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, Informative) by slinches on Wednesday October 28 2015, @12:14AM
I switched to Linux to get better security, stability and to stop paying the MS tax. I'm currently using a workstation running RHEL6 and am on Xubuntu 12.04 at home.
Who is this Linux user that's supposed to be on the upgrade treadmill again? It certainly doesn't apply to me.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday October 28 2015, @01:36AM
Same here. I'm using Mint KDE 17.1. One big reason I use Mint is because it's behind the curve with all the latest-and-greatest. So I'm not using systemd just yet, and I'm still using KDE 4.12 instead of the new 5.x series. I might upgrade to 17.2 before too long if I have some free time, but that one hasn't changed those things either and just has minor changes, so it's not really a big deal.
I like having stuff that's old enough that it's stable and mostly bug-free, but new enough that I'm not way behind.
(Score: 2) by slinches on Wednesday October 28 2015, @05:13AM
Yeah, it's almost as if Linux users are a wildly varying bunch of people with different goals and values. I'm sure some are interested in constant updates. I know I kept more up to date for a while myself. Then I grew out of that phase and decided to just go with what works best with minimal effort. Maybe some others will make that transition, maybe not. The great part about Linux is that you have the option to do either. That's just not feasible with a profit motive to promote upgrade churn like they usually have with proprietary software.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday October 28 2015, @01:47PM
I was similar; I used to care a lot more about being on the cutting edge. Not any more.
But then again, the way I see it, things just aren't moving as fast as they were 15 years ago. Back in 2000, things were moving rapidly in Linux-land. Now it seems like a lot of stuff is stagnating. I guess everyone got old and had families and didn't have time to put cool new stuff on freshmeat any more. It's all gotten rather boring. Maybe it's just me.
(Score: 2) by mmcmonster on Wednesday October 28 2015, @10:02AM
I'm using Linux Mint Cinnamon Edition. I'm not really sure which version it is, but when the repositories stop working I'll upgrade to the latest LTS.
That being said, whenever it says I have updates (typically security, but I had added some repositories so II do get fresh application updates at times) I update pretty much the same day.
I feel the urge to update the OS as well, but remember two things: 1) figuring out the laser printer setup usually takes me a half hour to get right and 2) I've got a samba share on this computer which is not just shared locally but also by some other computers via ssh and I really don't want to mess that up unless I have to.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday October 28 2015, @01:45PM
Well to me there's a huge difference between the security updates and updating the OS release. The regular Mint updates you do on-the-fly are just for security or bugs, not for major version changes or anything like that. Everyone should stay up-to-date on that stuff. It's when you start making major changes to the OS (all new desktop environment release, changing the init system, etc.) that you're likely to run into problems.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday October 28 2015, @12:15AM
Chasing the new isn't enough for me. I'm a distro hopper. I enjoy sitting down, installing something new, with a different desktop environment, new and different utilities, applications, etc. Well - there's not much that's actually "new" nowadays, except for systemd. But, each new installation at least puts a new spin on everything.
After all these years, it's still a little thrilling to set up a new installation, see how it works, then start tweaking it to my liking. Sometimes, it takes me three months or more to get it just right. Then, I download a new ISO and start all over.
Updates? Most distros today are rolling releases. The maintainers make a point of encouraging you to keep up to date with the rolling release. I guess everyone is afraid of being left behind. I'm probably not going to keep an installation long enough to worry about updating and upgrading stuff. I do like to keep up with the kernel though. No good reason, but I like to do it anyway. Linux 4.2 finally runs on my hardware. I attempted to upgrade to it a half dozen times before it finally took. It doesn't seem to like SuperMicro power management, so I boot with acpi=off and everything's cool.
I like new, I guess.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Wednesday October 28 2015, @01:40AM
After all these years, it's still a little thrilling to set up a new installation, see how it works, then start tweaking it to my liking. Sometimes, it takes me three months or more to get it just right. Then, I download a new ISO and start all over.
A big advantage of Linux, at least since 2004, it that it is so relatively painless to do this now. Most major distros have a live CD, if there are no major issues with that click a link and start a full install. A second big advantage, while you and I may install the same distro, we can both customize it in sometimes radically different ways. And of course, when you point out the zero cost in dollars to mess around like this...
(Score: -1, Troll) by jasassin on Wednesday October 28 2015, @12:17AM
If you look at phoronix.com even today, it's the same problems as when Linux came out. Intel releasing new CPUs that won't even work with the newest kernel, a new kernel busting the AMD drivers. Regressions all over the place. A quick skim of these articles explains why I'm running Windows.
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0x663EB663D1E7F223
(Score: 2, Touché) by Techwolf on Wednesday October 28 2015, @12:36AM
+1 Troll :-)
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2015, @12:54AM
What Linux version you run is hugely dependent on the apps and services you want to use.
When I first installed Linux and 1992 and for at least a decade afterward, you were not only forced to upgrade but it was particularly painful. A service update would often require a more recent library. That new library would require a newer kernel. That new kernel would break a bunch of apps and services that would need to be updated to the latest release. Having real work to do, this treadmill made me switch to BSD (around 1996) because the BSD revision cycle was slower.
I came back to Linux in around 2005 because of a new job with an existing infrastructure. I was surprised to find that this treadmill was easier but still an issue. Finally (since about Ubuntu 12.04) with LTS type releases from various distributions are stable enough and have finally mostly eliminated this kernel/library headache, but I think it is more about the fact that the major software packages (apache, postgresql, etc.) don't change much these days.
In summary, Linux has only just now caught up to Windows and MacOS in terms of not being forced to upgrade on a regular basis. Maybe people continue to upgrade because they think they still have to.
(Score: 2) by mrchew1982 on Wednesday October 28 2015, @04:43PM
I just reinstalled mint so that I could run OBD Doctor software. The latest version of perl wasn't available in the repo for 15, so instead of hacking it in with the dependency hell that was sure to follow I opted to do a complete reinstall to 17. Less than an hour later I had everything up and running, with a good portion of that time being unattended installation.
Maybe I'm the minority, idk. Usually I just update packages to make sure that any newly released vulnerabilities are patched, that's probably what 90% of people are after. Since passing 30 "new shiny" doesn't get me nearly as excited as it used to, I'm much happier with "just works." I certainly don't have the time to read every single patch note to decide which packages to install, so "update all" is the easiest way to keep things secure.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by VanderDecken on Wednesday October 28 2015, @01:14AM
[It] set me wondering why so many Linux users chase upgrades for little or no new features.
I write software and architect systems for a living. When we're deploying (and especially maintaining) a business system, pretty much the last thing we're looking for is new features from the OS and its base packages. We want stability of the underlying system. Our only interest in upgrades is
Everything else is a distraction, a risk, and a time sink.
So yes, we apply upgrades on a regular basis, subject to maintenance windows and change control, but it's generally not because we're looking for New and Shiny.
The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Tork on Wednesday October 28 2015, @02:38AM
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2015, @01:15AM
OS X updates are free now. It's part of what forced Microsoft to give Windows 10 away.
(Score: 5, Funny) by WillR on Wednesday October 28 2015, @05:47PM
(Score: 4, Funny) by Bill Evans on Wednesday October 28 2015, @01:54AM
Reminds me of an old, old tagline: The package said requires Windows 98 or better, so I installed Linux.
And, seeing systemd and Wayland coming down the path, I'm upgrading from Linux to FreeBSD.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2015, @01:59AM
Based on what I've seen from Redhat, I expect that Linux will someday force updates with no opt-out. That's just my personal opinion and probably not worth much. However, as a though experiment, how would the community react if forced updates were being seriously considered? Would it even be possible to prevent it if all the distros were adopting it? I'm asking because Microsoft announced that updates could not be disabled in Windows 10, so it's not unrealistic to consider that the same thing may happen to Linux someday.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by dyingtolive on Wednesday October 28 2015, @02:55AM
And there'll be a patch for that immediately, a perpetual holy war, and 10 distros vowing never to go along with it.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday October 28 2015, @01:09PM
That's why I love FOSS. You can always fork the system. Kind of like what we did here with SN.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by bart9h on Wednesday October 28 2015, @04:27PM
Funny, we don't see such a reaction with the mandatory "update" to systemd.
Gentoo and Slackware are the only options, all the "user-friendly" distros switched. :-(
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Wednesday October 28 2015, @06:32PM
That seems wrong.
I mean, I haven't tested every single one of these to prove that it's the case, but: http://without-systemd.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page#GNU.2FLinux_distributions [without-systemd.org]
I guess maybe it's true that the "user-friendly" (slack isn't user friendly?) ones are gone, but if that's a problem you've noticed, maybe you need to call out for eyes on the problem?
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Wednesday October 28 2015, @10:14PM
Gentoo and Slackware are the only options, all the "user-friendly" distros switched.
Slackware is only "user unfriendly" to people who never really tried it. Really, stuff "just works" the way it should - its reputation for difficulty is undeserved.
[/slackware evangelism]
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 2) by naubol on Wednesday October 28 2015, @03:06AM
Your logic is that if Windows does something, all distros will, too? Have you never met the neckbeards behind Debian?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by lentilla on Wednesday October 28 2015, @06:55AM
Have you never met the neckbeards behind Debian?
And yet, Debian incorporated systemd into their distribution despite the considerable weight of dissenting opinions from within their community. I would have expected them to take a more conservative position. It is not out-of-the-question that a similar situation may arise again.
In the case of the Debian neckbeards, I do wonder if there is some sort of shadowy conspiracy behind it. I think someone is blackmailing them - threatening to out the "neckbeards" as clean-shaven, successful individuals with spouses and children, not even living in their parents' basements. That would really ruin their geek cred.
(Score: 2) by iamjacksusername on Wednesday October 28 2015, @12:15PM
That's unlikely. Unlike Windows, you have some choices with your linux distribution. Last year switched a company over from primarily RH to SLES because the SLES support was included with their existing licensing. No reason to pay additional contracts for RH. The switch was pretty painless and, aside from some minor adjustments in puppet, went off without a hitch.
If RH went full retard with mandatory updates, every admin in world would just drop them from production entirely. In any case, updates on these platforms are not "upgrades", they mostly consists of security of stability updates. I still had RHEL 5 in production until last year and I know of companies with RHEL 3 and 4 VMs still chugging along.
The service model RH and Suse follow is centered around delivering stability (including security) to the customer, not selling upgrades. That means back-porting patches and compatibility testing. For what I want to support, I want the same kernel and same major library versions I was using 5 years ago. If I want to try out new software and "See how it went", I can use Fedora or Ubuntu.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jmorris on Wednesday October 28 2015, @01:59AM
Linux users come in many types. Some are chasing the Shiny, others are getting work done.
I still have Fedora on this Thinkpad, the idea was I'd bleed out on the edge to see what everybody else would eventually be getting and know how to wrangle it when the new stuff eventually worked down. But Centos6 is the end of the RHEL line for us so I'll be out on a new bleeding edge as soon as I see one that look like it has a future as a deployable system. Centos 7 is a non-starter, GNOME 3 + systemd means users revolt at the UI as I revolt at the internal bogosity. Last I looked there was a port of Mate into Centos7 but that only solves half of the problem... if it is stable.
Devuan was looking promising but time rolls on, Debian approaches a 9.0 release and they have yet to release a stable systemd free cut of 8.0. On the other hand it isn't probable that something like Slackware could be tarted up for the general public. So if Chrome stops working on Centos6 before the situation improves things look grim. Another look at BSD?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2015, @02:08AM
I hear you... I still have Ubuntu 11.10 on my laptop because it works. Linux was better and more exciting five years ago...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2015, @02:41AM
I upgrade as soon as it's available. Now on Ubuntu Gnome 15.10 with gnome-flashback. I hate Unity and Gnome 3, flashback gives me the good old 10.04 desktop.
(Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Wednesday October 28 2015, @02:43AM
There are a bunch of other distors you could look at.
However if you actually have users that are likely to revolt that might be your controlling force, and you may have to put up with systemd. Work must get done, after all.
You've not said what UI your users favor.
There is a Slackware based distro that installs user interface complete with versions for MATE, Xfce , Fluxbox, Openbox, KDE and Ratpoison. All over at http://www.Salix.org [salix.org] Saves you putting lipstick on Slackware all by yourself.
And its systemd free.
Then there is Opensuse.org Who are KDE centric, but they have Gnome and XFCE etc as well. You will be saddled with systemd, but they have done a very good job or making it virtually trouble free. They have a rolling release called Tumbleweed as well.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Wednesday October 28 2015, @02:58AM
We have used GNOME since at least 1.0 and I think before. I have one user that just has to be different and use KDE. :)
The problem is I'm at a public library. Staff might could be eventually moved, add a second desktop option and one by one coax em over. The general public on the other hand is an entirely different kettle of fish. GNOME 2/Mate looks enough like what they expect a desktop to look like that they can walk in from the street and use it. We can give em accounts where they can have persistence and it is cool. Been doing it since the 20th Century and it just works. We did use to rely on VMWare and then Crossover Office to make Internet Exploiter available for the cases where only it would do but haven't had to need that for years. That Apple for that gift to humanity.
No way they adapt to GNOME3 without keeping staff out in the lab to handhold open to close. I even brought that up on LWN once with a GNOME devel and had him admit that for random walk in traffic GNOME3 was not a good fit. Of course with the usual 'but once you learn it...' nonsense. So they told everyone it was newb friendly but when you confront them with the idea of actual newbs they admit it ain't fit for purpose.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2015, @04:14AM
XFCE can be set up to look almost exactly like Gnome 2.x, and this is the path we took after we migrated our workstations from CentOS 6. Two bars, top and bottom; Applications and Places menu; taskbar at the bottom; default 4.12 theme that looks well with Adwaita and makes GTK2/GTK3 apps look similar. We chose XFCE over MATE because the development is methodical and conservative, but continuous, and there is a long-term process (already begun) to migrate to GTK3 (which XFCE has migrated multiple times in its lifetime to another toolkit) instead of being EOL. Backend is Debian, with a custom repository for the newer XFCE. Supporting 200+ clients; no complaints thus far (except no more wobbly windows option), the desktop stays out of the way of their work.
Servers run WindowMaker because I can get away with it ;)
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday October 28 2015, @05:41AM
XFCE can be set up to look almost exactly like Gnome 2.x,
Agreed, its the more sensible choice for Joe or Jane Random user walking in off the street, as the menu at the bottom seems more common to the windows users of the world.
Otherwise I would have said use the Mate UI on Salix to get the closest to Gnome 2.x
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by DECbot on Wednesday October 28 2015, @03:03PM
I agree with XFCE. When Ubuntu jumped the shark and went to Unity, my migration path was Ubuntu 10.04 + Gnome 2 --> Ubuntu 12.04 + XFCE as I didn't like either Unity or Gnome 3. I did lose the feeling of 'this is awesome,' but I get that back by running fluxbox now and again.
As for when 12.04 support falls off the face of the earth, I'm still debating between Slackware (or Slack derivative) and BSD. I'm mostly thinking BSD as I don't want to suffer another pulse/gnome/systemd moment.
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2015, @03:44AM
There is a Slackware based distro that installs user interface complete with versions for MATE, Xfce , Fluxbox, Openbox, KDE and Ratpoison. All over at http://www.Salix.org [salix.org] Saves you putting lipstick on Slackware all by yourself.
That should be http://www.salixos.org/ [salixos.org]
salix.org is a pharmaceutical site for gastrointestinal drugs. It also seems to be soyled at the moment.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday October 28 2015, @04:57AM
Good catch.. Sorry about that.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2015, @09:10AM
Working towards a bèta release. Recent status info:
So a bit like "Blazing Saddles" then :-)
The systemd dependency has been taken out of debootstrap, colord, pulseaudio, policykit, util-linux, but still more remains to be yanked out and tested.
(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?
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(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
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(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...
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Appalbarry on Wednesday October 28 2015, @02:43AM
Or the wrong answer. I routinely accept all of the upgrades recommended by my Mint box without a second thought.
That's because, over several years and OS versions, I can think of perhaps one upgrade that broke something. In my experience a suggested upgrade to a Linux program or component might actually make things better, and won't break something else.
My experience with Windows, or Android, or Google products has been that every upgrade manages to bring some new and frustrating headache - usually one that should have been foreseen. That's why an update to any of those is something to be delayed until it can't be avoided.
The only time that I upgrade the actual OS is when I add a new hard drive, so about every eighteen months. And honestly, if a drive hadn't died or filled up I would have stayed on whatever OS version I was using.
I'll agree that it's largely untrue that most regular Linux users update OS versions at the drop of a hat, but suggest that for those that do it's because they're confident that it will go smoothly and painlessly.
(YMMV; Some Assembly Required)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2015, @03:28AM
Yeah. I went to 10. I kinda regret it now. Full screen apps are hit or miss if they will work. Most everything else is 'ok' (the 15 second startup times, and a 5MB per second bump on my wireless were a nice surprise). Figure it will be 6mo to a year before the kinks are worked out (as usual).
With linux it is 'hey I know it will fix something or be at least somewhat better'. I will probably in the next couple of weeks will be upgrading my ubuntu boxes to the latest. Something will break. I will then spend most of the day chasing it down like most computer issues.
I got off Apple long ago because of how they screwed over a company I worked for (best job I ever had). From what I have seen most people upgrade because they implicitly trust Apple to do them right. Not true but it is the perception they have.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by tftp on Wednesday October 28 2015, @03:39AM
On one of my servers I'm still running Ubuntu 10.04.4 LTS, released on April 29, 2010. That is 5.5 years ago. I should upgrade it at some point, but I never have the time... and the worst of all is that the thing just keeps working, thus not forcing me to drop something else and rebuild the box!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2015, @07:16AM
Awesome! I've still got an old Ubuntu 6.06 LTS that's running strong. Intranet only...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2015, @10:57AM
I've also got such an old Ubuntu on my laptop. The reason I never upgraded was exactly the UI changes in later versions of Ubuntu. I didn't hear of a single person who liked it, so I decided to just stick with the old version as long as possible.
I guess I now should switch to a Mate based distribution, but I'm fearing I might break something, and having the laptop working flawlessly is of high importance to me. I guess I'll upgrade the OS by eventually buying a new laptop. ;-)
(Score: 2) by fliptop on Wednesday October 28 2015, @11:20PM
I'm still running that version on a netbook.
To be oneself, and unafraid whether right or wrong, is more admirable than the easy cowardice of surrender to conformity
(Score: 3, Insightful) by darkfeline on Wednesday October 28 2015, @07:17AM
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!
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2015, @07:27AM
The few remaining users of years-old versions of firefox, noticed when google maps removed classic, google maps totally stopped working.
Lately, I've been using bing maps, which actually works in years-old versions of firefox.
If bing maps breaks, I'll either have to unpack my 7-league boots and start making my own maps, or else upgrade firefox, which due to dependancies, may involve upgrading linux beneath it; or compiling 25 dependancies by hand and manually setting include paths.
(Score: 2) by bart9h on Wednesday October 28 2015, @04:38PM
unpack my 7-league boots and start making my own maps
Or just use (and contribute to) OpenStreetMap.
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Wednesday October 28 2015, @10:27AM
I update when I have the time. It's not a fetish of mine, but our developers often require the newest ruby/python/groovy version for different reasons, and the easiest way to get them is usually to run with the newest release of Fedora. Also it can be really painful to upgrade when the distribution you use is already out of maintenance. I had to update some Ubuntu 10.4 boxes some months ago, and it was less then convenient. Some repositories were missing, therefore some dependencies not solved on the update-path, and I ended up re-installing the PC. Since I always keep an update of /etc and keep /home on a separate aprtition anyways, a fresh installation is often much faster than fixing dependencies, but still more effort than just keeping the system up to date.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 1) by Slartibartfast on Wednesday October 28 2015, @03:31PM
For me, the epitome of the user experience was attained in Ubuntu 6.06, with Compiz (and its wonderful cube), and GNOME 2.x. But LTS only lasts for so long -- AND new applications, etc., come out in the meantime that often as not, I wind up needing for some damn reason. Personally, I'm kind of sold on the Mint model: LTS as a base, but new releases based on the LTS.