How often do you update your system?
 

With the talk of updates in my previous thread, I thought it would be interesting to know how often people actually update their Slack builds. I know that this may differ radically between stable and current, but it would still be interesting and useful for me as a recent adopter to get a general overview regardless. Please note that this about how often you perform the update, not how often you check for updates.

I use slackpkg upgrade-all to check though I also use sbopkg. I'll be looking at slackrepo too re one of bassmadrigal's earlier comments. I presently update the system about once a week, though I may extend this. I think the only way is to play it by ear at the moment.

NB: the poll allows you to choose more than one answer.

Another NB: This topic only relates to Slackware.

I run Slint (a Slackware derivative) and use slapt-get to get the Slackware updates. I am notified of updates by salix-update-notifier, but usually look at http://www.slackware.com/changelog/s...php?cpu=x86_64 once or twice a day, and decide when to update from this reading.

I am also registered to the slackware-security mailing list.

I don't use sbopkg at all.

slapt-get is rather tempting because of the automated dependencies, but I haven't tried to use it on Slack yet. I'm still set on doing it 'pure' [at least for now].

I realise that the time period for updating will be changeable, and the poll is multiple choice to allow for more than one answer.

I didn't think of joining a mailing list for updates. That's useful. Something official and for sbopkg would be good. I'll have a look.

I run current and check for and apply updates from Pat every day while I'm drinking my morning coffee. :)

I also keep my browser(s) and kernel updated and will usually update them as soon as new versions become available. My addon slackbuilds I'm more relaxed about and update as and when there's a reason to.

I don't use slackpkg, sbopkg, sbotool, slapt-get, or anything like that, just rsync and a couple of scripts of my own devising.

(looks like out of scope)

Using this feature is optional and mostly useful for non-full Slackware installations, or derivatives. As any such tool it is to be used with caution.

I make judgements based on urgency and use patterns.
A new threat on frequently used software I try to patch immediately.
A production server running -stable with no immediate threat I will leave until a quiet period.
Personal systems running -current I tend to leave until weekends, unless an update will address a breakage that I want fixed.

Not at all, I enjoyed reading how you updated with your coffee!

I run Slackware64 14.2 and Slackware64-current. I update with slackpkg as soon as updates are available.

"As soon as I see updates available" - that applies to any Security updates to my daily driver - 14.2 64-bit. For the Slackware64-current installations I'm more likely to wait longer. But its rare that I let an available update wait for more than a month. Updates include not just the slackware mirrors but also those available from SBo and alien ...

I wasn't able to vote because the option, "When I feel like it" was not available. This could mean I update right away or it could mean I update a month or longer after the fact.

I need an option like "Much MUCH longer than once a month". Until a few weeks ago I had a 14.0 32 bit Slackware system for DAW work o9n this, my main PC (alongside this 14.2 Multilib) and once I built what was the latest stable kernel for low-latency, realtime, no deep system files were updated for years. Recently I upgraded it first to 14.1 and then to 14.2, all in one day and manually, (still 32 bit) and I'm not yet perfectly happy that I did.

If I can possibly avoid it I will never use any auto-updating service. I see zero need to risk my base system once I have poured many hours into getting everything exactly the way I want it. Did I mention I despise rolling releases?

As mentioned in other thread...If its a Slackware package then as soon as updates are available....If SBo then only if its a security update and even then only if its critical.

I have a couple of feeds in my feed-reader that I watch:

http://slackfeeds.sagredo.eu/ has feeds for Slackware and
https://slackbuilds.org/rss/ChangeLog.rss is for SBo.

Then I update Slackware as updates come and SBo once a week. But I usually cheat with SBo and watch the submissions and update them as the are approved.

Thank you for those!

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

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 :)

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?

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.
:D

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 ;)

I do it for fun :)

yes.. and for the adrenaline rush... of course: will it still work after....???? I love bugs, they're my dayjob... ;-)

So this is actually a 'thing'. I wondered.

I find that very odd. What sort of updates are you doing that risk anything but the new app not working? For me one of the major benefits of Slackware is that the worst that can happen, even if compiling directly from source and running "make install" instead of making a package, is that the new app won't run... until you fix it. The rest of my system is never at risk on Slackware.

He must work on Windows machines...... :D

Yes, great toys to crash, give me 5 min ;-)

I use slackpkg to update my system. Usually, I do it as soon as new updates are released. However, being that I use the current branch on my production machine, if the update is a major one, I often wait for several days, just to be sure that everything is OK.

@Lysander666,

You should take into account that if you are running stable, currently 14.2, that updates are *mostly* security related.

IMO any security updates should be taken seriously and applied ASAP.

But caution should be used for kernel updates if you switch to a generic kernel or generate a initrd or if you use nVidia graphic drivers.

Updating through slackpkg is easy on my low-powered system since it just downloads and installs the .txz files. I have indeed switched to generic and use an initrd. Can you let me know why I should be cautious in this instance? EDIT: answered here https://www.linuxquestions.org/quest...3/#post5812603

My desktop uses a beefy ATI card and my netbook onboard Intel graphics so no problems with nVidia there.

I currently refrain from installing updates from sbopkg because they don't look that necessary to me, e.g. qpdfview has had an incremental update which I haven't installed, and I have to rebuild QMplay2 for the libass update, which I can't be bothered to do currently since it works perfectly as is.

Well, for some people running current the goal is to find bugs before you do. :)

Well I am mostly not looking for them; I grow them ;-)

A reason to run current is better/easier support for my newish hardware; and then, yes, part of the fun is installing and thereby testing updates as they come along; mostly it is fine; sometimes a bug that is often wide-spread, i.e. not immediately Slackware related, but still important to (help) to identify. One learns a lot that way. Waste of time?? See it as a hobby.... ;-)

This is less likely on stable, but due to the recent flaws found in CPUs might be relevant.

If you switched to the generic kernel, generated a initrd, set LiLo to boot Slackware by default and let slackpkg upgrade your kernel, you can be in for some work. My advice there would be to blacklist kernel updates and make sure that you read about upgrading kernels. Personally I just run the huge kernel, so I just let it update kernels as our BDFL sees fit. Sure there might be some performance gain by switching and generating a initrd, but from what I've seen it is slight (for me at least).

There can be security patches and fixes with packages from SBo as well, one recent one that I use is Transmission that recently had a security patch added. So you should at least keep an eye on them.

Yea, the Slackware maintainers catch most of the issues before they release packages, but some issues won't be present themselves unless tested on a wide variety of configurations, this is where current comes in. That said most of the bugs I find spend time on are for programs available at SBo which can have bugs/regressions due to something in Slackware updating or when the program itself updates.

Yes, very valid; that's why this thread is helpful

BTW when I grow bugs I am literal; no computer-speak here. But to analyse/present results of experiments I use a lot of SBo-stuff some of which, I would argue, could be better in the main repository because of their high level of interoperability with stuff produced by windows/mac-programs one has to share at many work-places. Libreoffice, inkscape etc. are my tools of choice (together with gimp) which basically replaces functionality of the kde-suite which I have not installed.

Other, more specific stuff on SBo I use as well and I also run into programs that don't work/compile in current. In many cases a more recent release of the software, especially when that has been corrected to adhere to gcc-7 standards, often compiles/works again (providing the slackbuild is not heavily tweaked to adapt the software to Slackware; then a simple version change often won't work)..

Updates to poppler and various libraries will often break Inkscape and KSnapshot, but I've been staying updated to -current for a couple of years now and I see no reason to change. If Inkscape breaks, I usually go to ponce's repo and get the newest build. Alternatively one can create symlinks that make things work again.

The benefits of staying with -current outweigh the occasional minor hassles. Although 14.2 is "stable", it doesn't mean that -current is "unstable", per se.

I find once a week seems to suffice on Debian Stable.

I run CentOS 7.4 and I *TRY* to keep my system up-to-date and *TRY* to remember to run yum update once per day, I sometimes forget, but at a minimum 2-3 times per week.

Love it when people respond to threads without checking that it is distro specific.... I suspect its "view latest posts", I have been guilty of that myself.

I was wondering about all the interlopers myself. :)

On stable version, as soon as possible.
On current version: "it is wait and see" if it's worth and stable.