Woody Leonhard of Infoworld summarizes the current state of Microsoft KB 2919355, the ambiguously-titled 'Windows 8.1 Update' (not to be confused with the update _to_ Windows 8.1).
In short: Microsoft has frozen two discussion threads on KB2919355 issues (after 103 and 116 pages of comments), and updated the Knowledge Base article with workarounds for seven major errors... some of which don't work.
In last week's Patch Tuesday, Microsoft changed their deadline for this Update until June (formerly they were requiring all Windows 8.1 and Server 2012 systems worldwide to have installed the Update in order to receive new patches).
Meanwhile, if you run a WSUS server, you may notice that the package for KB291355 (last reissued for the third time on 6 May) was apparently silently reissued over the weekend with a new release date of '15 May 2014', but there's no indication of any software updates in the KB article. The article revision number, however, now stands at '21.0'. Yes, twenty-one revisions. With no changelog.
Anyone else with interesting stories about your deployment issues with this Update?
And that's it, right? Maybe have to reboot, maybe not if there's no new kernel. That's all I've done for almost 20 years now. More than 15 anyway, 15 years ago was '99.
It doesn't sound like windows is ready for the enterprise, or for the home, or for servers, or for ... anything?
Mod parent +1 Smug.
After all the years of FUD about how 'hard' it is to install and maintain Linux, it's hard not to be just a little smug.
Not smug - accurate. I'm always incredibly irritated by the never ending updates to my Vista VM instance - in particular the auto-restart thing that I invariably forget about, the multiple mouse-clicks that every installer demands, the need to reboot after every friggin' upgrade.
Somehow updates to my primary Mint box are utterly easy, have never demanded a reboot, and thus far haven't managed to break anything. Windows updates seem to be a big ugly hassle, and always offer somelevel of expectation that something critical will stop working.
Someone should do a business case looking at lost productivity due to Windows updates.
Smug with good reason, though. I'm still using the same Debian install that I set up on an old desktop in 2000. It started as potato (2.2) and I've transitioned through all the versions over the years through apt-get dist-upgrade. I'm not even using the original hardware any more, it's all different, and this install is still working and still updating without problems.
I've migrated it across multiple hard disks, changed it from ext2 to ext3, and swapped out every single piece of hardware except the sound card (first gen SB Audigy, may it live forever), and it's still updated, current, and receiving security fixes, nearly fifteen years later.
Meanwhile, on the other side, how many Windows installs last that long? How easy it is to migrate your system to new hardware without a reinstall? What about just moving your install to a larger hard disk without a reinstall?
Each OS has its own smugness-factor. Windows users get to be smug about their games (at least for now); Linux users can be smug about the updating and migrating; and OS X users, I honestly don't know what they have that's worth being smug about, but they tend to be really smug, so they must have something.
Your 2000 Debian install brings to mind the the ship of Theseus [wikipedia.org] or, as it's more commonly known in the UK, Trigger's broom [youtube.com]. Sorry for the shitty Tube vid; couldn't find a better one.
Your 2000 Debian install brings to mind the the ship of Theseus or, as it's more commonly known in the UK, Trigger's broom. Sorry for the shitty Tube vid; couldn't find a better one.
Definitely true on the hardware side, though I was focusing more on the fact that the OS is resilient enough to still be usable through such a scenario. It's still using many of the same configs, scripts, and tweaks as it was years ago, installed only once from ~2000 era Debian install media.
Fun fact: the last time I used Debian's install media on this system, I had to use dselect to set everything up. The only reason I know what the modern installer looks like is from setting it up on a laptop. That's a large part of why I consider it still to be the same installation despite all the updates and changes. ;)
Also, that clip's a good practical (and humorous) example of the Ship of Theseus thing. Thanks for bringing that to my attention, might be useful to link to others in the future.
15 years ago was '99.
Linux user knows how to do subtraction.
Of course we know how to do subtraction:
# echo "2014 1999 - p" | dc
...and a root shell was the closest thing you had handy?
Works on my Mac too:Last login: Wed Apr 23 21:56:55 on consolemajor-lap-tops-macbook-pro-3:~ MajorLapTop1$ echo "2014 1999 - p" | dc15
Yeah...until you reboot and find the sound and video drivers have been crapped all over, then you get the "fun" of playing Google for fixes, the always enjoyable forum hunts, or if your luck is bad you can replace the entire distro just to get your drivers working again!
The Hairyfeet Challenge [soylentnews.org] has stood for 7 years now and even though it is easy to replicate, costs nothing, and simulates acurately what a normal person would go through there have been ZERO takers...why? its because as long as Linus Torvalds is in charge linux drivers are gonna be shit, that's why. Linux driver model is a throwback to 70s UNIX, an OS designed for big iron servers which is about as far removed from a desktop as my behind is to Pluto. The "let the kernel devs handle drivers" works in servers because the hardware is ancient, in fact many servers in 2014 still are using ATI Rage II graphics chips. It works in embedded because you only have to get the drivers working one time for a specific set of chips and never update it again.
But anybody that can do basic math and logical thinking can easily see why the Linux driver model will NEVER work on the desktop. lets look at the situation...you have 100,000 drivers (I'm being conservative here, the real number is likely MUCH higher) for a myriad of hardware, 99%+ of which no kernel dev actually owns, you have 1000 (again giving benefit of the doubt, more likely there isn't even 300 currently working full time kernel devs with the skillset to do low level driver design and debug) kernel devs available to do drivers. So if you put them to work 24/7 with them NEVER doing anything else and only spending 30 minutes on each driver your average driver would be looked at....what? Once every 3-5 years if that? And that is if no new drivers are ever released while IRL you probably have a minimum of 100 drivers a month being released!
The simple fact of the matter is as long as Linus Torvalds is in charge Linux will NEVER be ready for the mainstream desktop. the average user does NOT have the ability to 1.- Do a step by step troubleshoot session to determine the exact cause of a driver failure, 2.- Know the exact make/model/rev of each piece of hardware in their system (which because of how picky the driver model is you can't use hardware A,rev B firmware C on a part that is hardware A, rev c firmware b) and 3.- be able to diagnose and customize bash scripting to get the driver on the forum to actually translate to a working driver on the system. You can't even count on old hardware as you quickly find that Linux vaunted "old hardware support" often equals barely functional and half baked at best. [osnews.com]
As a system builder believe me I wish it weren't so as on some units the cost of a Windows license can equal nearly half the cost but I simply cannot in good conscience give anyone an OS with so many [narod.ru] major issues [osnews.com] and where functionality which we should be able to take for granted [osnews.com] just does not work. With Linux IF you have the skillset AND the time AND don't mind spending all that effort to keep it going? Yes it can work as a desktop...congratulations, you are part of a segment of the population that measures less than 2% as Linux numbers clearly indicate. For the rest of the planet? Windows on its worse day is better than Linux on its best. Feel free to take the hairyfeet challenge and see for yourself, it really isn't pretty.
That serves you right for using the binary blob firmwares. Zero trouble on the freer side of the fence.
"The simple fact of the matter is as long as Linus Torvalds is in charge Linux will NEVER be ready for the mainstream desktop"
Why is that? I read everything you said, I even checked out the challenge link, but I'm missing why Linus himself is the roadblock and if so, what is the solution...take him out? (of the oversight, not think so drastic).
I get what you are saying, so is the issue that Linux does not allow closed source drivers thus its screwed?
I know of late I have had my share of linux issues, though I still work with it when I can.
Because Linus has said on several occasions that Linux will NEVER have a stable ABI or API as long as he is in charge. moreover the ONLY arguments you can find by the devs against a stable ABI? are RELIGIOUS arguments that can all be broken down to "ZOMFG somebody might not give us teh sources ZOMG!"...which is hilarious because if you go to ANY Linux forum which GPU do they tell you to get? nvidia...the only one that doesn't hand out source.
The Challenge was cooked up because i was tired of the Linux zealots, or FOSSies as i call them, trying to counter every argument with anecdotes. you get "it works for me", "Linux friendly hardware", hell I could just grab the top 5 TMs from TMRepo and cover every "counter argument" that had been put on Slash in the past 10 years. this is why i cooked up the challenge, its simple, easily reproducible, costs nothing but a little time, and accurately simulates HALF the lifecycle of a windows release. Why half? because honestly there isn't a single "user friendly" desktop that has been in existence long enough to simulate a 10 years Windows support cycle.
So I really don't want to hear anybody's anecdotes, if they want to play that I have installed Win 7 on a 2003 Sempron and I have never gotten a bug therefor Windows runs on anything and is virus free! if you think I'm wrong? Take the challenge and post it to YouTube, If you want to use Ubuntu the version to start with would be 9.04. I can do the Hairyfeet challenge with 2K,XP, and XP X64 and the drivers will work from RTM to EOL, that is 10 years of support with ZERO failed drivers. I have tried this with pretty much every mainstream Linux...the result? Not a single one made it to year 3, most failed the wireless on first upgrade and lost either video or sound by the second. if you have the skills to repair the OS when these problems occur? Congratulations you are NOT on the same level as an average user and saying they should be able to do what you can is as asinine as saying we should all make our own utensils because there are silversmiths who can.
Not sure why your analogy should have any more weight than the analogies of those who say it Just Works.
I would point out your hilarious confrontational tone and the hypocrisy of you not responding to my counterarguments last time, but it would obviously be wasted effort.
*anecdote. Graagh; sorry. The *other* A word.
What counterarguments? you want citations here ya go [kroah.com]. this is about as close as you'll get to Linus on the subject BTW as for most of the last decade you even mention the word ABI and that's it, interview over or subject changed. So don't blame the messenger if you don't like the message. Notice how the ONLY solution the kernel dev has is to "get your driver in the tree and let US handle it" Hmmm...lets see, leave my customers to the mercy of some guy who has ZERO interest in my business, doesn't have any reason to care whether my customers have a full featured or even functional driver, and whom i can't even fire if he doesn't do his job? How about NO. There is NO sane company that is gonna take that half ass excuse when it comes to whether their devices work or not, no way!
So lets here what you have to say, I want to hear EXACTLY how you think a handful of guys can support over 100,000 drivers with QA and QC and give my customers reasonable assurance that the device that works today WILL work tomorrow NO MATTER WHAT. because that is EXACTLY what we have on Windows and which the Hairyfeet challenge proves quite easily, I can take a box from XP RTM to XP EOL with ZERO driver failures, you can't even accomplish half that amount using the fucked up Linux driver model.
the challenge is there, it costs nothing, can be completed in less than a day start to finish yet in 7 years not a single one has passed, NOT ONE. And the reason is NOT the software, its NOT the DEs, its NOT the repos, its the simple fact that the Linux driver model does not work. So mark this flamebait all you want, won't change the fact that I'll take the Hairyfeet Challenge with any version of Windows from XP on up and will not have a single driver fail, you can use any Linux flavor you like, and I bet my last dollar you won't make 5 years, hell you probably won't make 3, before Linux has crapped al over its drivers.
You're arguing that a bunch of guys working for free should be able to compete with a multi-billion-dollar company. Listen to yourself. You're beating a dead horse with unparalleled gusto from where I'm standing. You don't want to do the work, then you complain when volunteers don't reliably do it for you. You want Microsoft-level support, then complain when volunteers don't give it to you. If you're so all-fired dead-set on using Linux, assemble your own team, track the Linux repository, and add the drivers your own damn self.
Oddly enough, the very article you quote says what you dismiss is a good idea:
Simple, get your kernel driver into the main kernel tree (remember we are talking about GPL released drivers here, if your code doesn't fall under this category, good luck, you are on your own here, you leech .) If your driver is in the tree, and a kernel interface changes, it will be fixed up by the person who did the kernel change in the first place. This ensures that your driver is always buildable, and works over time, with very little effort on your part.The very good side affects of having your driver in the main kernel tree are:
The quality of the driver will rise as the maintenance costs (to the original developer) will decrease.
Other developers will add features to your driver.
Other people will find and fix bugs in your driver.
Other people will find tuning opportunities in your driver.
Other people will update the driver for you when external interface changes require it.
The driver automatically gets shipped in all Linux distributions without having to ask the distros to add it.As Linux supports a larger number of different devices "out of the box" than any other operating system, and it supports these devices on more different processor architectures than any other operating system, this proven type of development model must be doing something right :)
Simple, get your kernel driver into the main kernel tree (remember we are talking about GPL released drivers here, if your code doesn't fall under this category, good luck, you are on your own here, you leech .) If your driver is in the tree, and a kernel interface changes, it will be fixed up by the person who did the kernel change in the first place. This ensures that your driver is always buildable, and works over time, with very little effort on your part.
The very good side affects of having your driver in the main kernel tree are:
The quality of the driver will rise as the maintenance costs (to the original developer) will decrease.
Other developers will add features to your driver.
Other people will find and fix bugs in your driver.
Other people will find tuning opportunities in your driver.
Other people will update the driver for you when external interface changes require it.
The driver automatically gets shipped in all Linux distributions without having to ask the distros to add it.
As Linux supports a larger number of different devices "out of the box" than any other operating system, and it supports these devices on more different processor architectures than any other operating system, this proven type of development model must be doing something right :)
But I guess I'm just reading that wrong. Obviously the lead kernel maintainer for -stable is arguing against his own model. Why else would he be the lead maintainer?
give my customers reasonable assurance that the device that works today WILL work tomorrow NO MATTER WHAT. because that is EXACTLY what we have on Windows
Bullshit. You're not going to get that from Microsoft either. "No matter what" doesn't exist in computing support. This whole challenge is predicated on the supposition that Windows is perfect.
So your counter is Its Free You Cant Complain [tmrepository.com]? Really? And I'm the USER, explain to me why I should give a rat's ass whether these guys get paid or not? Why is it my concern? YOU are the advocate, I've walked into your shop...sell it to me, give me ANY reason why I should choose YOUR product over Windows or OSX.
And ya wanna know what is really fucking sad? That if you and the other Linux advocates here were to take just a few seconds to think frankly you'd be horrified at what you are arguing in favor of....I mean do you even realize that you are arguing in favor of Linux not being able to update itself for a lousy 5 years being acceptable....really? Its a fricking Operating System, the absolute bare minimum we should be wiling to accept from an Operating System is that it be able to apply its own security updates without breaking!
To me that is what is fascinating about the whole thing, I've gotten death threats, been called every filthy name you can imagine, even had a cyberstalker for the better part of two years for DARING to post a challenge that only requires Linux to update itself without dying, that is really ALL Linux has to do to beat the challenge, simply have a working system with wireless at the beginning of the test and a working system with wireless at the end of the 5 years simulation...yet the Linux fans act like I asked Linux to do the most impossible test, that this can't be fair, how dare you ask Linux to do something that Windows has been able to do for the better part of 14 years! Its an outrage!
So your counter is Its Free You Cant Complain? Really? And I'm the USER, explain to me why I should give a rat's ass whether these guys get paid or not? Why is it my concern? YOU are the advocate, I've walked into your shop...sell it to me, give me ANY reason why I should choose YOUR product over Windows or OSX.
I'm not arguing that they're going to be the same quality. That's my point. You seem to be expecting them to be the same quality. If you want a job well done, you shell out some cash. As for me trying to sell you Linux, I'm sure you're aware of the arguments for and against already, so I doubt anything I say would make a difference.
I mean do you even realize that you are arguing in favor of Linux not being able to update itself for a lousy 5 years being acceptable....really? Its a fricking Operating System, the absolute bare minimum we should be wiling to accept from an Operating System is that it be able to apply its own security updates without breaking!
I never said I was against updates. You were the one saying you wanted professional support right here, right now, and perfect, for no money. If you won't shut up about your precious challenge, I started out my last install on Quantal Xubuntu, did 2 dist-upgrades, and am going to do another one one of these weekends. Granted I have a desktop so no wireless is involved, but everything still works with minimal jiggery-pokery after the initial month of intermittent command line-fu. But I think we've already established that your anecdotes are the only ones with value, somehow.
blah blah blah repeating the Challenge for the 14th time only using bold now
I'm sure somebody else has done (and succeeded at) your precious challenge already. That you keep repeating it over and over and over makes me suspect this more strongly, actually. ("The Big Lie" [wikipedia.org], which seems to also be a favorite tactic of the political talking heads these days)
But I just Godwinned myself, and was arguing with a troll all along, so whatever. Oh, and you can take your smug TM Repository link and shove it, too. I'm done.
Show me where I said "professional support", unless you are arguing that ONLY a "professional OS" can APPLY ITS OWN UPDATES WITHOUT BREAKING which if that is the case then what do you call Linux? A hobby OS?
And the rules are simple and state clearly WIRELESS REQUIRED because i haven't dealt with a system in 5 years that didn't have wireless, nobody wants ugly wires running through their house. if you want to just change the rules you might as well add no sound and video as well, since you are removing the worst offenders. if you stick with nothing but bash then Linux never breaks!
So do what you like, you've already ignored the rules so it really proves nothing, after all if i ignore sound I can get Win 7 on a P2, doesn't prove that its usable. And if you don't like the challenge? Fell free to ignore it, Linux has stayed in the same spot for 20 years, lower than JavaOS last i checked, so its not like anything either of us says or does will matter. Final food for thought...even though Linux cost nothing and the netbook was designed around "Linux friendly hardware" what happened the SECOND that MSFT offered them XP? the OEMs ran away from Linux as fast as they could, but why? Because the drivers didn't stay workinge [theinquirer.net] so people brought them back [laptopmag.com].
And you still ignored my question...name ONE thing that makes it somehow better than Windows and OSX? its not cost because at $99 for 10 years that is less than a burger a year so no value there, its not source because non programmers have no use for it, so name one thing that would make it worth all the breakage and mess for? And isn't it funny how its always the supposed "enlightened" FOSS advocates that resort to name calling? Why is that? Afraid your argument hold up to scrutiny so you have to try to flame instead of arguing on the merits?
is that you, APK?
"upgrade/update the system"
Windows users don't do that, so its unfair to ask the linux users to do it.
Windows users don't HAVE to do that because Windows gets 10 years of support. If you can show me a single Linux OS that gets 10 years of support WITHOUT upgrading and WITHOUT requiring a support contract that costs several times what windows does? then I'll be more than happy to change the challenge. until then its not my fault Linux has such a short support cycle per release, even Apple offers longer than most distros per release.
show me a single Linux OS that gets 10 years of support WITHOUT upgrading and WITHOUT requiring a support contract
Can't do that. They travel in pairs.Scientific Linux -or- CentOS [google.com]This has been pointed out to you BEFORE and you continue to pound on your troll drum.
...and there are plenty of Windoze versions that have had far less than 10 years of support.
Name ONE Windows desktop, the subject at hand, that gets less than 10 years. And from the homepage of SciLi SL is a Linux release put together by Fermilab, CERN [scientificlinux.org] and various other labs and universities around the world. Its primary purpose is to reduce duplicated effort of the labs, and to have a common install base for the various experimenters. Our main goal for the base distribution is to have everything compatible with Enterprise, with only a few minor additions or changes. Examples of items that were added are Alpine, and OpenAFS.
Because it is completely reasonable for a home user to be doing grid computing and have specialty Enterprise hardware like $2000 printers. This is called moving the goalposts [tmrepository.com] with a bit of use distro X [tmrepository.com] thrown in which is extra hilarious since you had to choose distros whose xpress purposes are about as far removed from home desktops as my behind is to Pluto. Would you like to explain BTW how a distro designed for high volume servers and one designed for grid computing is gonna have drivers for home hardware like wireless cards and AOI printers? ?
So try to stay on topic which is home desktops NOT server or the Hadron mainframes,okay?
with linux, upgrades have always been freely available and modern versions often still run on old hardware, so while support for old versions of linux is available online, the demand would be a lot lower than for windows xp.
unfortunately with windows, you get free updates for x years until microsoft decides they want more money out of you. then they reskin, rename and resell . the only reasons why there is still demand for windows xp support at all is because users are sick of perfectly good computers being outmoded at the whim of a multinational, and they are reluctant to risk going from something that works to something that may or may not work.
even if your argument is technically correct, you just sound like an asshat.
So all you can respond with is name calling? Again explain EXACTLY how Scientific Linux is a comparable replacement for XP? or how dealing with no less than TEN upgrades, most of which WILL break multiple drivers, compares with any version of Windows?
The ENTIRE argument for Linux on the desktop can be summed up as "You should stop buying premade glasses because I have some sand right here!". The challenge is there, if Linux is ready for the desktop surely expecting it to work for half the time Windows gets is not unreasonable? If it can't even muster half the amount of support without breaking then it simply isn't ready,end of story. And being 'free' means exactly nothing, by that logic I should be able to come by and smash out your car windows every 6 months because "hey I left replacement windows on the grass". The entire "free upgrades" arguments completely ignore that 1.- The users time is NOT free, 2.- VERY few users have the skills to debug drivers, 3.- Even less of those have the bash skills required to fix the often incomplete or non functional drivers given on the forums, 4.- All of that time and effort will have to be repeated next "free" upgrade.
And I'm sorry that you don't like my tone, I personally don't like lies being sold as truth when they are trivially proven false. Its been 7 years, pick your poison and show me that I'm wrong. The sad part? You are rushing to defend an OS that won't even pass muster on what should be the most simple test on the planet! The challenge requires NO exotic hardware, NO money out of pocket, frankly less time that you and the other FOSS advocates expect MY customers to spend on your OS, and less than half the support level of Windows. Why are you willing to defend a product that can't even give you half of what the competitors do? Even OSX has 5 years of support, is your time really worth so little to you?
At the end of the day if it passes its ready, if it doesn't its not, it can't get simpler than that and moving the goalposts won't change the fact you are defending an ecosystem that can't even accomplish what Win2K did 14 years ago and that is an easily proven fact. Feel free to call me names, won't turn straw into gold nor will it make any Linux last half the time of Windows without trashing itself. I've run the tests, seen it with my own eyes, so why not try it yourself? Worried that I may be telling the truth?
you know... you're right... all us open sores freetards are just stupid
anyone who still uses windows xp is waaaay smarterer, than most of the fortune 500 companies that have invested in linux, not to mention all the ignorant fossies that should quit wasting their time with a dead hobby OS and develop for a *real* awesomer OS like windows xp
now where's my blue crayons... i'm hungry
Than you for proving my point, when given a chance to prove once and for all that you are right? you resort to name calling, why? because you know as well as i do that Linux can't even muster a frankly piss poor 5 years of updates without taking a big shit all over its own drivers. What fascinates me is why people like you are willing to defend something with such a poor level of support. You seem intelligent, is your time worthless? Do you have self esteem issues? Do you have some compulsion to root for an underdog even if its bad?
I guess that is one more advantage over Linux, Windows users don't take shit like a battered housewife, when Windows comes out with a shit version we have a fit and actually get things changed. See Windows 9 shaping up to be Windows 7 with a slightly fancier start menu for instance. Whereas Linux users just won't stand up for themselves, they get shit on with piss poor support, a bad driver model, alpha quality software like Pulse and instead of doing what would be best for the OS and having a bloody shitfit and demanding better you rush to defend it with TMs like ItsFreeYouCantComplain [tmrepository.com] and YouJustDontUnderstand [tmrepository.com].
But you still haven't answered my questions...why won't you accept the challenge? Are you standing here admitting you are defending an OS you can't even update for half the windows support cycle without it breaking? Why do you think an OS that you, an experienced Linux user, can't get to update for even half the time of a Windows support cycle is a worthy replacement for any Windows OS? If you believe I'm wrong its trivial to prove, take the test and post the results to YouTube. The challenge has stood for 7 years, nobody has been able to do it and THAT frankly says more about Linux than I ever could. It works on servers because the hardware is ancient and I doubt if there is more than 400 server drivers required for every server kit ever built, it works in embedded like cellphones because you only have to make it work once, but semingly otherwise intelligent guys like you will rush to defend a half baked piss poor excuse for desktop support because....hell i don't know, maybe you think you are "sticking it to teh man!" or your time truly is worthless.
Dude, just stop feeding the troll.
I've been reading Hairy's BS posts for at least a year now between /., Linux Insider and Soylent. No one paid him any attention on /. so he moved over here to be a dick instead. Just ignore him and he'll find some other site to troll his waste of time challenge on.
How EXACTLY is this a troll mods? Both the Windows and Linux support cycles are well known, here is Windows Vista's cutoff date [wikipedia.org] and here is the cutoff date for the version of Ubuntu released the same quarter [wikipedia.org].Windows Vista? Gets security updates until Apr 11,2017...how long WAS Ubuntu Edgy Eft supported? Apr 25 2008!
So mod me down all you want, it won't change reality and the reality is The Linux version got only two years of support to Vista's 10 which makes the Hairyfeet Challenge 100% valid because a Windows user DOES NOT HAVE TO UPGRADE to get 10 years worth of support, Linux? Well if most distros follow Canonical's lead (which many of the user friendly distros do, since they are based on Ubuntu) you would have had to upgrade over 10 times to equal LESS support than Windows gets! And I'm sorry but you can't throw the "just use LTS!" counter as Canonical themselves says LTS is not for home users but for BUSINESSES that require LTS. If you want to throw in LTS then we have to count Windows Server and embedded (which gets even longer support cycles) because like LTS its made for corporate NOT home users which was the topic under discussion.
Patch Tuesday [wikipedia.org] doesn't count as upgrading/updating? And here I thought "Windows Update" was specifically for updating/upgrading* windows.
* Service Packs, [Windows 8] Update x, etc
I looked at your challenge and I don't understand. So what if the original install is 5 years old? You put in a new Ubuntu/SuSE/Mint/Whatever disk and it will install over the old system and keep the user's home directory or partition intact. Joe User won't have custom binaries or drivers in their system folder. The process is 100% GUI.
Its VERY simple..umafuckitt...damn what a UID, the Challenge is to simulate what Joe and Jane NORMAL would go through if they had chosen Linux instead of Windows. Lets say you are the average customer that comes into a shop like mine, you know very little about computers and your needs are modest, you want to print, surf, hook to your router by wireless so you don't have cords running across the floor, all VERY basic needs that Linux advocates have said for years that Linux is up for...following me so far? Now since I can't go into the year 2019 (wish I could, i know who'd be winning the powerball!) to get all the versions between now and then to simulate a 5 year support cycle (actually its closer to 8 now thanks to multicores, but I'm giving Linux a softball test by only asking for HALF the Windows level of support) there is only ONE way to do it and that is to go into the past.
So its late 2006, the month Vista, the supposed "bad" Windows is released, and you see a Vista machine sitting next to Ubuntu 6.04, the Ubuntu looks nice, Linux advocates SAY its ready so you pony up the money and take it home...now are you REALLY gonna sit here and argue that a home user should know about Linux partition scheming AND about disc burning AND that he or she can go download ISOs and use those (after they have set up a Linux partition schema which just FYI no preinstalled Linux I've ever seen comes with) JUST to update/grade the OS? of course not and moreover the user shouldn't have to because that is what the GUI update manager IS FOR!
At the end of the day my challenge shows that even asking for what frankly should be the most trivial task an OS has in 2014, the ability to update itself with security patches for just 5 years after purchase simply does not work thanks to the bad driver design and that if Joe and Jane were to take a Linux advocates advice and choose Linux over Windows at the end of the day all they'd have is a broken computer. Linux works on servers because a 2014 server comes with ATI Rage Pro II graphics, no sound, and a small amount of parts that rarely changes, Linux works in embedded because you only have to make it work once, but what should honestly be the absolute bare minimum with desktops, the ability to have the system run for a lousy 5 years without crapping on its own drivers? It just doesn't work.
Please don't take MY word for it, run the challenge yourself, if you were to say use ubuntu the version to start with would be 6.04 which was released within 90 days of Vista. You will see for your own eyes what the person who chose Linux over Windows would have seen,which will be broken wireless with no WPA within 2 years, and depending on the chip you most likely wouldn't have sound or anything other than VESA by year 3 tops. I'm not asking for a miracle, honestly the fact that the test is so tilted in Linux' favor and it still fails should send off giant warning bells there is something seriously wrong in Linux land, but as you'l see with crutchy's posts all you get is insults and attacks. Is Linux REALLY so far behind Windows that it can't update itself without crapping on its own drivers, something Windows hasn't seen with any regularity since Win98? My challenge shows the answer is YES and until that changes the only place I would say Linux is a replacement for Windows is if the Windows we are talking about is Win98.
I can take Win2K from RTM to EOL with no broken drivers and the wireless that works at the beginning will work at the end, same goes for WinXP, how anyone can argue that its outrageous to expect Linux to muster just half that amount is frankly beyond me.
I get all that and I believe you that the in-place upgrade won't work. I just think it's a rather contrived scenario, that's all. Instructions for burning an iso are easy. If the user can't do that, they can buy the disk for under a tenner. A lot places, like book stores, sell boxed Linux distros too. So getting a disk is a non-issue. Any beginner distro will take care of the partitioning. The user needs no advanced knowledge here. As I say, even if there's only one partition the install will retain the existing home directory. It's really very easy and it's all GUI. The update manager doesn't do the job, so forget it about it. There's an equally easy alternative. My colleague in the lab just did an Ubuntu install with zero prior knowledge and came in the next day shocked at how straightforward it had been.
It is easy for YOU that does NOT mean its easy for the user. You also ignored the fact that NO preinstalled Linux, and I've seen plenty as many people traded the Linux netbooks and nettops in when the XP ones came out, have a "/home" partition schema so if they were to take your advice? they'd lose everything.
And most importantly you are ignoring the fact that its 2014 and you are advocating for what Linux users USED to make fun of Windows for which is having to wipe and reinstall every time. Just FYI but if I stick with 32bit I can go from XP-Vista-7-8 just by upgrading but again I don't have to because Windows gets 10 years of support which you can't get without spending several times more than Windows on support contracts.
And one final thing....why should a user HAVE to go through all that when the OS comes with an upgrade manager? What is the fucking point of having it if it don't work? I mean can you imagine the royal shitfit that would happen if most users couldn't run Windows Update without the OS shitting on itself? So why shoud you or anybody else put up with that on Linux? I mean for God's sake we are talking about one of the most fundamental tasks of an OS, the ability to upgrade itself without breaking, yet we are supposed to accept that something windows has been able to do for FOURTEEN YEARS is completely beyond the capability of Linux?
Now how in the world can anybody argue that Linux is a replacement for Windows when such a fundamental function is broken and requires going through the bullshit of 1.- Finding out which version you have, 2.- Knowing that a new version is out, 3.- knowing which of the on average 4 version on the website is the correct one, 4.- Knowing how to set up a Linux partition schema so you don't lose your data and apps, 5.- Download and burn an ISO, 6.- Blow away the OS and start fresh? How can ANYBODY argue that is comparable to 1.- Click on Windows Update and set to automatic...really?
And most importantly you are ignoring the fact that its 2014 and you are advocating for what Linux users USED to make fun of Windows for which is having to wipe and reinstall every time.
Your post is hyperbole and your putting words into my mouth. My last Ubuntu update was an in-place update that was flawless and 100% GUI. Your challenge appears to be taking a 5 year old OS and updating to current version. I can well believe that may not work and it's not reasonable. If I'm doing an upgrade from a substantially older version then I'll reinstall everything. However, the key thing is that this isn't a big deal. Why? Because your comparison with a Windows wipe and re-install isn't reasonable. When you do this on Windows you're returned to a vanilla system and have to spend the rest of the day installing software and arsing about. This is because Windows can only install or uninstall one thing at a time and it demands frequent re-boots. When you do a fresh Linux install your home directory is intact and 90% of the software you use is already installed. Almost all of the rest you can install in one go from the package manager. I can do a Linux wipe and re-install and be back up and running in full work mode almost right away. If I try this on Windows I lose a day installing software and updates. Big, big, difference.
How EXACTLY is that "not reasonable"? Am I supposed to tell my customers "too bad, no updates for you" because Linux has piss poor update mechanisms? Windows gets TEN YEARS and the average PC users DOES NOT have the skills to do what you suggest...does that mean you accept the fact that linux is NOT a suitable replacement? because you have yet to explain how somebody who went and bought a Linux box off the shelf is supposed to get updates...do you really expect them to shell out $45 an hour to pay me to do it every release?
And you completely sidestepped the fundamental issue which the hairyfeet challenge was made for...YOU and other advocates say "Linux is a suitable replacement" while ignoring that all Windows users get 10 years of updates and NO version of Linux gets anywhere close to that! You say its not fair when it comes to Windows reinstalls? Good because Windows doesn't need reinstalls just to get security updates while LINUX DOES.
So show me a free mainstream distro tailored to home users that gets 10 years and I'll agree with you 100%, but its not gonna happen because they don't exist. Even LTS isn't for home users, its for businesses so say Canonical. So don't blame me that linux has an updater that doesn't update, an upgrader that breaks the drivers, i didn't design the thing and as long as its in its currently broken state neither myself nor any other B&M retailer will carry it!
10 years is longer than most people keep a computer. But that's besides the point. Yes, Linux is a shit replacement for Windows. The update mechanism sucks goat cock. Everyone who buys a Linux box off the shelf has been screwed. Steer all customers away from Linux. Problem solved.
ol' hairycock is just pissy that he can't get linux to install so he'll never comprehend how easy it is to use and update. he obviously loves windows xp so much cos he hasn't figured out how to update his windows either. if windows didn't come preinstalled he probably wouldn't be here cos he would be trying to stick the operating system install disc up his ass. it's ok though cos us idiot linux luzerz share stuff... here have one of my blue crayons; it's only a bit slobbery and i have no idea why it smells like shit. you gotta find your own window to lick though eh :-P
I'm sorry but I'm in retail and you are DEAD WRONG and here is why....multicores. before multicores the average age of a PC in the home was three years, why? because faster chips came out and you couldn't run the latest software on the older chips. But then the MHz war was replaced by the Core wars and suddenly the whole thing changed. With cores it really doesn't matter a hell of a lot if that AMD chips you have is a Phenom I or an FX, and on Intel it really doesn't matter if that chip is a C2x or an iWhatever (ignoring the Pentium D of course, because netburst was shit) because when it comes to programs they al run just fine and that is what the users care about. a perfect example is not 20 feet from me, my wife is at the shop today because she wanted to use one of the benches to work on one of her pieces of jewelry. Right beside her is her laptop which she is quite happy with...its from 2006 and originally came with Vista, but I slapped Win 7 on and it has a C2D and 4GB of RAM so guess what? all her FB games run, it plays DVDs smooth as butter so she is quite happy.
So this is why I call 5 years for Linux a "softball test" because even the business customers have 7 and 8 year old systems in the offices and are quite happy with them. People forget that 8 years ago we had Core 2 Duo and Athlon 64 X2, both VERY capable chips which for basic web surfing and office work has cycles to spare so there really isn't a reason to replace unit the previous unit breaks.
But all of this doesn't change the fact that FOSS fanboys should be outraged that in 2014 you can't even update the thing by GUI without it trashing its drivers. I mean for fucks sake one of the most fundamental jobs of any OS is to be able to update its software when security problems arise, but we get the FOSSie faction swearing with a straight face that its a suitable replacement for XP when it craps itself if you dare touch the update mechanism that comes with the thing? Like I said nobody would tolerate that shit with Windows and it just goes to show the FOSSies are guzzling the koolaid to think that is suitable behavior of an OS in 2014. Torvalds and friends ought to be ashamed of such a thing, I know I wouldn't let a device out of my shop that couldn't perform even basic functions like that, disgraceful.
here's a new hairyturd challenge for you: actually give linux a try... you might come to realise that all the bullshit you're spewing is just that.
updating linux is easier in linux than in windows, and i use both. in windows there is usually a dozen different update programs running in the background, barraging the user with click bait (no wonder windows is so prone to malware). what could be easier than opening gnome update manager, typing the su password (as opposed to a rediculous click-through popup), reviewing all the programs to be updated and clicking a single button to update them all.
but don't let me tell you... try for yourself. the rest of us all use windows so we can compare. time for you to compare... or just keep beating your cock on a dead horse. choice is yours.