3 ms·

And that is precisely what you should not. The dist-upgrade is something you can plan for and set time aside for. The risky rolling mini upgrade every couple of

And that is precisely what you should not. The dist-upgrade is something you can plan for and set time aside for. The risky rolling mini upgrade every couple of weeks you can not. That is a huge difference!

shakna 7y ago
> The dist-upgrade is something you can plan for and set time aside for. The risky rolling mini upgrade every couple of weeks you can not. I can plan for it? You can see if you're upgrading your kernel. Nothing breaks if you decide not to run an upgrade.
- AnonymousPlanet 7y ago
  And then I sit with a hopelessly old system I dare not to touch because I dread the day I have to do that kernel update or that one update that pulls in a new libc, leading to an upgrade orgy. I have seen that plenty of times. This nonsense is why stable and LTS releases were introduced in the first place. If I'm faced with a major upgrade of an LTS system, I usually choose to reinstall from scratch, shedding packages I haven't needed for a long time with it. But that happens every couple years or so. If you're okay with hitting the forums now and then to find out why your desktop has been behaving oddly the last two weeks, rolling is your thing. You won't have to break in your new dist-upgraded or freshly installed system for like two weeks. If you don't want to play lottery every time you hit enter for that update or if you're a business where you can't afford possibly breaking all your laptops for some security update, stable is your only option. It's "choose the best tool for the job" I guess.
  - celticmusic 7y ago
    this reply 100% mirrors my thoughts on the matter, all the way down to preferring re-installs over dist-upgrade's. I like Linux, I don't dislike dealing with the OS. But I want to deal with it on my time. Expecting to get work done and then realizing something is broken and being forced to deal with it is a completely different proposition from picking out a weekend to reinstall your work PC with the newest LTS version.
  - shakna 7y ago
    > If I'm faced with a major upgrade of an LTS system, I usually choose to reinstall from scratch, shedding packages I haven't needed for a long time with it. But that happens every couple years or so. This goes back to my original point, which we've drifted a little from. Ubuntu has more unexpected behaving when upgrading than Debian. A working dist-upgrade should not be something that your OS struggles to provide. Asking people to reinstall their OS isn't an acceptable answer. Upgrading should not be a lottery.
    - celticmusic 7y ago
      it's called LTS for a reason. Just don't dist-upgrade, problem solved. This argument that you MUST dist-upgrade as soon as the next version is available, and completely ignore the entire idea around LTS, is silly.
      - shakna 7y ago
        > This argument that you MUST dist-upgrade as soon as the next version is available, and completely ignore the entire idea around LTS, is silly. This idea that you never want to upgrade from one LTS to the next is equally ridiculous. Upgrading the operating system is part of the package manager's job.

shakna 7y ago

> The dist-upgrade is something you can plan for and set time aside for. The risky rolling mini upgrade every couple of weeks you can not. I can plan for it? You can see if you're upgrading your kernel. Nothing breaks if you decide not to run an upgrade.

AnonymousPlanet 7y ago
And then I sit with a hopelessly old system I dare not to touch because I dread the day I have to do that kernel update or that one update that pulls in a new libc, leading to an upgrade orgy. I have seen that plenty of times. This nonsense is why stable and LTS releases were introduced in the first place. If I'm faced with a major upgrade of an LTS system, I usually choose to reinstall from scratch, shedding packages I haven't needed for a long time with it. But that happens every couple years or so. If you're okay with hitting the forums now and then to find out why your desktop has been behaving oddly the last two weeks, rolling is your thing. You won't have to break in your new dist-upgraded or freshly installed system for like two weeks. If you don't want to play lottery every time you hit enter for that update or if you're a business where you can't afford possibly breaking all your laptops for some security update, stable is your only option. It's "choose the best tool for the job" I guess.
- celticmusic 7y ago
  this reply 100% mirrors my thoughts on the matter, all the way down to preferring re-installs over dist-upgrade's. I like Linux, I don't dislike dealing with the OS. But I want to deal with it on my time. Expecting to get work done and then realizing something is broken and being forced to deal with it is a completely different proposition from picking out a weekend to reinstall your work PC with the newest LTS version.
- shakna 7y ago
  > If I'm faced with a major upgrade of an LTS system, I usually choose to reinstall from scratch, shedding packages I haven't needed for a long time with it. But that happens every couple years or so. This goes back to my original point, which we've drifted a little from. Ubuntu has more unexpected behaving when upgrading than Debian. A working dist-upgrade should not be something that your OS struggles to provide. Asking people to reinstall their OS isn't an acceptable answer. Upgrading should not be a lottery.
  - celticmusic 7y ago
    it's called LTS for a reason. Just don't dist-upgrade, problem solved. This argument that you MUST dist-upgrade as soon as the next version is available, and completely ignore the entire idea around LTS, is silly.
    - shakna 7y ago
      > This argument that you MUST dist-upgrade as soon as the next version is available, and completely ignore the entire idea around LTS, is silly. This idea that you never want to upgrade from one LTS to the next is equally ridiculous. Upgrading the operating system is part of the package manager's job.