I see so many threads with problems after updates. If you have a system working well with no problems why do people update?

Because they solve problems too (every now and then : D)?

If it ain't broke, tweak it.

I used to agree with you that updates were counterproductive (say about 1980). Once you had an operating system bug free I considered it a waste of time to spend a lot of time mass applying patches that I would never need. Also patches can have bugs and so you can actually introduce new bugs into an error free system by mass applying patches without testing them one by one before applying them.

Once I bacame an Internet user another factor entered my thinking, malware. Many of the potential bugs which I will never actually hit can be used by malware to get root access. So now I apply updates to keep up with the security fixes.

Another factor with open source software is that updates are often a mixture of bug fixes and new functions. In proprietary software updates were either free bug fixes or charged for new functions. I am more open to applying an update that contains new functions as well as bug fixes.

I am still old-fashioned in that I don't use automated update software. I still selectively download the patches I think I need and apply them myself. Given my background I find this method easier than trying to beat an automated update program into submission to do things my way.

---------------
Steve Stites

1. If its working, leave it alone---unless you are a zealot about having the LATEST. In this case, see #3
   
2. If you have problems, then getting the latest version of something **might** help. The best advice is to be selective.
   
3. If you install the latest, be prepared to be used as a research subject. If this bothers you, see #1. As a minimum, don't let some random SW house install your updates automatically.

If you get stuck in an endless loop between 1 and 3, I can't help you.....

Epilogue;

I had a colleague once who had just gotten a new laptop with Win XP. I asked how XP was better than Win2K---no clue.
Asked same person what their backup strategy was (laptop went everywhere--even to the bathroom). Answer: blank stare

When it comes to high tech toys, some people are bent on self-destruction. How many do you suppose let the MS automatic update run because they think turning it off will void the warranty, cause them to become sterile, or worse.....

it all depends on the updates. You can get updates and bleeding edge updates. The later is beta type. Usually updates work well. You can update but it is best to keep track of what is updated. If something goes wrong you can also go back to previous versions. Done a few times. Mostly with one of the RPMS for ATI drivers. Had mouse icon issues and downgrading back resolved for now.

Brian

bugs ! bugs ! bugs ! bugs ! bugs ! bugs !

I'm sorry I did not include this in the original post but I do believe in updates for security only.

That's fine by me, too ... :D

Latest and greatest is not sufficient. That's just buying into the hype
that new(er) is inherently better (which is not necessarily the case). To
me it's a 50/50 chance that a change will be an improvement or a degradation.


Cheers,
Tink

For me, upgrades are driven by changing and evolving needs, and I say that as I am wrestling with one of the nastiest upgrades I have ever dealt with - the move from Mandriva 2007.1 to 2008 has NOT been smooth.

In an environment where my needs are static and unchanging, I wouldn't upgrade. The systems that ran my office went without upgrades for 6 years; the job didn't change; why change the systems that did the job when they worked quite well?

But on my workstation, my needs keep changing. I am not happy with this multimedia package, so I try that one. A client gives me a job to do; I need to install this and that to do it.

I want a 3D desktop and when a failure forced me to replace my video card, I went somewhat up the line with what I purchased, then installed Beryl. Well Beryl was very cool but had some bugs, so I tried Compiz, then Compiz Fusion and couldn't make them work.

So as a consequence, my system keeps changing. If I let it get too far out of date by not upgrading, sooner or later I can't run this program because of dependencies. So I download this updated library package, then that library package, then this python upgrade, then that perl upgrade, and before you know it my system is getting tangled in dependency hell just so I can run this new and cool application.

I left my system at a hybrid cross between Mandriva 10/10.1 with lots of specific package upgrades to support newer software until after Mandriva 2007 came out. This meant I had gone about 2.5 years without a major upgrade. I finally upgraded then because I was caught in a deadly circle where I couldn't upgrade the kernel (which I wanted to do to use some new features AND to do a job a client had waiting for me) because I needed a later version of gconf than I had to build initrd, but I couldn't run the version of gconf I needed because it required a later kernel than I had. So I did a full upgrade to 2007 and it solved a number of issues I had had with the system.

The moral, IMO? If your needs are unchanging and your system is static, don't upgrade. If your needs keep changing, you are better off if you keep up with the upgrades as they come out.

I do believe in the maxim that "software is like fine wine: let it age..."

Software developers usually update their wares quite frequently, and they sometimes (not often) make mistakes. A good strategy is to observe the updates that are coming past, but to delay actually acting-upon them.

Because no one posts complaints when they don't have problems with updates?
I will jinx myself and say I usually have no problems with security updates.
I usually recommend that running a firewall and keeping current on security updates takes care of the software end of Linux security.