Basically just wondering..most linux users are average home users or average geeky type who think before do stuff. Most distros have frequent releases and short support time teasing to upgrade like MS Windows does with every newer release. So my wonder is - is updating to newer stuff make difference if previous one works well even if that means OS is not getting updates anymore due to its age? And if it does which method works better - picking long term support, picking rolling distro, picking one with longer release, frequently reinstalling short time release distros or something else like simply updating kernel? Speaking about kernel - is it really dangerous to have older kernel on system or it doesn't really matter?

I would never update a production system that has no need for lan access. Why? If it works then don't touch it.


Most companies are really afraid to update production systems. I mean computers that control machines.

Any admin of any lan use computer would have to update at least some of the things. Most are security but some have to do with speed and simply newer features. It is really the admins choice as to how they regulate updates to the system in use.

Is it dangerous? Yes. Hackers have automated systems running 24/7 trying to access everything they can get their hands on. You can only limit exposure to threats. One is generally by using the latest security updates.

I generally choose rolling release distros and LTS versions. Basically I always end up formatting and reinstalling after some while but as I see it, if the PC has potential use, an installed distro can last for at least 2 years without reinstalling.
I suggest a rolling release distro if you don't want to reinstall at all (they basically work great if you don't touch anything), or a LTS version if you want to reinstall every couple of years.

Hi -
Nothing could be further from the truth. For many, many different reasons. Including the simple fact that a large number of Linux hosts are on embedded platforms (smart phones and wireless routers) where "users" don't even directly interact with any "OS".

But even if you're talking "home user" vs "small business" or "enterprise" (three completely separate and distinct categories, BTW), there's plenty of activity - and plenty of *growth* - among non-home users. For example:

http://software.intel.com/en-us/blog...in-enterprise/

But let's talk about update strategies for "production systems" (small business or enterprise). I agree completely with nicolasjengler:

1. You should make a distinction between "upgrade" (to a newer release) and "update" (the patch level of your current release).

2. A conscientious administrator will *always* try to keep his systems' patch levels up-to-date.

3. There can (and usually is) a rollout and testing policy (you don't just take whatever patches the vendor gives you and blindly plop them down on production systems).

4. "Upgrades" are a completely different story. Some distros are easier to upgrade than others. Some distros are frankly next to impossible to "upgrade" - you basically get to install the new OS, and migrate your apps.

5. I also agree with Jefro: there's seldom any justification for upgrading just for the sake of upgrading. Backward compatibility - especially in the Linux community - tends to be very good. Your OS environment simply doesn't become obsolete artificially quickly ... like with some commercial OS's who shall remain unnamed

IMHO .. PSM

1 members found this post helpful.

It depends entirely on what you want.

Me, I prefer a stable distro with longer term support. I do update to newer versions tho, mostly because the libs get outdated and stuff will no longer compile properly. Rather than having to update all the stuff myself, I just update to the next version, when it comes out.

I would say that it's always necessary to keep up to date with security patches (excepting the case mentioned above of systems completely detached from any network). This is why some "Enterprise" distros (namely RHEL) support a release for long periods of time (7 years IIRC for RHEL) but continuously backport security patches, only rarely, if ever, upgrading the base version of the packages used.

I have Dreamlinux (personal/home user), and if they come out with an update/upgrade that fixes some of the bugs (Double dock, ability to read SD, etc) ... I will get it. But if they where to just release a dreamlinux with new packages, and a shiny desktop ... No, Mine is fine and I have no need to change it. it all depends on what is being upgraded/dated ... I'm happy with what I have for now, and see no reason to get even a newer version (Except if a few bugs are fixed as I said) because mine works just fine. The only exception to this opinion is if I where running a server, Then I just think it is generally a good idea to stay up-to-date.

So I guess the short answer is: Ain't broke, Don't fix it

I read all the posts and didn't see one that really suggested If it ain't broke then don't touch it other than a non-lan mmi or machine control computer.

For a home user, it may be more correct to say. "If I am happy should I bork it?"

If you are happy and feel unsure about updates then don't.

If you are like most of the posters here, you simply can't help yourself and will try newest at the first chance. But, I'd bet that everyone above could fix it and simply complain about it for a day or so.

Hi,

Actually I believe it is more of a 'mind set' condition. Some people just have the need to be using the fastest newest whatever available to their use thus settling things in their mind. Even if there is no need to update or upgrade, some will just do it for the sake of doing it. Habit? Conditioning?: Or just ingrained need for a change to something that will hopefully be better or least in their mind it will be better.

Marketing techniques have conditioned people to think newer is better. Better what?

'If it ain't broke, don't fix it' good mantra but 'expect new experiences, when making changes' for someone who must constantly be in flux because of market conditioning. Newer is not always better!

“Passions unguided are for the most part mere madness.”- Thomas Hobbes