apt-get/Synaptic

[Advent Systems]

Thanks Kevin, It's clearer now.

Bob Randal

Kevin E. Glosser wrote:

> Advent Systems wrote:
>
>> Yes.  When you run updates you want as little going on "system wise" 
>> as possible (synaptic, etc.),  so rather then run apt-get from a  
>> terminal window while X and gnome are running (which are "big" system 
>> wise) would it not make more sense to shut them down and have as 
>> little running as possible when you do updates, or does it really not 
>> matter what is running when preforming updates?
>
>
> I would imagine that what is running is in general not important. The 
> software that is currently running would be in memory, the updates are 
> changing files on your hard drive. The next time the updates are 
> accessed then the changes would go into effect. Meaning, the next time 
> you launch the program and the hard drive is accessed to load it into 
> memory it would then be running the newer patched version.
>
> So, if you have an application "running" and then update it. The 
> effect would be none on the current running "instance" of it. However, 
> the next time you run it or if it loads something patched from the 
> hard drive it would then change.
>
> In either case, I don't think there is a general rule here one can 
> construct about limiting processes in execution while performing an 
> update.
>
> I'm speaking on a purely single user desktop computer viewpoint. If 
> you are updating a server or machine used by multiple people at the 
> same time, that would be different. :)
>
> KEG
>