I keep up with security updates through the Slackware Security Mailing list. So whenever there is a security package released I then update.

I have a mailbot which informs me of ChangeLog updates.

When an update seems relevant to a system's role, I wait a bit to see if it causes problems for anyone (here and on IRC), then apply it to the appropriate systems. I wget the updates, back up the relevant files, and apply them one at a time via installpkg, testing after each one to see if it needs to be rolled back.

Security updates get priority, though sometimes a security update won't actually be applicable (perhaps I did not install the package, for instance).

Edited to add: I have two systems running Slackware 14.2 and eleven systems running Slackware 14.1, so it's not like I need to do this very often.

And a couple more update feeds:

Slackware: http://mirrors.slackware.com/feeds/
Alien: http://www.slackware.com/~alien/slac.../ChangeLog.rss

2 members found this post helpful.

When I receive a notification that a Slackware update is available, I update.

I must admit, though, that I'm not conscientious about updating Slackbuilds.

It should be noted that slackpkg (by default, if you don't install slackpkg+) will only upgrade the default system... aka, the packages provided by Pat himself.

sbopkg will present you with any upgrades to the SBo packages you already have installed, however, it doesn't (and can't, with its current design) take into account dependencies. So, if ffmpeg has an update, it won't present you with any programs that rely on ffmpeg and may break if it's updated. slackrepo, which takes more effort to set up, will account for those dependencies and will present other packages that may need recompilations due to another package being updated.

Crux once a week (since it is source-based and the builds take time). Debian Stable once a month. LFS only for security fixes; I build a new one every six months.

I update as soon as something new appears in -current using alienbob's mirror script to maintain a local mirror and a few scripts to install from this. I confess to delaying the installation itself if there are major updates to Xorg,kernel etc and watch for fallout here on LinuxQuestions

1 members found this post helpful.

This thread has turned out more usefully that I expected. Some very informative responses. The poll is surprising: though the large majority update whenever possible, I'm still pleased at the percentage who update between once a week and once a month - sounds very doable to me.

Yup, I've subscribed to this now. It will be very useful.

Indeed, thanks for clarifying that. I managed to get slackrepo installed yesterday but I'm not sure how to set it up, so I'll have a read of the man page.

EDIT: just seen your link to the slackrepo thread - very useful.

Debian Stable is an absolute breeze to update. It takes a few seconds only. I just tend to do it whenever I remember to.

Having started with computers back when the Commodore 64 was new, I've been privy to a lot of changes and "upgrades". At one time when Apple tried to upgrade the entire personal computer industry by breaking with legacy limitations of several kinds, including but not "least of all" directly addressable RAM, Microsoft bet on legacy and people's hesitation to change especially if and when it cost money and that was when MS leapfrogged Apple. You may recall the now famous Billy quote (paraphrased here) "I can't imagine anyone will ever need more than 1MB RAM".

Once Win95 made it's huge breakthrough MS "switched horses" and pushed for immediate, unquestioning "upgrading". Example - The last Windows version I ever bought was Win95 and the reason is quite simple. I bought a new motherboard with an AGP slot and Win95 wouldn't recognize it. After searching around I discovered that one (1) single file, USBSupp.dll iirc, was all that was needed. I called Microsoft on the phone and asked where I could download this file. I was told that the only way I could get it was directly from MS and that the one single dll would cost me $50.00 USD...... O R .... I could spend $80.00 USD and upgrade to Win98 which had that file built in. To me that felt like a design to force me to spend more money to continually upgrade whenever MS desired to place an obstacle in my path. Since then that perception has only increased and I think MS is in large part responsible for the "upgrade fever" that has infected most people.

I still have an old machine that has DOS 5.33, Win95, OS/2 Warp 3, and Slackware 10 on it and it still works though in a somewhat limited fashion since more than anything else, the hardware is limited to 512 MB RAM. FWIW, I also have a socket 370 server mobo system with 2GB RAM with a similar OpSys array that works very well, however the seachange to Serial-based motherboards is compelling so they see almost no usage anymore.

The point is, at least for me, it has always been hardware and hardware compatibility that has been the main compelling motivation for upgrading. Other than security updates, it is quite rare that software alone compels me to upgrade, especially in Linux where I can always install a newer kernel with improved hardware support.

So why is it, I'd like to know, why apparently so many Linux users are so locked into to nearly instant upgrade cycles? Is it a hangover from Windows engendered Pavlovian Response or is there actually some objective gain for some of you?

2 members found this post helpful.

Wasn't that 640K?

Other than that, I agree with you.
OTOH, with the recent security problems it is probably a good idea to update the kernel, etc.
That, and I have too much time on my hands, so upgrading and/or updating keeps me off the streets and out of the bars.

to update the system? Most times I get N O T H I N G absolutely nothing, so I do not run it that much. Just whenever I think about it.

I think it's more that there in no obvious penalty for upgrading in Linux. In Windows, a software version upgrade nearly always means upgrading the hardware too, because the new Windows won't run properly on old hardware. And you have to pay handsomely for the upgrades too, which is a strong motive for avoiding them. But in Linux, upgrades are free (as in free beer) and the new version usually runs perfectly well on your current machine. If it doesn't, you can always switch to a lighter desktop. So why not have the latest software?

There is also the fact that the longer you delay an update, the more likely you are to run into trouble when you finally do it (say because you are advised to do it for security reasons). I found this out in the case of AntiX, which I used to update once a month. One update failed because my certificates were out of date (for those who don't use AntiX, most of the software comes from Debian, but some comes from a special AntiX server for which you need this certificate package). In order to clear the problem, I had to download and install the package by hand. This was a PITA, so I now update that machine weekly.

@enrobet & cwizardone,

It was 512k

As long as you don't skip release versions and read the changelog I have a hard time imagining how this can happen on Slackware.

True, hazel, systems with auto dependency resolving and of course especially anything approaching a rolling release needs rather constant attention to avoid major mishaps. However since this thread is in the Slackware sub-section and not Linux>General, I am asking specific to Slackware where all that constant maintenance is not at all necessary excepting a specific need. It is about such perceived "needs" that I am asking.

Also, I find the (possibly perceived as rhetorical) question "why not have the latest software?" quite interesting since it implies that "New" always == "Improved" and that is simply not always the case and is exactly the view that MS wishes everyone would adopt since it is, in fact, Money In The Bank. As it applies to "free beer" Linux, still, just because it is newer doesn't mean it is also "better". Not only was this painfully demonstrated to virtually every distro except Slackware several years back when all adopted the newer GCC which turned out to also be broken, but on a much larger scale how so many distros jumped on KDE v4 despite KDE's warnings, and now even when, what.. 10 years later?, still so many people assume KDE is a totally useless HOG which was their experience when v4 first came out.

I have met a few software developers who claim their employer(s) prefers up to the minute versions of everything so I understand why they are attracted to rolling releases and such but i do wonder why any Slackware user feels so compelled.... other than as cwizardone points out, to save the expense of 8-balls and hookers

2 members found this post helpful.