SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the if-some-is-good-then-too-much-is-not-enough? dept.
Bruce Byfield's Blog on Linux Magazine explores the upgrade treadmill.
Byfield relates an old comic by Christiann MacAuley that depicts how Linux, Windows, and Mac users relates to a pop-up announcement saying: "An Update is Available for Your Computer".
The Linux user is enthusiastic, the Windows user groans, and the Mac user is glad it will only cost him $99.
One reason for switching to Linux used to be to get off the forced upgrades path common to proprietary software. Yet Linux users seem to have kept the urge to upgrade, even when the necessity was removed. Even when security fixes are back ported, to Long Term Support releases, we just can't seem to resist an upgrade.
Byfield explores the issue of upgrades, and why we Linux users feel compelled to perform major upgrades. Not only the minor patches to fix bugs that happen ever week. We routinely seem to rush in and put our entire systems at risk by installing complete system upgrades to new kernels, whole new desktops, sometimes new file systems, and even the dread systemd.
It's an interesting read, and set me wondering why so many Linux users chase upgrades for little or no new features.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Tork on Wednesday October 28 2015, @02:35AM
...and the Mac user is glad it will only cost him $99.
When was this?
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2015, @03:30AM
OSX Leopard (10.5). It was a long time ago. Things changed. Now the OS is free, as are upgrades, and frankly the office software too, which works really well for many more things than you might suspect. I've written all my major papers in it (except the dissertation, which is in Mellel). I paid $20 for Pages back in something o something, and I haven't paid since.
TCO on Macs is not bad, and the productivity you get out of them is incredible. I used to be a Slackware user and spent most of my time trying to make shit work. Now I just do work instead, and I use the spare time to do things that have nothing to do with computers. I have much more free time now.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Tork on Wednesday October 28 2015, @03:44AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Wednesday October 28 2015, @10:50AM
When was this?
Well, OS X upgrades have been free for a while, but there's usually a knock-on cost: something will break, whether its software or some peripheral where the manufacturer can't be arsed to update the drivers. However, the worst culprits are well known so its partly a case of choosing your software wisely.
The problem with Linux is the usual learning curve one: if you don't mind building your apps from tarballs, or at least hunting down 'backport' repositories on the tubes, then you can keep an old distro alive forever by just installing the patches and upgrades you need. However, if you are a non-techie and pretty much reliant on the 'Install New Software' button on the desktop, the range and versions of software available will quickly become outdated and restrictive. Even the LTS versions only offer essential security patches in the long term. Its a mystery to me why Ubuntu et. al. who have no need to resort to "planned obsolescence" are so smitten on even shorter major release cycles than Apple or Microsoft.
To summarise: like everything else in the Linux "User Experience" the distribution/repository system has been designed by people who can't conceive of anybody actually having to rely on it.
Of course, pretty much any OS will serve you for years if you don't want to upgrade anything - the issue is being able to make a needed upgrade to an application or driver without having to update everything. In that respect, Linux is simultaneously the best (if you have a black belt in bash) and the worst (for point & drool users).
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Thursday October 29 2015, @03:58PM
Windows has to maintain long-term compatibility because people are still using XP ten years later. Either because it came with their PC and they don't know how to install anything else, or because they aren't willing to pay for the upgrade. Neither of these issues exist with most Linux distros. You know how to install it, because you almost certainly already installed it once. And the upgrade is free. If you just want to keep your existing systems secure, that's no problem -- as you've said, the one thing they do keep up with are security patches. On the other hand, if you're setting up a new system that needs the latest and greatest software, why would you start by installing an outdated OS? And if you want a desktop system kept always on the latest software, use a rolling release. So I don't see any reason which justifies the effort to actually backport all the latest software to all the LTS releases...