Re: Useless...
If you genuinely believe that anyone with brains ever claimed that Linux never needed a reboot, you're really as bad as the people who claimed it. Every kernel update, unless you wanted to use the early kernel trampoline patches or these patch's predecessor, required a reboot.
However, that said, how many reboots are needed to do simple things like patch office suites, do the initial install, etc? I'd say "less", not none. Windows reboots, is it three times? on every deployment of it that I push out to my network. It seems to be unavoidable after sysprepping. But I can roll out a Linux deployment with a single reboot (i.e. the one to get into Linux from whatever deployment tool I've used).
And now how many reboots do Linux installs need if we have official live patching - something that MS just doesn't offer in their software? That's the point.
Nobody sensible has ever claimed that you don't need to reboot Linux. But it's been disgustingly easy to get 400+ day uptime for years, long before the MS offerings stabilised, if you're that way inclined (Why would you do that? It means 400 days of no kernel update!). However, now, even a kernel update doesn't necessitate a reboot.
However you argue it, I have a few dozen more updates today as part of Microsoft patch Tuesday, which is going to necessitate rebooting every computer, including servers, on-site at least once. However, the VM's I have of Linux-based stuff only reboot when I decide they need a kernel update at the moment, which because they are internal, non-critical and non-privileged, is rare.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
