Linux for noobs?

[Nothinman]

they really gotta have the updater in ubuntu separate critical security updates from other stuff.

never mind the browser for the updates is poor, clicking through them to read the description is too slow to be practical, never mind if you are confronted with hundreds.

and this is the "easy" to use linux...lol

The UI for Windows Update is less informative and covers a lot less software, so yes Linux has the advantage in both areas.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

The UI for Windows Update is less informative and covers a lot less software, so yes Linux has the advantage in both areas.

Assuming you want your OS in charge of your software updates. Some of us prefer the OS to mind its own business.

 

[sourceninja]

If you can't trust your OS you really should reconsider using it.

 

[Nothinman]

Assuming you want your OS in charge of your software updates. Some of us prefer the OS to mind its own business.

You'd honestly rather have to manually look in a dozen+ places for updates instead of just one?

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

You'd honestly rather have to manually look in a dozen+ places for updates instead of just one?

I don't remember the last time I manually searched for an update - most software handles it itself.

 

[Nothinman]

I don't remember the last time I manually searched for an update - most software handles it itself.

Some of mine do, but not all. And the fact that they all have their own updaters is a large part of the problem. If they could all just register their repository with AU and let it do the updating things would be much better.

 

[0roo0roo]

The UI for Windows Update is less informative and covers a lot less software, so yes Linux has the advantage in both areas.

Feels more like the restrictive oppressive apple bubble more than anything else. I don't want to be bombarded with updates like that. Even more so since i'm using vm.

Some of mine do, but not all. And the fact that they all have their own updaters is a large part of the problem. If they could all just register their repository with AU and let it do the updating things would be much better.

which is why firefox 3.5.8 is the latest update in ubuntu?

hey grandma, just open terminal and start typing for your update!
sudo add-apt-repository ppa:mozillateam/firefox-stable && sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get install firefox-3.6

Then:

sudo apt-get upgrade && sudo apt-get dist-upgrade

 

[xSauronx]

Feels more like the restrictive oppressive apple bubble more than anything else. I don't want to be bombarded with updates like that. Even more so since i'm using vm.



which is why firefox 3.5.8 is the latest update in ubuntu?

hey grandma, just open terminal and start typing for your update!
sudo add-apt-repository ppa:mozillateam/firefox-stable && sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get install firefox-3.6

Then:

sudo apt-get upgrade && sudo apt-get dist-upgrade

thats not remotely necessary and anyone who has used ubuntu in the last year or more is aware of that....the default config gives you notifications in the tray when there are updates available, and all you have to do is click (maybe enter a password, i forget)

and yeah, having a dozen programs all running their own updater in the background is *awesome*

i cant tell you how annoying i find it to try and perform an action or open a document and end up with an update notification in the middle of the screen, holding me up from what im trying to do.

nevermind how annoying it is just to install software sometimes. i had a bitch of a time playing with server 2k8 the other day, because, and this is *great*, some of the software required to install various services...is software you have to download, from microsoft, separately before you can do other things.

its annoying as all hell, and theres ZERO excuse to have to do that for OS related software, services and updates. linux has been all over that for years and years.

 

[JD50]

Feels more like the restrictive oppressive apple bubble more than anything else. I don't want to be bombarded with updates like that. Even more so since i'm using vm.



which is why firefox 3.5.8 is the latest update in ubuntu?

hey grandma, just open terminal and start typing for your update!
sudo add-apt-repository ppa:mozillateam/firefox-stable && sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get install firefox-3.6

Then:

sudo apt-get upgrade && sudo apt-get dist-upgrade

Hey grandpa, when was the last time you used a linux desktop distribution? I can't remember the last time I HAD to do that.

 

[Jodell88]

which is why firefox 3.5.8 is the latest update in ubuntu?

The reason for this is because moving from the 3.5 series to the 3.6 series is a version upgrade and not a bug fix. Ubuntu and a lot of other distros do not do version upgrades. You get the new version when there is a new version of the distro. I'm positive that firefox 3.6 is in ubuntu 10.04.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

The reason for this is because moving from the 3.5 series to the 3.6 series is a version upgrade and not a bug fix. Ubuntu and a lot of other distros do not do version upgrades. You get the new version when there is a new version of the distro. I'm positive that firefox 3.6 is in ubuntu 10.04.

That's the point he's trying to make. It doesn't make sense to tie updates to the OS in my opinion.

 

[Jodell88]

That's the point he's trying to make. It doesn't make sense to tie updates to the OS in my opinion.

It is not tied to the OS. The reason they do it is to make sure that everything works properly. Basically, it is a form of quality control.

 

[xSauronx]

It is not tied to the OS. The reason they do it is to make sure that everything works properly. Basically, it is a form of quality control.

indeed. you *can* upgrade to 3.6 if for whatever reason you just cant wait, you just deal with it manually. thats the cost of not using the central management to handle it...which is normal for windows, id be surprised if it was a big deal.

 

[0roo0roo]

Mostly the issue is that it goes against the perception of "openess" of linux. I know its just the source thats open mostly but still, its just off putting that it feels more closed than windows for an end user.

 

[Jodell88]

Mostly the issue is that it goes against the perception of "openess" of linux. I know its just the source thats open mostly but still, its just off putting that it feels more closed than windows for an end user.

 

[Nothinman]

Mostly the issue is that it goes against the perception of "openess" of linux. I know its just the source thats open mostly but still, its just off putting that it feels more closed than windows for an end user.

It does no such thing and that makes no sense whatsoever. Having everything update in one place is just a helluva lot more convenient than having to deal with each app individually. If you can't see that you're very confused.

 

[xSauronx]

Mostly the issue is that it goes against the perception of "openess" of linux. I know its just the source thats open mostly but still, its just off putting that it feels more closed than windows for an end user.

Ive never heard this argument before and Im not sure that it makes any sense at all. The software management in a given distribution, when managed centrally, saves time and headache in software management

• you dont have to hunt the web to download apps (as you can search the database in one place)
• you dont have to manually manage updates for *any* software if you dont want to [except oddball stuff] (in windows only some software has its own updated, which uses extra resources)
• you still have the freedom to directly install whatever you want with common and popular software, as you can download rpm and debs to install (or tarballs, or compile from source)
• you *can* pick a distro without the bells and whistles of centralized software management if it *really* hamstrings you so much to have things all in one place. afaik, slackware still doesnt manage dependencies.tell me how "free" you feel managing that independently

 

[Jodell88]

It does no such thing and that makes no sense whatsoever. Having everything update in one place is just a helluva lot more convenient than having to deal with each app individually. If you can't see that you're very confused.

This

Ive never heard this argument before and Im not sure that it makes any sense at all. The software management in a given distribution, when managed centrally, saves time and headache in software management

• you dont have to hunt the web to download apps (as you can search the database in one place)
• you dont have to manually manage updates for *any* software if you dont want to [except oddball stuff] (in windows only some software has its own updated, which uses extra resources)
• you still have the freedom to directly install whatever you want with common and popular software, as you can download rpm and debs to install (or tarballs, or compile from source)
• you *can* pick a distro without the bells and whistles of centralized software management if it *really* hamstrings you so much to have things all in one place. afaik, slackware still doesnt manage dependencies.tell me how "free" you feel managing that independently

And this

I don't see his arguement. No linux distro stops a user from installing software that is not in the official repos. It is recommended you use the repos so that the software can be managed and updated but not an absolute requirement. OrooOroo seems to be uninformed IMO.

 

[lxskllr]

I've had a lot of issues with Linux over the years, but updates aren't one of them. I like having everything use 1 interface to deal with updating.

 

[Jodell88]

I've had a lot of issues with Linux over the years, but updates aren't one of them. I like having everything use 1 interface to deal with updating.

I wish windows would have something similar. That would be awesome IMO ^_^

 

[xSauronx]

I wish windows would have something similar. That would be awesome IMO ^_^

id be happy if just microsofts software alone worked that way, theres literally *no* reason that much cant be done. to setup WSUS on a server there are prereqs...and at best you get links to the downloads. thats just silly.

 

[konakona]

it depends.

For important system related updates, it makes sense and windows update does the same.

For trivial stuff, it is convenient but the chances are I wouldn't care either way.

For finicky but very important stuff - incidentally the stuff I would care the most about - like video card drivers, I just don't trust these spoonfed updates at all, always better to read up on it and do it on your own.

In the end I think central updating system is slightly better, albeit the difference are small in practice to an average user IMO.

 

[0roo0roo]

This


And this

I don't see his arguement. No linux distro stops a user from installing software that is not in the official repos. It is recommended you use the repos so that the software can be managed and updated but not an absolute requirement. OrooOroo seems to be uninformed IMO.

I'm speaking about its user friendliness to new users.

dealing with dependency hell just shouldn't happen, never mind tarballs...or compiling stuff yourself The whole dependency issue just seems far worse in linux than in windows.

 

[konakona]

In my limited experience, making and compiling failed more often than not without modifying the makefile with my own research. Readme files seldom helped (makefile modification is necessary when the author does not instruct to do so, or following the advice given does not work, etc etc), googling was needed to get things fixed most of the times. That's just mynoob perspective for you geeks

 

[Nothinman]

For finicky but very important stuff - incidentally the stuff I would care the most about - like video card drivers, I just don't trust these spoonfed updates at all, always better to read up on it and do it on your own.

But in Linux, video card drivers aren't as finicky as they are in Windows and drivers in general aren't as problematic as they are in Windows. As long as you make sure the driver packages match the version of the kernel you have installed you should be fine.

The whole dependency issue just seems far worse in linux than in windows.

Not at all, the difference is that most Windows installers bundle their dependencies so you end up with multiple, unmanaged, copies of the same libraries.

And I've had some MSI's tell me to go download something from MS before they'd install. Unless you're dealing with shady 3rd party repositories that just doesn't happen in Linux.

In my limited experience, making and compiling failed more often than not without modifying the makefile with my own research. Readme files seldom helped (makefile modification is necessary when the author does not instruct to do so, or following the advice given does not work, etc etc), googling was needed to get things fixed most of the times. That's just mynoob perspective for you geeks :

I can't remember the last time I had a problem compiling something, the README or INSTALL files always had the required packages listed and decent instructions for compiling. Then again, I can't really remember the last thing I had to compile. I think it's nice that the option is available, but I haven't had a need to exercise it in years.