm not an uber-geek and I don't give two hoots about uptime bragging. What annoys me is having to restart while I'm in the middle of a project (which is pretty much the only time I use the computer any more). At any one time, I tend to have between 20 and 30 applications open across 5 virtual desktops. A restart is a serious disruption to my work-flow and I'm not just bemoaning the 30 second boot time, it's everything that goes with it which includes logging in, re-opening and re-organising all my applications in my work-space and also re-organising myself and my train of thought.

As I said in my last post, I'm Java developer. At the very least I really ought to install those updates, however without a restart how can I be sure if unexpected results are caused by my code or the remnants of a not-quite-fully completed update process?

[Geobunny]

Originally posted by wataru:
Boo-freakin'-hoo. Send feedback, and then get over it. Or switch to a different OS if you think that will help.

Constructive. Thanks. Shush.

[rjenkinson]

Originally posted by Geobunny:
What annoys me is having to restart while I'm in the middle of a project (which is pretty much the only time I use the computer any more). At any one time, I tend to have between 20 and 30 applications open across 5 virtual desktops. A restart is a serious disruption to my work-flow and I'm not just bemoaning the 30 second boot time, it's everything that goes with it which includes logging in, re-opening and re-organising all my applications in my work-space and also re-organising myself and my train of thought.

then make better use of the software update settings. set it to check for updates weekly, monthly or even manually. you also do not need to install updates the moment they become available. if installing new software is interrupting your projects, don't do it until it won't interfere with your projects.

-r.

[ManOfSteal]

Originally posted by rjenkinson:
then make better use of the software update settings. set it to check for updates weekly, monthly or even manually. you also do not need to install updates the moment they become available. if installing new software is interrupting your projects, don't do it until it won't interfere with your projects.

-r.

[drive-thru]

That's what I eluded to before...Set the Software Update prefs to not download updates in the background. When they pop up, just press Quit (the button next to Install) and wait until you can update at a convenient time.

I'm off to install Java 1.4.2

[Geobunny]

Originally posted by rjenkinson:
then make better use of the software update settings. set it to check for updates weekly, monthly or even manually. you also do not need to install updates the moment they become available. if installing new software is interrupting your projects, don't do it until it won't interfere with your projects.

Ok, that's a fair comment, but what about the Java updates? Granted they don't happen very frequently, but when they do, I still need to restart. I have to install those otherwise I can't guarantee my programs will work with the most up-to-date Java software.

[wataru]

What are the chances that any given Java update will break your app? Shouldn't you make sure it works on the previous version anyway? Just wait to install the update until you've reached a good place to take a 30 second break. This is not a huge issue.

[poocat]

No, but he does have a point. There was no need for a restart on at least two of those updates. I used to see updates in SU that did not require a restart. Now, it seems that they all do. It's not a big deal, clearly, but this is a discussion board about an operating system, and therefore the correct place for such minor thoughts.

I agree with you. Doesn't kill me, but i could do without the restarting every week.

pc.

[ManOfSteal]

You know we are spoiled OS X users when the only time we have to restart is after Software Updates, and we find it bothersome...just imagine the horror of what the other 95% are going through in the world with their systems!

[Cadaver]

Remember the days of Mac OS 8/9... rebooting in the middle of a project, whether you wanted to or not!

Now, the ONLY time I need to reboot is when I install software that requires it (when when I want). Sounds fair to me.

[Geobunny]

Originally posted by manofsteal:
You know we are spoiled OS X users when the only time we have to restart is after Software Updates, and we find it bothersome...just imagine the horror of what the other 95% are going through in the world with their systems!

Indeed, that is very very true. It's a testament to Apple that just about my only gripe is such a minor one (to most people anyway), however I still feel there's room for improvement.

...and before you ask, no I'm never happy. I always want bigger and better. It's just one of the reasons I chose Macintosh 12 years ago.

[msuper69]

Originally posted by manofsteal:
You know we are spoiled OS X users when the only time we have to restart is after Software Updates, and we find it bothersome...just imagine the horror of what the other 95% are going through in the world with their systems!

What you said!

Besides, if it wasn't for Software Update restarts, I would never get to hear the Macintosh startup sound.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Apple makes you restart after updates because otherwise you'd never shut down your computer. Apple is being nice to your computer that works hard all day and needs a rest or small break, because you're obviously not going to give your computer a well deserved 30 second nap.

[Toutgood]

Originally posted by manofsteal:
You know we are spoiled OS X users when the only time we have to restart is after Software Updates, and we find it bothersome...just imagine the horror of what the other 95% are going through in the world with their systems!

Not to rain on your parade, but some of OS X users are forced to shutdown/restart for an altogether different and more upsetting reason which you can read about in this very forum.

I'm happy to restart after an update, if it means Apple has finally frigging fixed their stoopid OS!

[SMacTech]

Originally posted by manofsteal:
You know we are spoiled OS X users when the only time we have to restart is after Software Updates, and we find it bothersome...just imagine the horror of what the other 95% are going through in the world with their systems!

Like the person who owns the PC I am reinstalling the [unnamed] OS because it was so kludged with malware, etc...

I don't mind a restart and as others above have said, you DON'T have to do it right then.

Reboot that sucker, don't be scared. It's not like it is a 24/7 server that may not come up again after an OS update.

[Geobunny]

Originally posted by SMacTech:
<snip>
It's not like it is a 24/7 server that may not come up again after an OS update.

Erm, funny you should mention that! In my case, it is! Admittedly it's not critical, but it most definitely is a 24/7 server - router-cvm-proxy-cvm-firewall-cvm-fileserver

[edit: Oh for goodness sake! Not everything is lewd, rude and dirty. I'm not allowed to have the three letters 'c''u''m' in there? Honestly, what are the chances of that word being used to mean that on a board like this?! ]

[Maflynn]

Coming from the window's world where I had to reboot the machine because I install an application, never mind an OS patch, I don't mind this.

There has been a flurry of updates coming from apple.
You can view this as good, that they quickly solving the problems, or bad, they releasing the software before its ready and they scrambling to send out fixes for the updates. I guess in this instance, I'm in the latter camp. They probably need to do more beta tests.

Mike

[SMacTech]

Originally posted by Geobunny:
[B]Erm, funny you should mention that! In my case, it is! Admittedly it's not critical, but it most definitely is a 24/7 server - router-cvm-proxy-cvm-firewall-cvm-fileserver

Most 24/7 computers aren't Macs for server operations. But I remember all too vividly the several times I applied an upgrade to an OS [not X] and it failed to reboot and I got the BSOD.

[chris v]

I approach all updates pretty cautiously most of the time. I'll just about always give things a day or two just to shake out any problems, and if it's anything major, like an OS point-release, I'll allways run a backup first. (manual updates only for me, thank you.)

Usually, I'll wait untill I've had another reason to restart anyway, before I'll run an update that requires a restart. Sometimes, that can be a long wait.

[yukon]

I started a thread just like this about a year ago, complaining that a safari update made me restart. Got flames too, don't feel too bad ;-)

OS X doesn't need to be restarted, even modifying the kernel extensions doesn't require a reboot (kextload & kextunload). Requiring rebooting for an update to an app like iChat is asinine and could only be there to cripple the "client" version of OS X. Requiring it of Safari is a little better (or worse) because updating Safari updates a system framework (webcore, without notifying you), and iTunes is more understandable because of CDRW drivers, but no restarting is ever required unless it alters the most basic part of the OS possible (and iChat shouldn't be patching the kernel anyway).

It's "cleaner" to restart, but I don't want to because it's interrupting and bothersome, simple as that, we migrated to OS X so we wouldn't have to. I don't have to update, then I can enjoy websites running shell commands through URLs and other fun exploits that would otherwise be fixed. Don't have to restart when it tries to make you, you can force quit the installer, but then you run the risk of something going wrong (you just killed a program that was just altering your system and may have not written everything to disk), and the mechanisms for making the update effective haven't run (restarting affected applications, unloading the old and loading the new, etc), some programs may not like that when they use the parts that were updated. And I _don't_ care about uptime, my machine could restart when I'm asleep and it wouldn't bother me, when I'm updating the system I'm using it, and that takes away productive time.

Someone said move to another OS. Good idea, most UNIXes don't require these little restarts...in fact, OS X is superior to them in that it doesn't need a restart even when modifying the kernel extensions, but we wouldn't know that to run it.

[Gavin]

Exactly the point. There is no need for a restart so why do it.

The "who cares so don't complain" argument is BS. It's also a classic example of the Apple can do no wrong phenomenon you hear about but never really get to see. (This thread is like a bigfoot sighting.)

Defense of the status quo against marginal improvement coming from the intelligent, cutting edge and sexually adventurous people on this board is just plain funny.

;-)

[siMac]

Poor baby. Four restarts in one week you say? Please accept my condolences.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by siMac:
Poor baby. Four restarts in one week you say? Please accept my condolences.

Can't you just accept that he has a ****ing point about UNNECESSARY restarts?

Sheesh, people.

[Millennium]

To be fair here, Apple really should be better about this. Even KEXTs don't strictly require restarts in OSX; there are ways to load them into memory without rebooting the machine. In fact, unless I'm mistaken the only thing which absolutely cannot be loaded without a restart is the xnu kernel itself.

As for the rest, the necessary reloading procedures should be doable using post-flight scripts, should they not?

[siMac]

I'm sorry, but if the system has been updated it is a NECESSARY restart. Nobody is forcing anybody to install updates as soon as they become available, you make that choice yourself. Count yourself lucky you're not on Windows which requires a restart every time you blink.

What would be more rant-worthy would be to point out the number of updates released which are promptly pulled by Apple for various reasons. This suggests a rather alarming flaw in quality control - still no sign of the new Virex version that was released a while ago and then pulled. They're probably saving that until after the .mac renewal season is over.

In light of past update problems I would STRONGLY ADVISE users not to update as soon as an update is released - not only will you avoid 'constant' restarts *sniff* but you reduce the risk of compromising your system.

[WOPR]

I find it crazy to whinge about the occasional restart. A couple of years back we were using OS 9 which would frequently hang without warning at any time, losing work and forcing a restart. Now, we have an ultra-stable OS that sometimes needs you to restart (because Apple are updating it often which is a good thing) - WHEN YOU CHOOSE TO and we get people moaning. I don't get it. Just update once a month or something, when you have the time. Surely you're not working all day every day?

[suthercd]

You can choose to ignore uodates in Software Update. THen when you decide that you want to bring your System up to the latest level of functionality, you can turn back on individual updates; they will be listed in the order they were made available. By doing this, you eliminate the periodic reminder that an update is available.

Craig

[Geobunny]

WOPR and Suthercd, did you actually read the whole thread? I'm not complaining about the ocasional restart when they're needed. What I'm on about is the UNNECESSARY restarts for updates like iChat or the second (most recent) security update which only actually placed one file one my hard drive.

It's all very well comparing how things are now to the state of affairs 3-4 years ago with OS 9, but the fact of the matter is that we've moved on from that. This is a whole new ball game with a new set of objectives and expectations. Of course OS 9 used to crash with relative frequency but OS X doesn't, so we've come to expect more from it. Being asked to restart our computers for very minimal upgrades should not be happening. As poocat said earlier, a restart was not required for at least two of the last four updates, so why are we having to restart?

As some of you don't seem to be reading the whole thread, it has been noted that you don't have to perform the update as soon as it comes out, but that still doesn't alter the fact that an unnecessary restart will eventually be required.

It just seems like Apple has, as a default, put a tick in the checkbox that says "this installer requires a restart" and are leaving it set like that without bothering to check whether or not a restart is actually required.

[WOPR]

Sorry but I have far more important things to worry about!

[Geobunny]

Originally posted by WOPR:
Sorry but I have far more important things to worry about!

So have I, which is why I don't want to be restarting unnecessarily.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by Geobunny:
WOPR and Suthercd, did you actually read the whole thread? I'm not complaining about the ocasional restart when they're needed. What I'm on about is the UNNECESSARY restarts for updates like iChat or the second (most recent) security update which only actually placed one file one my hard drive.

It's all very well comparing how things are now to the state of affairs 3-4 years ago with OS 9, but the fact of the matter is that we've moved on from that. This is a whole new ball game with a new set of objectives and expectations. Of course OS 9 used to crash with relative frequency but OS X doesn't, so we've come to expect more from it. Being asked to restart our computers for very minimal upgrades should not be happening. As poocat said earlier, a restart was not required for at least two of the last four updates, so why are we having to restart?

As some of you don't seem to be reading the whole thread, it has been noted that you don't have to perform the update as soon as it comes out, but that still doesn't alter the fact that an unnecessary restart will eventually be required.

It just seems like Apple has, as a default, put a tick in the checkbox that says "this installer requires a restart" and are leaving it set like that without bothering to check whether or not a restart is actually required.

The thing is... Apple could probably implement a way of not forcing you to restart for many of the updates... but it's safer for them to simply require a restart. Apple can't predict what you may install on your computer.

[Geobunny]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
The thing is... Apple could probably implement a way of not forcing you to restart for many of the updates... but it's safer for them to simply require a restart. Apple can't predict what you may install on your computer.

They don't need to predict what I install, they only need to know which files are in use at any given point in time. As I said before, that's fairly trivial.

[poocat]

Geobunny, i'm done with this thread. We're not convincing anyone (not that we're trying to) but it's just getting pointless. I'd much prefer it if Apple would let us install w/o restart, just to prove the flexibility/stability of their chosen os, and not force restarts with iChat. So would you.

The rest think we're complaining. Strange. When i note that Safari doesn't load a page, or that Mail doesn't really handle threads very well, no one seems to fight me...

Oh well. Moving on.

poocat.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally posted by poocat:

The rest think we're complaining. Strange. When i note that Safari doesn't load a page, or that Mail doesn't really handle threads very well, no one seems to fight me...

Meet me outside in the schoolyard at 4 o'clock.

[WOPR]

Originally posted by poocat:
The rest think we're complaining. Strange.

ROFL! So starting a thread with the line "Ok, just a forewarning, I'm going to have a wee rant here." should make us think that's it's not a complaint?

O.....K......

[NeilCharter]

Geobunny is probably correct - these updates probably don't need restarts. It may take more time to write an updater that doesn't cause a restart.

With the majority of the team working on Tiger, my guess is that they are being lazy or should I say not devoting the resources to something that affects only a few people.

If the server end of OS X really becomes important to Apple - I bet you will see more and more updates not requiring restarts.

Until that happens, wait until there is a good time to run updates. I used to check everyday, now it's once a week.

Neil

[JKT]

OK, playing Devil's Advocate, let's look at this from the perspective that Apple just might not be playing stupid here - what reasons could they have for making you restart with these updates? Are there any valid reasons why they make us do it? I'm assuming that there must be some...

[yukon]

OS X DOES NOT REQUIRE RESTARTING. Sorry for the caps, but I explained this pretty well in my insanely long post (the caps'll catch people who don't read mine through).

OS X is built in layers, very different compared to the old system (remember the "system file"? "extensions" that patch system memory?). These layers talk to each other, some require others, but they don't patch or control another (this seperation is what makes things like APE and such less desirable, they patch, not communicate in expected ways). When a program is updated, quit the program and restart the program. If a framework is updated, quit all the programs which rely on that framework, and then relaunch them. Even with kernel extensions, the kext files that add functionality to the kernel (which is exactly what it sounds like, XNU, the kernel or core part of the OS, some might call it "mach" which it's based on) can be dynamically loaded. Other UNIXes don't do this, research the HURD to find out how behind that effort is.

The only defense for Apple is that asking a user to quit programs is not as easy as just forcing a restart. But there's a difference between simplicity and limitations, OS X should allow the choice of not restarting. Unless the iChat update starts updating the windowserver and other stuff it should NEVER touch (it's a damned instant messaging application) it would be just as easy and much faster to require the user to log out (the main difference being, services don't get shut down, I don't have to restart machines that rely on OS X's Samba etc).

And that system freeze, that's terrible, that should have been fixed years ago. The fix early in that thread worked for me (I posted there a number of times), but a system crash or full system freeze isn't acceptable in modern computing, at least if it goes unpatched. Stop attacking people for not wanting their system to go down all the time.

[cpac]

chalk up another "BFD/quit whining" response.

[Person Man]

Originally posted by siMac:
What would be more rant-worthy would be to point out the number of updates released which are promptly pulled by Apple for various reasons. This suggests a rather alarming flaw in quality control - still no sign of the new Virex version that was released a while ago and then pulled. They're probably saving that until after the .mac renewal season is over.

Virex is not a valid example because Apple does NOT make it. The version that McAfee sells has the same problems, and they likely haven't fixed it yet. So no, Apple is NOT "saving it until the .mac renewal season is over." They're waiting for the people at McAfee to get off their collective asses and fix the problems with their software... like the one that can delete your entire mailbox when it finds a virus.

[Person Man]

Originally posted by Maflynn:
Coming from the window's world where I had to reboot the machine because I install an application, never mind an OS patch, I don't mind this.

There has been a flurry of updates coming from apple.
You can view this as good, that they quickly solving the problems, or bad, they releasing the software before its ready and they scrambling to send out fixes for the updates. I guess in this instance, I'm in the latter camp. They probably need to do more beta tests.

Mike

In many instances, the software is for the open source stuff that fixes newly discovered exploits. The two security updates are good examples of this.

[Angus_D]

Originally posted by Person Man:
In many instances, the software is for the open source stuff that fixes newly discovered exploits. The two security updates are good examples of this.

There are security vulnerabilities in closed-source Apple software, too.

Anyway, yes, this is a PITA. I agree about the Security Update 1.1 thing - that was a cockup in the first place, they shouldn't have needed to update the update AT ALL (the fact that they broke lukemftpd in the first place is teh suck). However, as people have pointed out before, a lot of iChat is actually implemented in the InstantMessage.framework which is also used by Mail, AddressBook and possibly third party applications (although they shouldn't since it's a private framework), and it contains a background application that you can't reasonably ask users to quit before installing the update.

Apple could and should improve the behaviour of this, perhaps even by walking the process table and examining the mach images loaded into each running thing, then prompting the user to OK before automatically quitting them and marking them as temporarily disabled while it does the update... Or something. However, it'd be non-trivial to implement something like this, let alone implement it in a user-friendly way.

[danengel]

I hate these guys who say "don't complain about details, be happy that most works well". We love Apple partly because they pay attention to details, so let's encourage them to improve further. Complaints and criticism are not the same thing. It's the guys who are never happy who improve.

Look at Windows, it sucks so bad because of a 1000 details that are just acceptable when regarding them isolated, but altogether it's a huge mess.

My personal "sick and tired of" list in OS X: screwed Monaco 9pt in the Terminal, bad Safari multi-threading, the Finder. And yes, Apple, please make a headless Mac.

[Person Man]

Originally posted by Angus_D:
There are security vulnerabilities in closed-source Apple software, too.

I'm well aware of that. I said that to point out that not all updates that Apple puts out are because of bugs that are Apple's fault, as the poster to whom I was responding seemed to imply.

[Basilisk]

To be fair here, Apple really should be better about this. Even KEXTs don't strictly require restarts in OSX; there are ways to load them into memory without rebooting the machine. In fact, unless I'm mistaken the only thing which absolutely cannot be loaded without a restart is the xnu kernel itself.

This isn't true, there are lots of kexts which cannot be safely unloaded at runtime. Generally kextunload does the right thing and won't let you unload them but there are actually a couple of examples where you can unload something into an immediate panic. As an example, a lot of the IOKit provider nubs for miscellaneous hardware buses are deeply unhappy about runtime unloading.

If a framework is updated, quit all the programs which rely on that framework, and then relaunch them.

Ugh, I thought the whole argument being made was that restarts cause the user to lose "state" information? Why is forcing the user to quit any better? Because its 30-90 seconds faster than a restart? Saving perhaps a minute of total time in a 40 hour work week?

There are examples of frameworks that have relatively light dependencies (InstantMessage being one), but frankly that's not the majority of the updates. Most of the reboot updates are true security updates and the transitive closure of downstream dependencies frequently includes Cocoa, Carbon and AuthenticationServices. To safely do a "no reboot" update in these cases you'd have to shut down everything, including the window manager. At that point all state is lost anyway, why not take the easier route (and one that is guaranteed to not miss anything) and have the user reboot?

However, it'd be non-trivial to implement something like this, let alone implement it in a user-friendly way.

Which of course is the real rebuttal to this entire conversation. It is a non-trivial problem to solve. Could it be done? Sure, its technically possible. The problem is that Apple resources that might be used to solve the problem are likely best used on other projects that have more important impacts on user experience. I'll take the occasional reboot if it means Apple can dedicate engineers to (as an arbitrary example) improving CoreGraphics performance.

Alex