Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday October 27 2015, @11:57PM   Printer-friendly
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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by darkfeline on Wednesday October 28 2015, @07:17AM

    by darkfeline (1030) on Wednesday October 28 2015, @07:17AM (#255469) Homepage

    The premise that Linux users rush into updates is rather odd. The only distributions for which this could be true are Arch and Gentoo. The rest, as far as I know, subscribe to the classic "major feature release, minor bugfix release" models.

    The premise that updates "put our entire systems at risk" is also rather odd. I have used Arch, which is known as the bleeding edge, rolling release, super unstable distribution, for more than four years. I have run into far less trouble upgrading Arch for four years than I had upgrading Ubuntu for two.

    Updates are not inherently unstable. Rather, they improve stability by fixing bugs, or they add much needed features, requested and added by the users themselves (for FOSS, anyway).

    In other words, I think Byfield is crazy. I install updates because they fix bugs, add features, and rarely ever break, unlike, say, Windows updates.

    --
    Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3