Linux Mint Developers Will Force Updates on Users Like Microsoft Does with Windows 10 (ghacks.net) 142
AmiMoJo shares a report: Last month, the Linux Mint team published a post on the organization's official blog about the importance of installing security updates on machines running the Linux distribution. The essence of the post was that a sizeable number of Linux Mint devices was running outdated applications, packages or even an outdated version of the operating system itself. A sizeable number of devices run on Linux Mint 17.x, according to the blog post, a version of Linux Mint that reached end of support in April 2019. A new blog post, published yesterday, provides information on how the team plans to reduce the update reluctance of Linux Mint users. Next to showing reminders to users, Linux Mint's Update Manager may enforce some of the updates according to the blog post.
"In some cases the Update Manager will be able to remind you to apply updates. In a few of them it might even insist." Upcoming versions will provide information on the implementation, how the "insisting" part may look like, and whether the installation of updates will be enforced. All of this boils down to a single question: how far should operating system developers go when it comes to updates? BetaNews adds: "And now, it seems the Linux Mint developers are taking a page out of Microsoft's playbook by planning to force some updates on its users. Yes, folks, Linux Mint is becoming more like Windows 10."
"In some cases the Update Manager will be able to remind you to apply updates. In a few of them it might even insist." Upcoming versions will provide information on the implementation, how the "insisting" part may look like, and whether the installation of updates will be enforced. All of this boils down to a single question: how far should operating system developers go when it comes to updates? BetaNews adds: "And now, it seems the Linux Mint developers are taking a page out of Microsoft's playbook by planning to force some updates on its users. Yes, folks, Linux Mint is becoming more like Windows 10."
Updates should never be forced (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Updates should never be forced (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally, I don't have an issue with an opt-out for automatic software updates, so long as it is:
Re: (Score:2)
Any Debian-based system allows disabling of automatic updates. I think regular updating is fairly important on workstations, but an absolute no-no on servers, but Mint is mainly a desktop distro so I don't see a problem with it being on by default, providing it can be disabled.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't result in loss of normal functionality
Well, there's the issue. At some point one software component you need will have to be updated for some reason, e.g. your browser due to a security flaw. And then it starts a chain reaction, you need other stuff to be updated because it depends on it or no longer supports the old version.
You might ask why the developer doesn't keep supporting older version of the OS/kernel and other "infrastructure" software. Well, if you pay they do, e.g. Microsoft's relatively long term support for Windows. But particular
Re:Updates should never be forced (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Opt Out. Yes!
Make it clear. Make it simple. Make it optional.
The default should be AUTOMATIC UPDATES .
Re: (Score:3)
... the great unwashed masses of incompetent users ...
well said
it is so sad Linux has come to this
scene, not herd is a thing of the past ?
Re: (Score:2)
As long as update do not:
1) break things
2) remove things
3) lose open unsaved work
4) require me to re-open all my programs
Then I'm fine with it. Miss any of those, and I'm turning them off and handling my own security.
ps. Yes, I live in a country where power is so reliable you can just put your computer to sleep and expect everything to be as you left it in the morning, without a UPS.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
We're talkin' reality here, chum.
Re: (Score:2)
As the linux gains more of the great unwashed masses of incompetent users that think they know better the security of everyone is put at risk.
What do you mean unwashed masses. The Linux world is full of people bragging about how long they haven't rebooted their system, effectively publically advertising every kernel / low system level security issue they have, all the while bragging that the odds of their system successfully coming up after they attempt to fend off your attack are slim.
Oh look my server has an uptime of 15 days and says "**** Server Restart Required ****" when I log in. May as well do that now.
Re: (Score:2)
Automatic updates on Linux are a completely idiotic idea, that's why they aren't usually used. Some updates may require manual configuration during or after update, fully automatic updates will surely, sooner or later, break something important.
But I have to admit, much more worse than automatic updates are those idiots who don't keep their systems up-to-date and fail to instaall updates for themselves. So which of the two evils do we choose?
Re:Updates should never be forced (Score:5, Interesting)
No kidding. If I allowed Linux to auto-update things, the feature-creep would be extreme.
Like there are cases where V 0.x.x of a program will have 2 or 3 dependencies, but then version 1.x.x will have 3000 dependencies as they depended on a 4th library that then pulls in 100's of libraries, which pulls in 100's more.
I hate that. Basically Linux can not be Windows in this regards, because Windows is a complete OS and the default use case is a desktop/workstation, a separate version exists for servers that has different defaults.
Linux, rarely ever works in this way. People pick a OS distro because of how it's setup, and add the stuff they need on top. So that can be from Desktop Ubuntu with stupid amounts of things installed on (which is what Google did so they could standardize on one distro before they made their own) to gentoo which allows that fine-control by recompiling everything things.
In an ideal situation "DLL" type of mechanics would go away and everything would be statically linked. GPL/LGPL unfortunately pretty much requires everything to be a chaotic mess of shared libraries, and thus the resultant binaries are massive as they pull in more and more unused functionality.
Re: (Score:3)
A couple of years go I wrote a book - I make a shameless promotion for it in my sig below.
Today I tried to compile it (it's in LaTex and calls various programs to build images and tables, so there's a make script).
The book would not compile because at some point since I last compiled it, the lua dynamically linked library updated one second order version tick. So gnuplot would not run.
That's what happens when you let computers auto update.
Re: (Score:2)
This has been an issue for developers forever. The best thing to do seems to be to move your toolchain into a VM or Docker container, and keep it at the version you used to build the software originally.
Re: (Score:2)
So far I've declined to go that route because I'm stubborn.
Re: (Score:2)
In an ideal situation "DLL" type of mechanics would go away and everything would be statically linked. GPL/LGPL unfortunately pretty much requires everything to be a chaotic mess of shared libraries, and thus the resultant binaries are massive as they pull in more and more unused functionality.
This is a bad idea for more reasons than that, when a bug is identified in a dependency everything that uses it would have to be rebuilt. Packages are not built by a single entity, you'd end up playing whack-a-mole. The reason shared libraries are used is nothing to do with the licence, it's the correct deployment model.
Re: (Score:2)
Developers do not know what every end users usage is, so there is no reason to always force updates on all users. There should always be a way for users to disable updates.
Fair enough, but if your internet connected systems become part of a DDOS botnet, or sending spam or serving malware, it should be fair game for anyone to disable them with extreme prejudice as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Developers do not know what every end users usage is, so there is no reason to always force updates on all users. There should always be a way for users to disable updates.
Or just use a different distro, there's plenty of Linux distros out there to choose from. Or just modify Mint yourself, it's open source afterall.
Re: (Score:2)
1) It results in further fragmentation and incompatibility. You use Mint Classic, whereas I use Mint Awesone, but because Mint Awesome does things differently, you can't use Awesome packages on Classic. Great - really good outcome.
Just apply a patch Mint when you build/install it, it's open source.
2) Running a distro takes a lot of time and money. You need to put a proper business behind it, and run it as such. Otherwise you'll fail to actually maintain your forked distro. See (1).
There are hundreds of them out there, one of them does forced updates so if you don't like that then just use one of the other ones. You don't have to create your own.
3) There's nothing wrong with asking for well thought-out, well reasoned and (probably) widely useful features. There's even less wrong with listening to those voices and incorporating them into the distro you run. Remember, you run a distro like a business, so keeping your customers happy is rather important. See (2).
Are you actually a customer though or just a user?
So yes, you're technically correct, but you're not very useful. Maybe go cut and paste somewhere else?
See the problem with your response is it completely misunderstands open source, your lack of understanding leads you to a false dichotomy where you see the only other option as creating your own Linux distribution. Go and learn
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Updates should never be forced (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Developers do not know what every end users usage is, so there is no reason to always force updates on all users. There should always be a way for users to disable updates.
True for many users, but not all users. For military/corporate/enterprise users, the decision point on when to apply patches needs to be shifted downstream to people who know the environments, and know the threats, and can make rational decisions about the risks, i.e. the goddamn sysadmins. For for all other users, somebody needs to make the decision on their behalf, and that means as far upstream as possible, and that could very well mean the damn devs.
Hacking a naive linux user provides the same payoff
Re: (Score:2)
Choices are good. You can opt out.
Oddly, the LinuxMint updates will very likely work far more fabulously than the bricking versions from MIcrosoft. Often, only one patch is needed, rather than a successive number of them. Microsoft has trained users to hate auto-updates because they take long, and often require unannounced reboots. Only kernel patches might require a reboot, and only when you're ready to do so. You can safely walk away from the machine and not worry about an update suddenly grabbing a hold
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Only kernel patches might require a reboot
Unless you use systemd, dbus, or many of Gnome's components. Then it's reboot to update.
The rest of us points and laughs, but sadly we're in a minority these days.
Big updates vs little updates (Score:2)
Actual security and critical bug updates should (hopefully) be fairly rare and limited in scope, and thus unlikely to break things. That's how updates used to happen on Windows long ago. And it was good to have them largely automatic.
But we have seen creep to the extent that whole new versions of applications are constantly foisted upon us. So stuff can break at any time, with no real unwind option.
It does mean that Microsoft only needs to maintain the head release. None of this back patching earlier re
Re: (Score:2)
With about nine million entries, it takes a while to load and digest.
Screwed Again (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Screwed Again (Score:4, Interesting)
Devuan, not Debian.
Re:Screwed Again (Score:5, Interesting)
I thoroughly recommend it.
Re: (Score:2)
Why put these other distros in the middle?
I know right? I find it strange how these distros fork a project and then end up being 100% identical with absolutely zero differentiating features to the original. /sarcasm.
The Problem With Mint (Score:4, Interesting)
Basically, they have a bunch of users on unsupported versions because they made it a PITA to update the system.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a real problem on EVERY point-release distro, not just Mint. That's the main reason I've been using only rolling-release distributions for the last 12 years.
Re: (Score:2)
I upgraded in-place from 19.x to 20.x without any problems. I'm relatively new to Mint though, so I don't know if I got lucky or if this is a new feature of the distro.
This seems like a fairly basic requirement for a desktop-oriented distro. If I have to do a clean install I'll be annoyed about having to reconfigure everything... the point of using a friendly distro is that I can just use it, without pain.
I guess if that happens I'll give Manjaro another look, but I'll still be annoyed.
Re: (Score:2)
Mint's upgrade system seems to be getting better with every release though. It just started way behind compared to other distributions.
Who the fuck uses mint? (Score:1)
then I will treat mint like microsoft (Score:3)
as long as the updates does not require reboot, I really don't have a problem with it. However, if they start requiring reboots, I will have to treat mint just like microsoft and move on.
Re: (Score:3)
Being able to opt out is the key though. Nothing, absolutely nothing pisses users off more than some company assuming they have ownership of your hardware.
The only reason MS is able to get away with it is due to their uncanny knack to exploit lock-in.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh? You don't like applying low level security updates? Good to know.
- PRC
Obnoxious clickbait (Score:5, Informative)
From the summary:
BetaNews adds: "And now, it seems the Linux Mint developers are taking a page out of Microsoft's playbook by planning to force some updates on its users. Yes, folks, Linux Mint is becoming more like Windows 10."
Okay, let's see what the Linux Mint blog post actually says.
https://blog.linuxmint.com/?p=4037 [linuxmint.com]
I guess you can compare that to Windows 10, but it's not a useful comparison. They are doing something sort of the same, for some of the same reasons, but we have no reason to expect that the things we don't like about Windows 10 are going to be replicated.
But this style of journalism seems fun... can I try?
"Mother Teresa took a page from Hannibal Lector's playbook: she decided to eat food when she was hungry." Exactly the same level of insightful news you can use!
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the problem. I don't want to be reminded or harassed about any update at any time, forever. I never want to see any notice for anything. I'll update when and if I damn well please.
Windows 10 and is continual bouts of harassment has gotten on my last nerve. I'm looking into moving to Linux at home. If Mint follows anything remotely similar to Windows 10 and harasses me about any update for anything, I won't use it.
Re: (Score:2)
But this style of journalism seems fun... can I try?
You're in the Slashdot comments section. No need to try, you already have that style of journalism.
Though in this case I'm confused. Given the article talks about both I'm not sure if I can whore some cheap mod points by taking a stab at Windows, or at Systemd. So conflicting!
Re: (Score:2)
We don't want it to be dumb and get in your way though. It's here to help. If you are handling things your way, it will detect smart patterns and usages. It will also be configurable and let you change the way it's set up.
Everything about that reads like a marketing pitch. "Detect smart patterns" sounds like a recipe for bugs and general fuckups to me.
Last time I tried to do a system upgrade (which can only be done via the command line), it downloaded gigs of updates, THEN told me the upgrade was halted until I did a full system snapshot using their own backup utility, which had to be installed separately (also from the command line). Given that I was just using a test system, I was surprised it refused to allow the upgrad
Re:Obnoxious clickbait (on the Slashdot side) (Score:2)
The betanews article dedicates most of the space to the actual announcement. It raises a controversial point of discussion, but that's a fine way to engage readers.
The slashdot post then boils the article down to the discussion, to get some nerd rage. That's where the clickbait is.
Re:Obnoxious clickbait (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems more likely that you are giving Mint the benefit of the doubt.
That's fair.
And... so what? Are you claiming there is some reason why I shouldn't give Linux Mint the benefit of the doubt?
I've used Linux Mint as my go-to Linux distro for almost ten years. I'm grateful to the Linux Mint team for what they have done, which benefits me personally.
When the GNOME project tried to kill GNOME 2.x and get everyone to switch to GNOME 3.x, it was Linux Mint who forked GNOME 2.x (the fork is called "MATE") and also Linux Mint who made Cinnamon (which brings desktop experience similar to GNOME 2.x to GNOME 3.x). So it was Linux Mint who offered two additional upgrade options to GNOME 2.x users who might not want to switch to GNOME 3.x (which at the time, was very locked-down with few options to customize).
On the other hand I've never heard of "BetaNews" and I have no reason to trust their clickbait headline over my literal years of good experiences from Linux Mint.
Control vs. Security (Score:2)
This is what Apple's been claiming is necessary for years - either they have complete control over the [eco]system and can ensure some[what high] level of security, or else cannot.
I'm torn on what level should be enforced on the user - hopefully Mint will have learned from MS's mistakes (like forcing it at inopportune times).
I guess the silver lining is that updates on Linux are more optimized (for installs - last I hear anyways) vs. the mess that Windows is.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm torn on what level should be enforced on the user
I've got the answer to that. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Zero. You shouldn't force the user to do anything. Give them the extra paragraph that not doing something could have devastating consequences all you want, as long as then can click an X and get rid of it I'm fine with that.
Conflicted (Score:2)
On the one hand, this should be a choice..
On the other, however, there are far too many lazy/dumb people in tech who are too busy looking busy to actually do the work of keeping their servers and desktops up to date. I recently went into a customer's network as we were installing some new equipment and discovered they had not touched the drivers in 8 years. Not even that, they had changed their network structure several times and features that worked fine when they were installed weren't even on the same
Forced offline = solution (Score:2)
In severe cases, forcing the user to go offline to avoid updates is the solution. Many systems should be offline anyway and that is the security threat. We certainly don't need to crash the city treatment plant's machines which have old drivers that no longer work but function perfectly fine for 100 years if you just keep the system from updating.
There was a time where computers existed and functioned without internet. Really, I'm not making it up! I lived it.
Run a virtual machine or emulator; keep it o
Re: Forced offline = solution (Score:2)
"There was a time where computers existed and functioned without internet. Really, I'm not making it up! I lived it."
My first computer booted right up to a Basic prompt. You didn't need the internet, a disk drive, or even a tape recorder to be able to type in and run simple Basic programs. It even had a built in calculator 'app' (inherent to rom basic) so you could use it as a fancy adding machine without having to type in a Basic program first.
OS boot times were blazingly fast too, just a couple seconds. T
Re: Forced offline = solution (Score:2)
If you dialed into a BBS, it made your system a lot more useful.
Of course, there were metered phone rates, and online connect time could really put the bite in your wallet, if you were using something like Compu$erve (yes, people spelt it like that back in the 80s long before spelling Microsoft with a dollar sign became a thing).
Re: (Score:1)
What's wrong with merely warnings and reminders? The frequency of the reminders could depend on the level of the security threat being patched.
The message could display a risk grade and reminder period option:
Here, {...} are buttons and [...|v] is a drop-list of durations. The default duration would depend on the threat leve
Ubuntu already does it (Score:2)
There is an unattended upgrade service that runs occasionally on Ubuntu 18.04 that does this. Power up a system that hasn't been used in a while and then go to shutdown, except you have to wait for this process to finish. That or you run apt something or other and find files locked in /var because the service is running.
Update mania again (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And now you know one of the reasons VMs are popular. Updates are easy, and so are rollbacks.
This is a good way to have me not touch Mint (Score:3)
I have a host of packages that I *need* for work, and I can't and won't rely on hope that a forced update doesn't break them. Example: I keep to a specific version of VirtualBox since I run windows XP there with a host of software I need, and it turns out that beyond a particular update it started locking up when unattended for a while. There's other examples like that, including machines that have specific hardware that has began to elude compatibility beyond a particular point.
Long story short, this is a really stupid idea - on top of being insulting to users, it might render your distribution useless.
Default setting? (Score:3)
If they want to make automatic upgrades the *default* setting, I'm all for it.
If they want to make automatic upgrades the *only* setting, I'm not okay with that.
For my part, I'd prefer to not have the automatic upgrades because I have a few sources that need to be updated manually after doing a dist-upgrade. I can also see issues where an end user installs a program that adds its own source that will get disabled during the upgrade and they won't notice. (Google Chrome, for instance.)
It's malware. Plain and simple. (Score:1)
Exactly. It is MY system. *I* make the choices!
If somebody tries to override that, well then it's literally malware, and the solution is to wipe the system and install a clean OS.
Most security updates are pretty easy (Score:2)
I'm running Ubuntu on a couple/three systems at home.
I usually wait a bit on new kernels and wait quite a while on hardware/boot system updates. Non-kernel security updates I usually apply pretty quickly.
Like most operating systems, you NEVER want to be the first to find issues.
I've only really only had one or two issues with updates, once where the boot system apparently "forgot" which disk was my boot drive. It took a little while before I figured it out.
In Microsoft's case, you're usually going to end u
For those that didn't read the source (Linux Mint) (Score:5, Informative)
The Linux Mint Blog is clear that it will be a default in new installations that all upgrades will be installed automatically. It will also have a box you can uncheck in Update Manager so that you can disable automatic updates.
Also, given that updates that require reboots are extremely rare (I only see them when updating to a new Linux Mint Base edition or forcing a kernel update), I'm not too concerned about this.
In other words: The article is pure clickbait.
Re: (Score:2)
actually, it's just something the developers are talking about, not even decided they'll do it. *Really* makes this article click bait.
Clickbait (Score:5, Insightful)
Why didn't you just link to the actual LinuxMint blog post [linuxmint.com] instead of this clickbait? This is what the developers actually said:
In some cases the Update Manager will be able to remind you to apply updates. In a few of them it might even insist. We don’t want it to be dumb and get in your way though. It’s here to help. If you are handling things your way, it will detect smart patterns and usages. It will also be configurable and let you change the way it’s set up.
We have key principles at Linux Mint. One of them is that this is your computer, not ours. We also have many use cases in mind and don’t want to make Linux Mint harder to use for any of them.
We’re still forming strategies and deciding when and how the manager should make itself more visible so it’s too soon to speak about these aspects and get into the details which probably interest you the most here. So far we worked on making the manager smarter and giving it more information and more metrics to look at.
And this is what your headline reads:
Linux Mint Developers Will Force Updates on Users Like Microsoft Does with Windows 10
You don't know that! The developer were very clear that they haven't decided. The headline should "may" or "are considering". This is clickbait garbage. Shame on both of you msmash and AmiMojo. Just link directly to the source next time.
Re: (Score:2)
It’s here to help. If you are handling things your way, it will detect smart patterns and usages.
This is the part that concerns me. The last thing I want is for the computer to try to figure out what I want before I do. We're increasingly running into situations where the system will "accidentally" do something automatically, even in situations where you explicitly turned a feature off, and then the developers claim that it's just a bug.
I don't want "smart" updates. I want a list of options and the OS to just do what I tell it. Fully automatic can certainly be the default, but for heaven's sake, st
Re: (Score:2)
Define "illegal programs".
Re: (Score:2)
Bonzi Buddy
MAPI
Napster (non-paid days)
LimeWire
Kazza
MIDI Players
Re: (Score:2)
Why would a MIDI player be illegal?
MAPI isn't a program, it's an API.
And none of the others sill exist or are on Linux.
Re: (Score:2)
Where's your MIDI chip? It was at the center of both Intel and AMD GIgaChips. Unless you brought one on another device, you might not have one and will end up burning your processor. Just like animations that are incompatible with Trident cards are still banned, it's not safe to play a MIDI unless you know you have a safe chip.
MAPI let ActiveX send an e-mail from already existing accounts in all then-current e-mail programs. That was a bad idea, and Spam was nearly stopped when botnets didn't have easy acce
Re: (Score:2)
If there was any money in it, someone could make a MIDI PCI/PCIe board. And it's not illegal to do so.
And MAPI is still not a program, nor is it illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a lot of money in it... such boards exist but they're expensive and you have to be a pro in music to know where to buy one.
Re: (Score:2)
Still not illegal.
I am still waiting for you to *DEFINE* what an "Illegal program" is.
Re: (Score:2)
Anything that the government or Bill/Linus/"Steve" ends up using the killbit back doors to get rid of.
There are programs VB6 can no longer write, though were possible early 2000s. Let's go back to the original arugement here, when Linus wants to get rid of something, your Linux distro must take the update to get rid of. Linux Mint was seen as a way of avoiding that system, but they gave in on that point.
Re: (Score:2)
One definition of an illegal program is a computer program whose primary use is to infringe an exclusive right recognized by statute, regulation, or case law, and which has no substantial noninfringing use or is promoted by its publisher for its infringing uses (MGM v. Grokster). Three of the six programs listed in #61113872 qualify under this definition.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but how is a program (or library) which is killbitted AGAINST THE LAW?
Still waiting for a valid explanation of how a program can be "illegal".
Re: (Score:2)
You must be a lawyer. What happens when "Illegal Procedure: False Start" is called in football?
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for a clear definition.
That said, I fail to see how Mint's automatic updates prevents such items from executing on my system.
What chip isn't safe for a 24-voice sampler? (Score:2)
it's not safe to play a MIDI unless you know you have a safe chip.
Any CPU that can run a 24-voice software sampler is a safe chip for playing a standard MIDI file that expects to be run on a General MIDI synthesizer. That's PlayStation 1-level performance, and PCs have been capable of that since Bleem if not earlier. A Raspberry Pi Zero wouldn't break a sweat.
Let me know what I missed.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, 24 voices doesn't lead to radio... FM and HD Radio are limited to 5 voices at a time, anything more makes the encoder need to be touched for a reboot.
Don't you think there might be a reason?? (Score:1)
Like the latest version having a bug that makes it unacceptable on my system? Which includes some new "design" choices, like removing features because that is all the iRage nowadays.
Or me just sitting somewhere, where updates aren't feasible. Like being on throttled tethering, and needing the bandwidth for something else?
This is yet another nail in the coffin of the misassumption that anything Ubuntu-like is still Linux. Let's he honest: It is OpenMacOS. (And KDE used to be OpenWindows, until they jumped on
The Probelm is.... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Called Gentoo...
And even that is starting to be ruined. Seems like every update that breaks or has problems is because of something Michal Gorny decided to mask/unmask/remove.
I use Gentoo specifically to develop software, being able to exactly specify the version desired for every library and program on the system.... That is until Michal comes and blindly trashes that with a bunch of messages about old software not building with new software (that I'm not using).
It's not like I'm building redistributable b
Re: (Score:2)
Ack... you deserve mod points but I already posted.
Developers (Score:2)
Incoming Godwin (Score:2)
Luke moves to Germany. Yes, folk, Luke is becoming more like Hitler.
It's baiting for argument, and it got it.
If forced updates can be done without any other unrelated UI or behavioral changes, I'd be less bothered by it. I remember my parents operating Linux Mint a while back and getting regular Firefox updates. The UI changed enough on them that I had to give them a lesson in software lifecycles so they wouldn't be pissed at me.
Glad I'm using Ubuntu, then. (Score:2)
Proximity to the Edge (Score:2)
One of the things that I am waiting patiently for is the idea of allowing a user to select their tolerance for stability down to a per-application level. I’ll try and illustrate what I mean by using LibreOffice as an example. If you got to the LO download page, you will always see two different versions of the package available. One is clearly marked as ‘sta
Can't wait for a broken fs driver (Score:2)
My several TBs are ready do go puff.
Re: (Score:2)
Finally, standing up against anti-patchers! (Score:3)
Default auto-update; option to disale (Score:2)
The default should be auto-update, with an option to allow users to disable the automation IF the user chooses to disable it. A nice option would be a two or three day delay for updates that can't be externally exploited such that a bad update would be pulled in a day and those on "update delay" wouldn't get bit.
Don't do it... (Score:2)
Don't do it Mint devs...
Don't you DARE.
I don't use Ubuntu because of update shenanigans... Apple's unkillable update reminders baloney is annoying as hell... Windows... Well, there hasn't been any saving that OS since 8.
Feel free to enable auto-updates, but if I know enough of my ass from a hole in the ground to turn them off, don't you f-ing DARE force them on me.
this is why i stay away from distros (Score:2)
Power corrupts (Score:2)
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
The user must be able to choose (Score:2)
Still annoyed about MS downloading something like 6 GB for the Win10 upgrade I didn't want. Twice. I was offshore and got my internet cut off for downloading too much.
Re: (Score:2)
but that wasn't the choice of Linux Mint team, Mint is Ubuntu plus some other packages and different installer. Ubuntu put the systemd in.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It’s definitely available in Debian (upon which ubuntu is based); I’m just not sure who flinched first...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It was Debian but Ubuntu had the means to not use it or go with alternative.
Re: (Score:2)