<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 07/25/2012 12:10 PM, Richard Vickery
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACgT65sa98YLnt7t5nXF=uh3xFckwts32euD2kM6sTtvzkxGAA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 1:35 AM, Reindl
Harald <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:h.reindl@thelounge.net" target="_blank">h.reindl@thelounge.net</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
<br>
Am <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:24.07.2012%2019"
value="+12407201219">24.07.2012 19</a>:39, schrieb Richard
Vickery:<br>
<div class="im">> Why do you need to reboot? What are you
doing at power-off that you need to hang around and wait for
it? If a<br>
> portable computer, just close it, pack it away before
the lights go out, and walk away? and is a minute and 38<br>
> seconds really SO important? If this minuscule amount
time is so important, you could retire and get more of your<br>
> minute and a half.<br>
<br>
</div>
strange argumentation<br>
<br>
it does not matter WHY someone reboots a machine<br>
nor is not reboot a solution for any problem<br>
<br>
rebooting a remote-machine after updates which is not<br>
important enough to set up remote KVM as example is<br>
not funny if you have to wait a long time without feedback<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>My point here is taken out of out of its context: it was not
rebooting I was concerned about, but that the world is not going
to end in a minute and a half. Included in my concern were many
things: one was to get someone with more knowledge than I to
help this gentleman - I have stated before that I am a political
scientist, not a real one (sorry if I offend any other political
scientists here, that is not my purpose); another concern is
that when I used MS stuff, I was concerned and fearful about a
longer wait periods because of their crashing occurrences, and
in Linux waiting is no big deal because Linux does what it is
supposed to do versus MS Windows which teaches an individual to
freak out when the computer does something like that in
question; another concern is that I am, and cannot un-become
over-night, nor would I want to, a qigong master who doesn't
worry about time - and this is why mine is, as Harald says, a
"strange argument"; everything the qigong practitioner is, is
strange to those who don't practice.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best regards,</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
</blockquote>
I too would be concerned with a long shut-down time.....only
because, as stated before when using Windows the longer an
application or computer takes to shut down could mean all KINDS of
things are taking place that are unknown to the user. From viruses
and trojan files being installed......to the hard drive being
deleted a byte at a time. If there's one thing I've learned to do
with Linux it's that every two weeks I run BleachBit and this seems
to keep my system pretty fast. Shutdowns and startups are quick, and
free of glitches. I'm running Fedora 16 on a 32 bit 3GM memory
laptop and for what I need it to do....it's pretty fast. I'm in the
process of upgrading my hardware to 64-bit, and I'm wondering just
how much more of an increase in speed that will give my system, when
I go to Fedora 17.....and this is in addition to making sure my
Firewall is on and working!<br>
<br>
<br>
EGO II<br>
</body>
</html>