I believe what they are saying is that they looked at historical security updates and saw what percentage of them would have applied. Because it has less code, there are security updates that wouldn't have been relevant.
That seems like a reasonable approach to me, if that was their methodology.
That's based on real world data. Basically, they look at the reboots caused by 32-bit mode and DWM / GUI and video drivers, as well as security bulletins. Any bulletin that patched something that isn't included in Nano was removed, thus they had 92% fewer based on what's included in Nano.
Still many times more frequent than w/Linux. The 2008 R2 development system we have needs to be rebooted every two weeks, on average, due to Windows Updates that require a reboot. Updates come in almost every day for CentOS and I only need to reboot once ever couple of months for new kernels.
Can't wait for the no-reboot kernel patches planned for a future Linux kernel.
> The 2008 R2 development system we have needs to be rebooted every two weeks, on average, due to Windows Updates that require a reboot.
Uhh they literally don't release updates that often, so you'll have to explain that one to us...
> Updates come in almost every day for CentOS and I only need to reboot once ever couple of months for new kernels.
Windows doesn't support hotpatching, Linux does, it really is as simple as that. Linux has more people working on it than the Windows kernel does, and is just a more advanced kernel in general at this point.
But for what Microsoft has to work with Windows Server is darn stable and requires very few restarts in my experience (approx. 4/year in my experience with 2008 and 2008 R2).
> Windows doesn't support hotpatching, Linux does, it really is as simple as that. Linux has more people working on it than the Windows kernel does, and is just a more advanced kernel in general at this point.
Actually, hotpatching is easier on Linux because it has a technically inferior virtual memory subsystem to Windows.
The Windows kernel is technically superior in numerous areas: virtual memory, thread synchronization primitives, and I/O (specifically, overlapped I/O), just to name a few.
I'm glad somebody pointed that out. It's infuriating listening to people who've only ever worked with Linux to a low level when they preach about how it is the most modern kernel bar none. The facts are really quite different. Dave Cutler, of Windows NT fame, is no slouch. He is every bit as good as Linus. Just without the petty attitude problems his far more popular rival exhibits.
Cutler is a f'n genius. He was 47 when Bill Gates called him up in the late 80s and poached him from DEC. He was one of the core architects of VMS and brought all his A-team with him to Microsoft. NT was engineered to be a high performance OS from day one, and it is evident throughout the architecture of the kernel and executive.
Linus was 22 and implemented enough system calls such that he could run bash, mocking a UNIX-like system, which, again, VMS ran rings around in the day.
Linux's success has absolutely nothing to do with technical superiority.
Honestly, the best set of docs I read were the design documents (about 30 .doc files) released as part of the Windows Research Kernel, which, uh, you may be able to find if you do some creative googling ;-)
From those I was able to appreciate a lot of the why between the object model, I/O request packets (IRPs), handles, asynchronous procedure calls (APCs), memory section objects... basically all the individual concepts that have no equivalent in UNIX.
....and once you understand those primitives, you can start to appreciate the layered driver model, new thread pool stuff in Vista+, registered I/O in Windows 8+, etc.
>Uhh they literally don't release updates that often, so you'll have to explain that one to us...
Microsoft most certainly releases reboot updates more often than the once a month patch Tuesday. I'm not sure if they apply to the OP's specific system, Win2008 R2, but I am rebooting my various computers more than once a month.
My system's update history shows two fixes around Mar 27 (KB2976978 and KB3048778) and one of those required a reboot. I remember because I had to do it. This pattern goes back in time quite far - bunch of fixes for patch Tuesday (requires a reboot), and a handful of off-cycle recommended/optional fixes, which often require a reboot too.
If you apply updates as they appear (and take the optional and recommended ones) you will DEFINITELY be rebooting more than once a month.
You're conflating Windows 8 and Windows Server, the two updates you specifically noted are Windows 8 updates.
The first one is a Windows 10 pre-checker (KB2976978), so zero chance of Windows Server getting it, and the second one (KB3048778) isn't a critical update (solves a minor Explorer bug) so would have to be manually installed.
You likely have "Give me Recommended updates the way I receive important updates" checked in the Windows Update GPO/applet and also just seem to think there is no difference on how Windows Server and Windows Desktop are patched (which there is, massively).
A Server 2012 box I happen to have open, has restart events that are corresponding with patch Tuesdays but months are often skipped. You'd likely see a little more if you weren't using Server Core, but nothing like the number you're describing. The thing doesn't even install updates between monthly pushes.
I'm seeing approx. 4-5 a year. Which is still much higher than Linux, but nothing like Windows Desktop.
I'm not conflating anything - I even said I wasn't sure if they applied to Win2008, did you miss reading that? I was challenging the general claim that releases that require reboots don't occur more often than once a month.
Now if you were specifically addressing this for Win2008 R2, well I'll give you that. I was too lazy to spin that system up and dig through its update history.
The GENERAL assumption that the only time you need to reboot is once a month for patch tuesday isn't really accurate. Now for the SPECIFIC case of Win2008 R2, many years after its release, perhaps that is true.
And FWIW, thanks for your concern about my systems, but it is irrelevant and incorrect because you do not understand my particular operating environment. One side task I do is build VM's for everybody else in my group to use, so while I do not have auto-updates checked, I wind up getting all updates for every language and OS we are interested in.
As for "massive" differences in how server and desktops are patched - what would those be precisely? Perhaps you see fewer reboots than I do because you have less installed and fewer windows features enabled, not because of your supposed deep understanding on the "massive" differences between patching a server and desktop.
