General question about versions and upgrading and distribution recommendation
Linux - DistributionsThis forum is for Distribution specific questions.
Red Hat, Slackware, Debian, Novell, LFS, Mandriva, Ubuntu, Fedora - the list goes on and on...
Note: An (*) indicates there is no official participation from that distribution here at LQ.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
General question about versions and upgrading and distribution recommendation
Hi,
I'm currently planning on completely switching from Windows to Linux and so far I really like Kubuntu. However the one thing that I still feel a little uncomfortable with is the whole versions-based software distribution system. A lot of times I had bad experiences with upgrading to new distribution versions in different distributions (like Suse, for example). Also I don't know yet if I like the idea that the distribution decides which programs should be updated or added and how my system should behave.
For this reason I'm wondering how do most of you handle this? Do you upgrade to the newest version once it is out? Does it work flawlessly? Does it mean you have to reapply everything you changed in your system that's beyond user-based settings?
I already got a little annoyed with that without even upgrading when a new kernel got installed and I had to reapply suspend2.
Actually for all this reasons I'm thinking about using Gentoo instead cause from what I understand it is not versions based and gives more freedom to the user. However I'm unsure if this is a wise decision because I don't want to have to configure a lot all the time but want to have a system that just works.
I really prefer Linux over Windows but this is the one thing that still bugs me. In Windows I can just install updates for a couple of programs I want and it won't effect the overall system at all. In Linux I still have the feeling that I either have to use old versions or upgrade everything.
I guess my dream of a perfect Linux would be as follows (I don't think this exists but it might give you an idea of what I'm looking for):
- Easy initial setup that just works (like openSuse or Kubuntu). Actually I'd drop this and accept a harder initial setup if this makes it easier later on.
- Automatic security updates.
- Notifications when there are new versions of programs and the ability to easily update them without having to upgrade the whole system
- Recommendations of new programs with a short introduction and the ability to easily install them. This is not very important but I think it would be a nice idea.
I'd be very happy about some insight about this from experienced users. Also if you have some links that better explain this, please post them.
So basically, you want auto security upgrades, but without upgrading the whole system. I believe Ubuntu does this. I don't think the system or programs upgrade until you're ready for the next release.
Q: Do you upgrade to the newest version once it is out?
A: Usually I don't. Many people do.
Q: Does it work flawlessly?
A: No distro or software works flawlessly. Perhaps you meant to ask something else.
Q: Does it mean you have to reapply everything you changed in your system that's beyond user-based settings?
A: I use Debian and Debian-based systems (like Ubuntu), so upgrade does not mean "reinstall". It simply means editing my "/etc/apt/sources.list" file and running "apt-get update&& apt-get upgrade -y".
Q: Do you upgrade to the newest version once it is out?
A: I run Debian Sid, so I do daily dist-upgrade, which keeps my system upgraded to the newest versions of the apps I have installed.
Q: Does it work flawlessly?
A; Most of the time, although running Debian unstable things can break on occasion.
Q: Does it mean you have to reapply everything you changed in your system that's beyond user-based settings?
A: The only time you have to change things is when you do a kernel update,something you very rarely need to do unless there is a security hole on your current kernel.
The Update-manager package for Gnome does pretty much what your looking for.
This is the GNOME software update manager. It checks for updates made available by Debian and third parties running Debian package repositories, and lets the user choose which to install. This is what the *buntu distros use.
Synaptic is a graphical package management tool based on GTK+ and APT. Synaptic enables you to install, upgrade and remove software packages in a user friendly way. It also gives a nice description of each package.
I realize you made a point about that in your first post.
1. You want your distro to download only "critical" upgrades, but not all upgrades.
2. But you also want the distro to not have a version-based release.
Unfortunately, these goals are realistically incompatible. You have to choose one or the other. Let me explain.
We'll pretend I produce distribution XYZ and that I want to accomplish both your goals. Now in my distribution, I have Firefox v2.0.0, but Firefox v2.0.1 has just been released. I must now include Firefox v2.0.1 in the upgrades and allow you to upgrade at your own discretion. A couple months go by and Firefox v2.0.2 and Firefox v2.0.3 are released; those are also added to the possible upgrades. Oops, there's a security breach in v2.0.0 and v2.0.1, now we must make a patch for both of those versions of Firefox. And here comes Firefox v2.0.4; add that to the possible upgrades.
Pretty soon you are providing patches to hundreds of versions of the same program. Now multiply that by the total number programs on the whole system.
*And that's why you have versioned releases.
Theoretically, you could force the person to upgrade Firefox instead of providing a patch for the older versions, but the newer version may require them to also upgrade some library. If another program depends on that library, it may have to be upgraded also. Besides that, the newer version of Firefox (or any program) may somehow break the users system. (Gentoo's emerge is famous for breaking peoples systems) Also, you should realize that it is much easier to find program bugs when everyone uses the same version. This helps make life easier for those who make the patches.
I hope this explains things for you. If you use Ubuntu and you should never have to "reinstall" your system for a version-based release again.
I kind of get what you're saying but just kind of. I guess I have yet to fully comprehend that in Linux all the programs are so dependend on each other (or at least the same libraries). I mean... I would think it should be possible to have a part that is the main operating system (kernel, window manager and services) and to provide security updates for these. And to have the programs on another level and it's due to the programs to provide updates of themselfes (security and other). I would also assume that programs that depend on libraries should still work with newer versions of the libraries (why change the interfaces?). I guess I have a wrong understanding of this but I still don't know why. For me it always seems that while in Windows (and I think also in OSX) I can just download and install programs and most of the times they work on almost all versions of the OS in Linux I always have to have the program in the repository or otherwise it might break things. This seems strange to me... but it seems that it's really something I'll have to get used to when using Linux and I hope that someday I'll know enough about it all to understand it and know how to properly deal with it...
Ok, so what you're saying is that you basically want the operating system programs completely separate from the application programs. (Like MS and Apple systems)
Something like this could be done with the stable version of Debian and backports. I don't think backports always has the most cutting edge software though.
Debian system.
Comment out the repositories other than the one for security.. and now all you will get is security updates..
I wouldn't do this on etch until it becomes Stable though..
And probably also with the LTS Version of Ubuntu and backports, right?
Is there a downside to it?
Great thought. Possibly even better than my suggestion. If anything, I'd say it's worth a try. You can probably find all of the answers about setting it up at www.ubuntuforums.org.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.