45 comments

[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 103 ms ] thread
Ahh, those transitions from the days where you could just turn off you DOS, until the computer could "turn off" by itself (I know, not that hard off, just a soft button off)
SMARTDRV /C
And not forgetting the days of MFM hard drives, when you had to run the "park" command before turning off, or risk crashing the heads.
I remember seeing that hand-written warning taped onto IBM PCs.
We seem to be heading back towards those days.

The property that made this possible was that DOS had little "state" to save before going bye bye.

And these days you get much the same with ChromeOS.

Heck, was there not someone in the -sec community arguing that state was to be considered bad?

I don't if it is bad, but I think that it just means that some computation isn't being done in full, and that's why you have to tell it to finish.

Explaining better: any program should have the information saved when you click it to save, or at some specific time. If I don't save, ok, no problem loosing it. But opening a word processor and then turning the computer off shouldn't make the processor crash, or go through some recovery, or complain about something.

It wouldn't have hurt to keep the Restart button, just like RISCOS. The problem was the message, not the button.

http://www.guidebookgallery.org/pics/gui/startupshutdown/shu...

Well most PC cases back then had a physical reset/restart button, iirc.
You assume people don't blindly click on things until the desired affect takes place.

My brother went to a website that had a link to a pdf he wanted to read but adjacent to that link was an "install acrobat reader" button that looked more inviting. He kept on clicking and installing acrobat reader assuming that it would eventually go to the link he wanted. He eventually complained to me that his computer didn't have acrobat reader and no matter how many times he tried he couldn't install it. It was only after I went to the website that I realized what the problem is.

I found this mildly interesting: the "screenshots" in this article are made out of HTML elements.
And using a Windows only font for the "moon and stars" dialog. At least the supposed moon comes up as a "missing character" in Firefox on Linux.
it's in android
Unicode U+1F319 "crescent moon", it exists on OS X but it significantly different from the Windows version (yellow and orange shading vs solid white silhouette).

Since the visual appearance matters here more than being searchable by "", drawing the shape in CSS would be more consistent: http://aamirshahzad.net/moon-with-css3/

EDIT: Pretend there's a moon in those quotes. HN strips some Unicode characters, including that one.

Raymond Chen does that all the time.
He got very inventive, even using unicode characters for the moon and stars icons. Do you know if he is building those from scratch or using some sort of tool to assist?
Holy crap, I didn't even realize that! Author fooled me. :)
This might be alarming to some, but I have been hard-crashing all of my personal Linux boxes (and some of the Linux boxes under my professional care) for quite a few years.

That is, if a physical power button (often a toggle switch on the power supply) is close, I'll toggle it off.

Most of the time, I'll hold the reset/power/whatever button down until the device clicks off.

Linux and its filesystems have made this a (generally) safe thing to do for many years. I started doing it after I read a lwn.net article, ages ago, about how ext3's crash recovery path was discovered to be a bit faster than its normal, clean mount path. If I recall, that happened because so much more of the focus was put into that 'bad' path that it ended up more efficient than the 'good' path.

Full disclosure: if I wish to do the crash thing immediately after a bunch of relevant file writes, I will type 'sync' on one of my many terminals first. (:

The latest versions of Linux with systemd boot so quickly that I don't think the risk vs reward of doing this would be worth it for me.
Indeed! That's kind of the funny thing.

I started doing the 'crazy thing', determined to do it until something problematic happened. I was in kind of an ornery mood.

Now, after many hundreds...perhaps thousands...of forced crashes, nothing bad has yet happened.

Amazing, really.

Don't need systemd to boot fast. Just be fugal with what you start.

Linux distros are heading into Windows-ville in that sense, firing up all manner of daemons just in case.

I completely agree, I've just been using CentOS and RHEL 7.2 and the latest Ubuntu and I'm blown away at how quickly I can boot up.
This can work, but properly shutting down not only is for syncing the filesystem but it properly terminates applications. I.e. editors might remind you to save changed files or the desktop environment could store its state. Away from desktops some server applications can be graceful (I.e. instead of terminating a HTTP request while processing active requests could be finished, but new requests by the load balancer be rejected, databases can clean their state etc.)
You're placing a lot of trust in you presumably consumer-level disks. Even if the filesystem is perfectly crash-tolerant under some specific model of disk behavior, the disk could always behave outside of that model, especially upon sudden loss of power.

Story: some time ago, I tried to hook up an SATA hard disk into a desktop PC which had an SSD connected, while the machine was running. When I did so, I got errors in dmesg about the SSD failing and being reset automatically. I rebooted and grub took ~30s to load the kernel then the boot hanged in the middle. Luckily after some power cycling the issue was gone but I honestly taught I lost the SSD. Apparently disks don't like losing power. Possibly this was even worse because it was just a temporary voltage drop (the disks were connected to the same supply cable).

Is SATA designed to allow hot plugin of a hard drive? That would surprise me.
As far as I know, it is an optional feature that both the controller and the drive have to support, to use reliably.
And it then needs to be explicitly requested which usually means bypassing the cache to avoid any delayed writes.

But even then hotswap was never meant to ensure data consistency it just allows the controller to reinitialize new disks without a full reset.

Do wonder if you would have seen that issue if it was another SSD.

Thing about spinning platters is that it takes a fair bit of initial juice to get them spinning. Thats why some USB HDDs come with y cables to get those few extra miliamps from the second port.

(comment deleted)
Ah, bad old days, when you command the computer to shut down and it cleans a little and stays on, suggesting to restart it, what else would you want to do anyway?

I remember the orange bitmapped letters of 95, that color and the jagged letters stayed in my mind.

I've used Windows NT, various versions, but somehow suppressed the memory of the final screen. Anybody knows which version(s) of Windows NT offered "Restart" after the shutdown?

http://www.guidebookgallery.org/screenshots/shutdowncomplete

NT 3 and 4 did, and you always saw them since it didn't support soft power-off (although I vaguely remember there was a registry key to enable it but didn't work for me).

Win2000 removed the button (and looks like it was just showing a bitmap, rather than keeping the window system running)

Yup. The thing to do was to have an autoexec.bat that had

win.com mode co80

that way "shut down" windows would put you back at the dos prompt (if not you could just type "mode co80" and start using dos)

Reminds me of http://www.guidebookgallery.org/pics/gui/startupshutdown/shu..., and the time I patched the Mac OS System Error Handler.

The patch I made tried to speak the text of the error message. It turned out that worked fine, if you opened a SpeechChannel before the crash (we had one open, anyways, and patched a zillion calls, so it worked first time round) and you were lucky (the System Error Handler was the part of the OS that was designed to show system errors, making as few assumptions as possible on what part of the OS was still functional; without memory protection, a crash could, for instance, mean that the memory manager data structures got corrupted, or that font data got overwritten, so there was no way to guarantee that the MacinTalk voice data wasn't corrupted)

The day our beta tester excitedly reported that the test Mac SE (one of the few Macs at the time that couldn't switch itself off in software) spoke the text of that alert when you selected "Shut Down" in the Finder, I learnt that that alert was a system error alert.

(http://www.guidebookgallery.org/index is a nice site for the nostalgic, by the way)

Because of the ancient hell that is FAT32.

And yet you own at least one device which is FAT32 to this day. You nearly have no choice.

Two class-action lawsuits I'd like to see: Open NTFS. ext4 support on all versions of Windows.

What would be the grounds for a lawsuit about either of those things?
Microsoft, being the single biggest supplier of desktop operating systems, are holding back interoperability by not supporting file systems that are freely implementable on other platforms.

Supposedly one reason Google do not have SD slots on their Nexus devices is to avoid getting into a patent quarrel with Microsoft regarding FAT.

I can't imagine even the best lawyers finding grounds to sue someone to force them to support a technology.

And as for patents...again, the way to deal with that would be to wait for Microsoft to sue for patent infringement.

Lawsuits aren't some magical tool you can use to shape reality in your image.

Oh, I understand completely. But just wait 'til you have to face a borked FAT32 file system in a customer system. It's unpleasant.
There are probably no firm legal grounds for either. But it would, IMO, be very much in the public interest.

FAT32 is a real problem. Most cameras and such manage to do an orderly shutdown but one of these days...

Is it possible to have a modern desktop computer that doesn't support power management? Do modern windows operating systems still have the safe to shutdown dialog for that scenario?