On Sat, Apr 20, 2019 at 11:37 AM D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk <[email protected]> wrote: > > | From: o1bigtenor via talk <[email protected]> > > | I'm > | finding that > | there are some elements in *nix land that are insisting that because users > | are so very very lax at updating their systems that the distro must itself > | not only offer the updates but that said updates MUST happen. > > It is perhaps reasonable that that be an option. It feels wrong that > it be mandatory. > > As a desktop user, I treat Firefox updates as urgent and mandatory. > Firefox is my main exposure to Bad Guys. > > Some of the customers for my sysadmin services (i.e. my family) don't > like updates. They are of the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" > school. And it is true that sometimes I've broken things through > updates. But I still have faith regular updates are a net win.
Agreed - - - but I can tell you that an upgrade that causes system problems is very stressful! > > There are some parallels between vaccine and updates. Maybe more than a few? (grin!) > > | To whit - - > | Canonical has moved to this system in their implementations of both > | snapd and also lxd. It is possible to reduce the frequency of the upgrades > | from a daily inspection and possible update/upgrade to a maximum of > | a month long period without update/upgrade. > > Are you saying that updates are mandatory, but only for snapd and lxd? > That sounds a bit odd. > > Is it only security updates that are mandatory? Snapd is used to install lxd. > > I don't use snapd and lxd. Abstractly, both need to bridge between an inside > environment and an outside one. Are the updates purely to the > inside, to the outside, or both? Could the updates be required to > make this bridging correct? Not sure - - - just know that snapd can be set for an update/upgrade once a month. If that doesn't happen - - - well my system (Debian 9) would shut itself down. > > I thought that one of the goals of snapd and of container systems was > the decouple versioning of inside and outside. What other purpose is > there for snapd, for example? My guess is that this tightly coupled behavior would make it much easier to create a fee for such connection. This then monetizes the software. Both of these 'technologies' development occur after Canonical was rumored to be contemplating an IPO. > > | I found out the hard way that this was a MUST from the software. Myself > | I prefer to update/upgrade periodically - - - usually checking to make sure > | that the software isn't going to get borked because the upgrade has flaws > | in it (even more fun when the system gets borked due to flaws in the > | software!!). It was suggested that it would be possible to skirt around the > | constant update/upgrade cycle by using a firewall rule to hinder the forced > | reach out from my system to 'mother ship'. Well that joy set up a system > | that after such an update/upgrade request was blocked - - - well the system > | would shut itself down. It was only after the second such incident that I > | started investigating and by the fourth I could call the trend. Now I have > | the issue of having directories that I am unable to remove even using rm -r > | but there is a very long and definitely not simple technique whereby maybe > | I will be able to purge my server of said mess. > > Wow. > > It would be interesting to know what the rationale for this is. > There's a chance that the reason is reasonable. The rationale - - - stated is to make sure that the user never has outdated software. (Implied is that users are the major issue causing software problems.) Not explained is why there is a need to run software on the bleeding edge. There just is no room left for something like Debian stable or software that is rock solid stable - - - there were a number of interesting bugs that showed up. > > It's open source. You could rebuild it without the mandatory > update feature. Or you could file a bug report. Or you could accept > this loss of control. Or you could walk. I don't have the skills to remove the offending part of the software. The forum topic where this was discussed was locked by the admins at least a few times as the users would be less than totally amazed and enthralled by the 'feature' and taking the dev team to task re: this gaff. I chose the last option. > > | Hopefully not too much rant! > > Interesting to me. Regards --- Talk Mailing List [email protected] https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
