Le samedi 02 novembre 2013 à 22:35 +0100, Reindl Harald a écrit :
Am 02.11.2013 22:29, schrieb Michael Scherer:
> Ars technica summarize quite clearly the situation on this problem :
> And I do not even speak of the users who reboot during a upgrade,
> resulting into unbootable system due to issue like this
> ( https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002891
). Sure, people
> shouldn't do it. Yet they do, that's purely a statistical problem. Maybe
> you do not see it with your small set of 20 servers, but with ~ 40 RHEL
> desktops in my office, I have seen it 4 times. I have spend ~ 2h to fix
> each of them. Now, take a bigger fleer of laptop, and count how much
> this is costing in time to a company. Time lost by users, time lost by
> having someone looking at it instead of focusing on others issues
strange - and instead fix the reboot/shutdown to delay the shutdown in case
of a running rpm/yum/dnf we go the crappy way of install updates offline
to work around statistics?
When statistics cost you money, yeah, I think that's important to take
them in account. Maybe your employer do not care about this, but I
strongly suspect mine does, and I strongly suspect that most companies
do care about this as well.
Not to mention that basically, what you suggest is that the system
bypass users explicit requests to shutdown, and that doesn't sound like
a improvement to me ( and again, I say that also because that's what we
tried at work, and this didn't work that well ).
Your proposal also do not account that by preventing shutdown/reboot on
a laptop, a user that do not pay attention ( and again, this happen in
real life ) could damage his computer if the laptop is still running and
put in a laptop case, etc. And this is not "theoretical damage". I fried
my motherboard while doing something stupid like "using the laptop as a
ipod in my bag", despite the system shutting itself down at 80°C.
sorry, but i can't see the improvement here
If preventing problems and increasing reliability is not a improvement,
I do not know what it is.
However, since you didn't explained at all what are the issues you are
facing with the new approach, and since you have only explained how you
are doing on your 20 servers ( which is totally unrelated to the
question of desktops, BTW, and which would still be usable at your
convenience on anything you maintain ), I am quite sceptic on your whole