Jump to content

Removing Patches from the command Line?


meep
 Share

Recommended Posts

pkg_remove blah?

I kid... Some windows patches seem to have a uninstall.exe for them, so you may be able to run them via the command line. Dunno how stealth that will be though. Main problem you will have is that windows is a gui based operating system, where as linux is a CLI os with a gui module bolted on via X.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

format C: Q

then insert a Linux install CD ... no need for patches :P

You have to be fucking joking right? Fedora Core 6 required 400mb of patches on a new install and then has a few more every time I turn it on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can think of a few non-legit reasons...

Like what? If you already have command line access to a box you just owned you don't need to remove patches to own it further.

Sparda has a point but maybe he is trying to remove things that he can't remove otherwise :roll:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There still are patches for Linux, but at the same time there not technically patches. On a proprietary OS, the company has knowledge and software to protect.

So what they do to fix problems in there software instead of distributing a new version of the problemed software so any one can download it (and use it in Wine), they distribute patching software. This patching software does not contain a copy of the new version of the software, instead it contains binary code that will eventually replace the binary code in the problem software. Basically, what happens is that the patcher changes code in side a file rather then replacing a file with a new one is what I'm trying to get at.

Now, in Linux/BSD patches still exist, but they are technically software upgrades rather then software patches. When a problem is found in (say) Apache, instead of releasing a binary file that patches the Apache executable binary (this simply doesn't work with cross platform code), all they do is release the new source code and new binary versions for people to install, which will actually replace the problemed version of the file all together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So rather than give you a small download that fixes the local problem as MicroSoft does, you get to completely reinstall the program. This method is superior to the one Microsoft uses because...?

All the packaged distros provide is a file with binaries. Nothing cross-platform there. No reason for them not to use xdelta's or whatever to patch the binaries to the new version.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said either was better then the other, but there are advantages and disadvantages to both.

Advantages to patching (as opposed to upgrading):

Smaller download sizes

You don't end up having to distribute copyrighted files free of charge

Disadvantages:

Lots more processing required when installing (and so installation can take longer then upgrading)

Patching will fail if version expected is not found

Advantages of upgrade/reinstall:

Will never fail (apart from corrupt download or some thing like that)

Allot less work to do when actually installing (unless compiling from source)

More customizable (remember what you had to do one windows with every new release of Firefox 1.0?)

Disadvantages:

Download size is bigger

(Are there any other disadvantages?)

I don't have any evidence to back most of this up, but it just seems to make sense :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Firefox is an example as to why this isn't a good idea for everything. You cannot just download a single patch for it, you have to download the entire thing again and again and again with each update. Would it not be easier to create a patching system? Your arguments are valid, and today's internet speeds make the size point moot, but its still not as efficient as it could be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

vako I must disagree,

just last night I had to format a system for a mate, I started the download of SP2 at 9.30PM and it hadnt finished d/ling untill 10.15 and installing till 1.40AM

quick patching system, and yes i was using a broadband connection

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Windows XP takes around 4 hours to reinstall and update. FreeBSD takes over a day to compile the updates on a base install, including a 35mb tar for the firefox source code. I love freeBSD, but I don't think it has a binary update method, it just updates from source.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...