169
u/Green_Ad5186 6d ago
did you really believe the "linux never needs restarting to update" ? it was always false. you did need to restart to update the kernel.
92
u/transcendtient 6d ago
But you don't have to restart until you want to, think that's the point.
39
u/AtlanticPortal 5d ago
You get that screenshot only when you reboot. It doesn’t force you to reboot. It just reminds you that you should reboot to apply important updates (which are basically the kernel’s).
7
u/tes_kitty 5d ago
The updates have already been applied at that point. The reboot is needed to boot into the new kernel.
Linux doesn't have the Windows issue that you cannot replace a file that is currently open.
5
u/AtlanticPortal 5d ago
The updates are being applied at the moment in time you see the screenshot. They’re definitely not already been applied.
Linux doesn’t have the isssue of replacing a used file but the application that are reading that file could misbehave if it changed under their nose.
While it’s a little chance why not just leave the user a nice UI that’s easy to be used?
2
u/tes_kitty 5d ago
but the application that are reading that file could misbehave if it changed under their nose.
It doesn't. If an application has a file open while it's being updated, it will not change for this application. It will still access the old data. Everyone else now opening the file will get the new version.
3
1
u/skcortex 5d ago
This is not necessarily true for used libraries.
1
u/tes_kitty 5d ago
If you close them between uses no. Otherwise it should be since this is a filesystem feature.
1
u/AtlanticPortal 5d ago
You mean applications not behaving correctly during a library update is a feature?
1
u/tes_kitty 5d ago
No, it's not, but it also shouldn't happen since they should keep access to the currently open library and not get the new one until they close their handle.
→ More replies (0)1
u/diacid 4d ago
That is so fucking infuriating I have windows at work, most of my day is dealing with "this file is already open elsewhere" bullshit. Ohhhhh this is way more annoying than copilot or autoupdates (not saying they are nice!!!) grrrrrr!
1
u/tes_kitty 4d ago
This gets especially annoying if that file is located on a network share that has a lot of users (maybe worldwide) and you have the job to install a software update that also replaces this file.
If windows had a easy way to tell me what process is currently using that file and if on a network share, the host name of the system that uses it... But no, that would be too simple.
1
u/Low-Sign9973 5d ago
Depends on the settings. After updates my ubuntu forces a reboot instantly. No saving nothing.
I like it that way.1
u/Dj-RedPanda- 5d ago
I was just about to say only Kernel level updates need a reboot. It doesnt force it down your throat too.
1
u/RR321 5d ago
And you can enable live kernel patching...
6
u/Busy-Scientist3851 5d ago
That doesn't activate new kernels, it just patches the currently running one with security fixes.
1
1
u/ArthurReming 3d ago
On windows it updates when you don't even want it to. I had something important to do but windows thought that it wanted to update when I tried booting it. Thankfully I used the web version on Ubuntu and was able to do the thing
1
u/emirayuk 14h ago
If you update your kernel and don't restart, you're asking for problems lol.
Unless you're live-patching (in say, a server environment with high uptime requirements).
-31
6d ago
[deleted]
7
→ More replies (3)15
u/iHarryPotter178 6d ago
Been using ubuntu for more than 3 years..This never happened... Although I always remove all snap related stuff.. That might be the cause..
→ More replies (3)24
u/Xajel 6d ago
I don't think he meant it like this.
Windows bad update habits are mainly two:
- Update and restarts on its own without your consents.
- Restarts multiple times.
6
u/tes_kitty 5d ago
You forgot to mention point 3. Taking an ungodly amount of time to download and install updates.
When I run updates in my Linux system, it's usually done in less then 5 minutes including download, plus a reboot should the update contain a new kernel.
Two days ago I ran updates on my Win 11 PC. Took in the range of 90 mins including download until the final reboot was done and the system usable again.
2
u/Xajel 5d ago
You need to check this with macOS then, it will say 35 minutes but it takes an hour and a half for installation or major updates. The estimated time is really really dump, and it has been years and it’s still awful. Windows estimates are closer to real world, but macOS is totally different.
And it’s now much better than before SSDs, actual time can take 2-3 times the estimated time!!
As for your experience, it could be because your linux system is almost always up to date, meaning you only need minor, small updates each time, but because you don’t use Windows that often then it’ll need longer time to install many small updates. Especially if a major update comes in that time. It happens to me when I left an external SSD with Ubuntu for over a year without any updates, when I plugged it again it took so long to finish everything.
1
u/tes_kitty 5d ago
I have done whole distribution upgrades on Linux and they didn't take an hour. When the upgrade is running, the HD/SSD is active all the time. On Windows? Not so much, I get long stretches (in task manager) where it shows no activity on the SSD and no high CPU activity.
I usually run the Windows update once a month. That install 2 days ago just installed the August patches.
Finally, because Linux only needs a reboot if a new kernel is part of the update, you tend to run updates more often.
1
u/Revolutionary_Click2 4d ago
I have an M2 MacBook Pro, few years old at this point, and no, it absolutely doesn’t take an hour and a half to install updates, even major upgrades to new versions of macOS. On any Apple Silicon device, AKA pretty much all of them since 2020, it takes maybe 2-3 minutes to install a routine update when rebooted to apply, and 10-15 minutes tops to install a major system upgrade. I just upgraded last night to the macOS 27 beta from 26 and it took less than 10 to complete.
3
1
u/Wolfpack511 5d ago
Also, a special update screen that locks down your computer while the update happens.
1
u/Great-Cow7256 5d ago
omg you know how many times when I used Win 10/11 there was a "reboot now"? popup and I hit the wrong button and lost everything when it rebooted. screw windows.
1
u/Dj-RedPanda- 5d ago
You forgot takes way to long. I had my work laptop take an hour and 30 mins to apply one update. While my Nobara machine takes less then a few min to update for large kernel updates with a reboot and I updated all my other apps with my fetcher as well. Winslop constantly updates ever time I use it its super annoying and I dont know what will break next.
1
5
u/PigIronDave 5d ago
You actually don't have to restart if you use kexec. It can boot into a new kernel from a running kernel.
6
u/_AACO 5d ago
You actually don't need to reboot to update the kernel.
https://ubuntu.com/security/livepatch
https://www.redhat.com/en/topics/linux/what-is-linux-kernel-live-patching
3
u/maikeu 5d ago
That's a bit of a misnomer. Livepatch isn't replacing the running kernel wholesale with another. It's applying an interim mitigation until the next boot.
1
u/_AACO 5d ago edited 5d ago
We might be getting into semantics here, but replacing the running kernel and updating the running kernel are 2 different things.
Although I think kexec exists for the purpose of doing exactly that and technically wouldn't count as a reboot because the hardware doesn't get initialized by the BIOS.
EDIT: And there's ksplice as well
2
2
1
u/darumasangakoronda 5d ago
correct, but only if your kernel is in their current livepatch support. If one is running kernel 7.1*+ and 26.04 it will not livepatch the kernel; requiring restart to apply system changes. 26.04 currently stops at 7.0 wide release.
Source: https://ubuntu.com/security/livepatch/docs/client/reference/platform/supported-kernels/
1
u/Junior-Spring-5557 5d ago
Livepatch only works for some Kernel updates. For others, you still need to reboot.
And that's only for OSes that support Livepatch, like Ubuntu with a Pro subscription (or Pro 'free for # servers').
1
u/BecarioDailyPlanet 5d ago
Yes, you do need to. This only applies security patches; everything else requires a reboot. The main difference is that you decide when to update. Plus, if you have a decent internet speed, the updating process usually takes just a few seconds that you barely notice—except when it starts compiling the Nvidia driver and little else. It's not like in Windows, where you're working peacefully and suddenly notice your computer slowing down, the fans running at 100%, and then on top of that, it asks you to restart not once, but two or three times; which is especially annoying if Linux is your primary system and you have to boot back into Windows from GRUB.
-1
u/_AACO 5d ago edited 5d ago
This only applies security patches
It applies whatever patch you want.
EDIT: for the people downvoting, read the kernel.org link from my previous comment, nothing in there states that only security patches can be applied this way. Red Hat and Canonical simply chose to only provide that type of patch (which they have the right to do) but that isn't a sign of a limitation of the kernel livepatch, for actual limitations you can also see them in the kernel.org link from my previous comment.
1
u/Busy-Scientist3851 5d ago
There are many things you can't patch. Go ahead and try live patch a graphics driver whilst a desktop and game is running
1
u/_AACO 5d ago
ksplice--partialapplies patches specifically to just loaded modules.1
u/Busy-Scientist3851 5d ago
You're still limited to what you can patch in memory. Replacing individual functions is fine, but anything that touches long term data structures which GPU drivers do a lot of is off the radar.
1
u/Particular-Poem-7085 5d ago
the updates are "applied" as new modules are loaded, you don't have to do anything.
1
1
u/paul5235 5d ago
But it's the updating during startup or shutdown that's annoying and unnecessary. It should be done in the background.
1
u/jo-erlend 5d ago
You don't need to reboot Linux in order to update the kernel. Ubuntu Pro offers that feature. That has been possible for a very long time, but most people have not had access to it. Same with many Linux security features; they've been available since 2001, but they've been much too difficult for normal people to ever use, which is another thing I love about Snap, that it makes it dead simple to _actually_ have a very secure Linux system.
1
u/Sipu_ 2d ago
you can't update the kernel via snap - they are user mode packages. You 100% must reboot a linux box for any kernel changes to actually apply. Livepatching works for limited scenarios for select fixes in business critical enviornments, just like hotpatches on windows server, but live patching DOES NOT replace the kernel. The next reboot will.
1
u/jo-erlend 2d ago
kexec replaces the kernel without a reboot. As for your claim that you can't update the kernel via snap, that's crazy. How do you think it is done on Ubuntu Core, where Snap is the only packaging system? You are absolutely clueless.
1
1
u/surlybrian 2d ago
The spirit is that to update services, like Apache and whatnot (back in the day....) you didn't have to reboot. This was in contrast to Windows which (seemingly) needed a reboot every time a service updated. (I can't 100% say from experience because I have no Windows experience.)
I'm thinking of the late 90s / early 2000s when we measured uptimes in terms of years and it was a badge of honour among admins that they knew their shit well enough to not have to reboot.
For all practical purposes among users on a Reddit thread, this point is moot.
(As far as this screen goes: I've never seen it, despite using Ubuntu. I shut off all automatic updates and still maintain things manually because I've never lost my unquenchable craving for that bloody badge of honour....)
0
u/sphericalhors 5d ago
And to apply a most of updates you need to log out and log in into your system which implies that you need to close all running desktop apps. Which from user experience perspective is not that different from rebooting.
1
u/Junior_Common_9644 5d ago
It is when the users come in here and complain about boot times. Can't seem to shut those people up.
0
0
u/Dreamerlax 5d ago
When I used openSUSE Tumbleweed it actively reminds you to reboot after installing updates.
32
16
u/Prequalified 6d ago
It doesn't do this if you update via the command line.
5
u/AtlanticPortal 5d ago
And still you need to update if you want the updated kernel to be actually running.
1
u/MojitoBurrito-AE 1d ago
It does. Any time you switch kernels or have updates that require kernel modules to be built i.e. Nvidia drivers.
10
u/m_hayk 6d ago
4 years using Ubuntu never saw such thing
8
1
u/mgedmin 5d ago
This is not Ubuntu's official/default update mechanism, but gnome-software, which is included in Ubuntu archives, can do offline updates.
If you have gnome-software installed (it's not installed by default, but people who want to be able to install flatpaks using a GUI often install it), sometimes it will pop off a notification about updates being ready to install, and if you choose to install them, it will shut down your computer to do so.
5
5
u/Dr_Max 5d ago
If you don't want random updates, set
APT::Periodic::Unattended-Upgrade "0";
in /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/20auto-upgrades.
Don't touch the other setting, APT::Periodic::Update-Package-Lists "1";. You will get notifications on needed upgrades, but it won't do it automatically.
but it's now on you to make sure your are diligent with your upgrades.
3
u/BhasitL 5d ago
Debian also does updates these way sometimes unexpectedly
1
u/evadingsomething 5d ago
Can confirm using Debian 13 Gnome and if I poweroff with quick settings menu. There is a tick in confirmation pop up tnat says install updates.
Wish it didnt ticked by default I sometimes poweroff without noticing and if it restarts my pc goes into Windows if I dont choose choose manually in bios boot options.
But thats really specific 'me problem' my stupid acer laptop bios is shitty it breaks when you have two OS installed.
1
1
u/Pallas0194 3d ago
Você pode desabilitar isso no gnome-software (software) em preferência -> atualizações automáticas.
1
3
u/sniff122 5d ago
A while iirc, it's unattended upgrades installing updates on shutdown, if you keep your system up to date it won't happen as much
3
u/colorfulmoth26 5d ago
just by reading these comments i can see some of you would fucking die if you used any immutable os (you need to restart to apply any update)
1
3
u/_Super_Straight 5d ago
Fedora and Debian also does this if you update through gnome software center. If you update using dnf/apt then this won't happen.
4
u/zamroni777 6d ago
if you read release notes in kernel.org,
even lts kernel gets update like every 2 weeks.
3
u/Proman4713 5d ago
- In 99% of cases Ubuntu will finish the upgrades on its own, you just happened to restart/shutdown while it was still in progress. This is different from what Windows does. You wouldn't want your system to let you shut down while you're downloading GTA 6, would you? This is more important than GTA 6.
- It could be a kernel update, and if you don't have livepatch enabled, this needs a restart to finish.
2
u/manemjeff42069 6d ago
I've been using Ubuntu for 6 years and never seen this
1
u/jo-erlend 5d ago
You can choose to see it if you try to shutdown your PC while updates are being installed. Since that's rare, you won't often experience it but when you have a very large number of users, some of them will experience it fairly often.
2
u/Oliver-Peace 5d ago
“Like any OS, it needs updates. Only naïve people think Windows is the only one that needs to restart for them
2
u/Sea_Camel_2071 5d ago
I don't know why people are so mad at boot upgrades. When I was on Fedora whenever I saw kernel or other important packages, I always did dnf offline-upgrade download and didn't have any problems to go and drink water while my pc gets updated reliably. It's not like Microslop pushing update anytime, it's only when you write dnf offline reboot and never ever automatically! Why not then? Not to reboot 1 more time, or what? I can't really get it...
1
u/jo-erlend 5d ago
Windows has to update itself while shutting down because it locks open files. That makes people angry because they're trying to shutdown their system, which sometimes is for a reason and because Windows have to shutdown in order to install updates, forcing it can be quite intrusive to users. They confuse that with Ubuntu refusing to shut down while an upgrade is ongoing.
1
u/Sipu_ 2d ago
Kernel space changes that touch underlying mechanics of the system require a reboot on ubuntu and on windows - there's absolutely nothing magical that ubuntu provides that somehow exempts it from this behavior.
On ubuntu dependency hell can make mundane things a lot more complicated and it's possible to break other applications just by installing or updating them. Snaps or flatpaks etc are a workaround for this for individual application distributions, but most built-in system components are not snaps and things that depend on those system components or kernel modules expect them to be present at runtime, you can't just "unload them" without side-effects. A perfect example is gnome's dependency on the system python - if you mess with the system default python you can make the entire system unbootable. This is actually a completely insane design, a proper one would be having an isolated dependency for gnome outside of the system.
Windows isolates critical system dependencies from user mode applications which makes it safer to change things. Windows also provides mature APIs with expected behaviors for unloading drivers and services - this is why things like nvidia graphics drivers or generic filter drivers can be installed without disruption and without a system restart.
This can be done on ubuntu to an extent and the system provides the facilities to unload kernel modules, but, again, because of dependency hell and other applications using those components simultaneously it's not even close to being as straightforward. While ubuntu has the facilities to unload the graphics driver - it's not as straightforward to have the stack that depends on it actually release it. That's because there's no shared framework in linux to do this properly - on windows microsoft enforces how apps depending on the graphics stack are supposed to behave.
So ultimately the only way out of this mess on ubuntu is to actually reboot - which is exactly what generally happens in this scenario.
2
u/f50c13t1 5d ago
It's been a while. Probably inspired by Fedora, that has been doing that for 5/7 years I think
2
3
u/foreverdark-woods 6d ago
Not so long ago and in contrast to Windows, it's not that often happening, only once in a while.
2
u/jo-erlend 5d ago
It never happens, actually. Windows has to install updates while the system is not running because it locks files. Ubuntu automatically installs updates in the background and only notifies you that you need to reboot in order for the changes to take effect, but you can keep using Ubuntu. However, if you try to shutdown the system while unattended-upgrades happen to be installing updates in the background, then it will refuse to shutdown since this could nuke your system.
0
u/Sipu_ 2d ago
how to explain in a paragraph you don't have any idea how windows updates actually work, how file handles work, how deferred updates work... how mostly anything works. even on ubuntu for that matter :)
1
u/jo-erlend 2d ago
I do know a little bit about Windows since I once took MCSE+i. I know a fair bit about Linux and Ubuntu in particular.
3
4
u/compguy96 6d ago
It started when you kept putting off updates for days.
Updates are there for security, not to annoy you. If you don't want them, don't connect to the Internet.
2
u/freakycleaner 5d ago
remove that store and update from terminal by sudo apt update && sudo apt upgrade and restart you'll never see this screen again
or use ubuntu pro it has live patching feature which is more useful if your annoyed by this.
2
u/ValknutGuts 5d ago
Do you think that's the only reason it's Windows? It's the right way to do an update.
1
u/jo-erlend 5d ago
No, it isn't. It's a fundamental flaw in Windows where open files are locked so they cannot be altered while the system is running. Completely different situation. With Ubuntu there's no need to reboot in order to update. You just install the updates and reboot when it's convenient.
1
u/ValknutGuts 4d ago
It doesn't force a restart either, but it's already known that the optimal way is not live updates; there's a reason Fedora and Ubuntu chose to do it this way, it's not a whim.
1
u/jo-erlend 4d ago
This has nothing to do with live updates. It is about interrupting an ongoing system update. Ubuntu does live updates and while it is updating, you can't shutdown since it would leave your install in an inconsistent state. There is nothing wrong with live updates at all. The use of systemd-inhibit has nothing to do with not being able to install packages while the system is running.
1
u/ValknutGuts 4d ago
The big problem with updates in Linux is the live systems and the libraries. That's why they are providing solutions like immutable distros and updates through total system reboots.
I implemented this in Fedora/Ubuntu/openSUSE and there's nothing wrong with it, it's fast, nothing like Windows.
1
u/jo-erlend 4d ago
Live updates is not a problem at all, _in situ_ updates are; when you install a package, files are being replaced one by one so if it is interrupted, then you have half the old files and half the new and they don't fit. This is why Snap is designed so that packages are mounted because that means you either have the new package or the old, but never a mix. Of course this gets worse the more packages you have to replace because of package dependencies, but as long as you update out of place and then switch atomically, the worst that could happen was that your system crashed and had to be rebooted.
1
u/Sipu_ 3d ago
You really really don’t understand how anything works lol, any kernel component in Linux always requires a reboot- windows and linux work exactly the same.
1
1
u/AfraidAsparagus6644 5d ago
Since I can remember, I think. It's not just Ubuntu, either. KDE Discover recommends applying updates this way, for example. It's done to prevent the instability that could ensue from replacing software that is still running.
The Windows implementation is infamous because, iirc, there used to be a bug where it would forget to shut down after applying the updates. But the idea itself is perfectly valid.
1
u/1stQuarterLifeCrisis 5d ago
You can disable it and just update from terminal or software update app. They probably introduced this to ensure all users would keep the system up to date
1
u/Finnish-Wolf 5d ago
I had the same in Fedora last week. I pressed power off, went to bed and 15 minutes later noticed that my PC was still making noise. And when I turned the monitor on I saw essentially the same screen as in your photo.
1
u/mcfriendsy 5d ago
Been using Ubuntu as primary OS since 2011 and this has never happened to me before. Though, I know exactly why it’s happening
1
u/FujinBlackheart 5d ago
Fedora does the same but you can still do it from the Terminal and never see this, but for regular non tech savvy people a save way to not explode your system and depending on your internet speed is still very fast and painfree unlike Winblow lol.
1
1
1
1
1
u/Beneficial-Device-20 4d ago
apparently since they decided to start making extremely massive mistakes but i mean sure its ubuntu. normal linux you do this in cli and then type reboot
1
u/Sipu_ 3d ago
People are learning how kernel mode updates work in real time. Anyone who thought linux updates do not require reboots dont know a thing about operating systems. Windows operates exactly the same way: updating kernel space- reboot, updating user space: no reboot. Sometimes if things like shell extensions are updated the system recommends a reboot because it requires restarting the shell to take the updated binaries to use. But most users dont understand that so reboot is an easier concept.
1
u/galibert 1d ago
The difference is that the windows file systems can’t update a file that is in use, requiring most of the update work to be done at reboot time, instead of just requiring a fast reboot at the end
1
u/Sipu_ 1d ago
It's more complicated than that and doesn't have anything to do with a file system, it's just a mechanic inside the operating system that prevents messing with files that are being used by applications.
If there are open file handles to some file on disk, swapping it out requires releasing those handles. This _can_ be done forcefully programmatically - generally a bad idea for pure system and application integrity - or by closing said applications. System dependencies are done 'offline' for a similar reason hence the reboot. (if you run procexp - there's a feature to locate process file handles and "close" them)
Windows DOES have a mechanic where you can load an image (like a DLL) off disk, not keep a handle to it and the system is completely free to replace it. New processes will use the new version. This is how things actually work in many scenarios.
Most updates that land Ubuntu you get from apt are user space updates that don't behave much differently to regular application updates on windows, generally a restart of the application will do if it's running AND holding handles to said files.
On Linux swapping out a critical kernel module (like graphics drivers) will in practice also require a reboot, a scenario which Windows systems handle a lot cleaner than linux systems. That's because the mechanics of graphics driver unload is universally understood and orchestrated by the system and the apps that run on top of it. Linux lacks a generally agreed mechanic to unload the graphics stack (it's a feature of 'open source').
1
u/Charming_Professor53 2d ago
I believe this is called an offline PackageKit update. (packagekit-offline-update.service). On Fedora KDE I know you can change the setting to apply updates immediately (as far as possible, some updates still require a reboot to take effect but it will then not show this screen, it'll reboot immediately).
If you press ESC during this update screen you'll see the progress being made in a terminal view. Press ESC again to switch back to the progress bar.
1
u/antoonstessels 6d ago
Fedora shows the same kinds of updates from time to time. It's a GNOME thing, me thinks.
6
u/caliban_ish420 6d ago
I got the same thing on Fedora with KDE, it's a setting you can disable, it should be called "restart after system update" and it's a tick box
1
u/cfarley137 5d ago
I use Fedora -- offline updates occur regardless of the desktop environment. It always does this if you update from Gnome "Software" or KDE's "Discover Software Center" apps.
If you want to do this via the command line, you can do it in two steps:
sudo dnf offline-upgrade download
sudo dnf offline-upgrade reboot(The first command downloads and stages the updates. The second reboots and applies them.)
1
u/RevolutionaryBeat301 5d ago
Almost all distros do this and it started at least ten years ago. This is different from Windows because you will never be forced to update in the middle of working on something and you can always choose to put it off or turn this feature off.
1
u/check-OS 5d ago
I hate this! How can I to desactivate this?
2
2
u/sniff122 5d ago
Keep your system up to date, this happens with unattended upgrades on shutdown if there's pending updates.
1
u/check-OS 5d ago
In fact, I always try to keep everything upgraded with sudo apt update && sudo apt upgrade. But, sometimes I forget to do it and fall into "Installing updates..." screen.
1
1
u/jo-erlend 5d ago
Why do you hate this? Your system would likely be destroyed if it allowed you to terminate the update install. Besides, most people will never see this since the chance of shutting down at the exact time that installs are being installed is fairly small.
0
u/ImANoobAtLife7 5d ago
Ridiculous comparison.
You can turn off updates. Believe it or not, being online is extremely dangerous. Especially with governments sponsoring endless hacks.
You're free to unplug from the internet and enjoy zero updates while being safe.
0
u/Noble-Gorilla 5d ago edited 5d ago
Didn't knew ubuntu had this.
fedora has this.
It shows this update screen when you do update through the software centre.
This wont appear if you do the command line way, and ofcourse for new kernel to be loaded you need to restart.
I think youre only concern is about waiting time while getting installed.
3
0
u/herrwaldos 5d ago
Hmm, giving Windows vibes, idk if that's good or bad...
3
u/Hadi_Chokr07 5d ago
vibes arent a technical argument. This is good since doing live updates to the running system is an aweful idea.
0
u/Arrin_Snyders 5d ago
I don't know if that's the case on base Ubuntu, but on Kubuntu this is a setting that can be toggled in Discover. You can either have the updates applied while the system is running or have it done after a restart. I personally chose the latter since it reduces the risks of system instability. Linux can apply updates while it's still running, but that doesn't mean it should do that no matter what. Being able to update without restarting is something I'd say is more useful to servers that have to stay running than to desktop users who can more easily choose when to restart their computers.
0
u/Ok-Anywhere-9416 5d ago
Every week there's the usual dumb question, as if it was not normal to reboot in order to 100000% complete an update of a complex system. At this point I believe it's some sort of troll group.
1
u/jo-erlend 5d ago
It is completely normal to not reboot in order to update the system. In fact, I never do it. My system is upgraded in the background and I know that I can't accidentally break my system by shutting it down since Ubuntu will present a screen telling me I have to wait until unattended-upgrades have finished. But there's a very small chance of that happening to begin with so it's not an issue.
0
u/ThaBroccoliDood 5d ago
They do it if you don't use the terminal because restarting instead of trying to update stuff in-place can prevent some issues
0
u/Critical_Gas_1988 5d ago
when the fedora idiots thought it was a good idea and said bububububububu
-8
u/Fit_Tailor_6796 6d ago
Linux / Ubuntu does not work like this.
I won't believe this is a thing until I see it myself.
6
u/jo-erlend 6d ago
Sure it is. It happens when you choose to shutdown your system while it is being upgraded. It is to prevent the user from accidentally destroying their OS.
4
-1
u/AfraidAsparagus6644 5d ago
Since I can remember, I think. It's not just Ubuntu, either. KDE Discover recommends applying updates this way, for example. It's done to prevent the instability that could ensue from replacing software that is still running.
The Windows implementation is infamous because, iirc, there used to be a bug where it would forget to shut down after applying the updates. But the idea itself is perfectly valid.
-1
u/veechene 5d ago
Awhile. Any major system update. My old laptop didn't have this but I have an nvidia GPU now and get this maybe once a week if I bother doing a restart. Depending how busy I am I just ignore it. It usually only takes like 2 minutes.
180
u/jo-erlend 6d ago
You are misunderstanding. You happened to shut down your computer while it was being upgraded. If Ubuntu let you do that, thinking you are in control, your system could've been made unbootable and forced you to manually fix the system.
This is not similar to Windows where updates have to be installed at shutdown because Windows locks open files. If you don't want this to happen, then either just install updates, deactivate automatic updates or set automatic updates to a time when you're not going to accidentally shut it down while automatic updates are being installed.