4 ms·

> Mac and Linux do the same thing The earlier responses in the thread were talking about forced upgrades. I'm not sure about MacOS since I don't use it much, b

by saghm 5y ago

> Mac and Linux do the same thing The earlier responses in the thread were talking about forced upgrades. I'm not sure about MacOS since I don't use it much, but most Linux distros do not forcibly apply upgrades like Windows does; you can continue to use old packages and even reboot the machine indefinitely. Sure, you might not get security fixes or keep unrelated packages up to date beyond a certain point, but that's not at all the same thing as updates being applied without actually being invoked by the user.

jart 5y ago
Force is a strong word, since Windows provides ways to opt-out of feature upgrades. It's also probably possible to opt-out of bug fixes too. If you want to put a rosy spin on things, you could think of it as a free system administration service. There's a lot of people out there who are working really hard, for you, to make sure it goes smoothly. It's also common for Linux distros to use the opt-out model these days too.
- forgotmypw17 5y ago
  > Force is a strong word, since Windows provides ways to opt-out of feature upgrades. I dunno, I've heard multiple reports of people leaving their machine alone and coming back to it having upgraded and rebooted into a new version, sometimes into an unrecoverable blue screen. How would they have opted out of that?
  - habeebtc 5y ago
    Went through that with Win7 a few times. Eventually found a way to disable. In this case, the forced W11 upgrade was forced on me by my company via push.
    - forgotmypw17 5y ago
      Whenever there's a way to disable it, it's usually discovered after the fact, and then next month a new setting is introduced which must also be disabled. Fool me once, etc.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
> I'm not sure about MacOS since I don't use it much, but most Linux distros do not forcibly apply upgrades like Windows does; Eh, not very accurate in my opinion. If you want to use the latest software you are very much forced to upgrade Linux because they have no concept of separating the platform from the applications that run on it. Either everything is bleeding edge or nothing is. Or you compile things from source like it is 1979. There are Windows programs released today that will run just fine on Windows 7. How many Linux programs released today will run on Karmic Koala without recompilation?
- forgotmypw17 5y ago
  I just looked up what Karmic Koala is, and it is Ubuntu 9.x. I have not tried to use that recently, but I am quite happy running 14.x today, and it runs everything I need. I use IntelliJ 13.x for my Git stuff, Geany for most of my text editing, a dozen different browsers at whatever versions they are for my Web things, and whatever versions of mpv, mc, LibreOffice, etc. it came with for what those programs do. With only 1GB of RAM it's not always as snappy as I'd like, but I use the periods of swapping to meditate. I don't have to use programs released today, only ones which I need today.
- saghm 5y ago
  My point is that there's a difference between "you need to update to use certain things" and "your computer literally is forcibly updated even if you don't want it to or aren't ready". I agree that Windows is probably ahead in terms of backwards compatibility, but the first few comments in the thread were talking about machines getting updated without them applying the updates, which is not a thing I'm aware of happening on most Linux distros.
- forgotmypw17 5y ago
  I'm not sure who you mean by "they", but there's a lot of difference between distros, and many different ways to put the pieces together (or leave them out) Compiling from source is the most reliable way to run the latest and greatest version of a particular application that I've found to date, leaving out all the middlemen like package mantainers, whose competence I may or may not trust. And generally speaking, I'd trust a several-decades-old technique much more than something just released. As far as Windows software goes, I've found Wine to be a much more reliable platform for old Windows applications than Windows 7 or 10, although there's nothing better than emulated Windows 9x for running programs of that era. (I make "any browser" websites, so running 1995+ software is something I do on the regular.)

by saghm 5y ago

jart 5y ago

Force is a strong word, since Windows provides ways to opt-out of feature upgrades. It's also probably possible to opt-out of bug fixes too. If you want to put a rosy spin on things, you could think of it as a free system administration service. There's a lot of people out there who are working really hard, for you, to make sure it goes smoothly. It's also common for Linux distros to use the opt-out model these days too.

forgotmypw17 5y ago
> Force is a strong word, since Windows provides ways to opt-out of feature upgrades. I dunno, I've heard multiple reports of people leaving their machine alone and coming back to it having upgraded and rebooted into a new version, sometimes into an unrecoverable blue screen. How would they have opted out of that?
- habeebtc 5y ago
  Went through that with Win7 a few times. Eventually found a way to disable. In this case, the forced W11 upgrade was forced on me by my company via push.
  - forgotmypw17 5y ago
    Whenever there's a way to disable it, it's usually discovered after the fact, and then next month a new setting is introduced which must also be disabled. Fool me once, etc.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago

> I'm not sure about MacOS since I don't use it much, but most Linux distros do not forcibly apply upgrades like Windows does; Eh, not very accurate in my opinion. If you want to use the latest software you are very much forced to upgrade Linux because they have no concept of separating the platform from the applications that run on it. Either everything is bleeding edge or nothing is. Or you compile things from source like it is 1979. There are Windows programs released today that will run just fine on Windows 7. How many Linux programs released today will run on Karmic Koala without recompilation?

forgotmypw17 5y ago
I just looked up what Karmic Koala is, and it is Ubuntu 9.x. I have not tried to use that recently, but I am quite happy running 14.x today, and it runs everything I need. I use IntelliJ 13.x for my Git stuff, Geany for most of my text editing, a dozen different browsers at whatever versions they are for my Web things, and whatever versions of mpv, mc, LibreOffice, etc. it came with for what those programs do. With only 1GB of RAM it's not always as snappy as I'd like, but I use the periods of swapping to meditate. I don't have to use programs released today, only ones which I need today.
saghm 5y ago
My point is that there's a difference between "you need to update to use certain things" and "your computer literally is forcibly updated even if you don't want it to or aren't ready". I agree that Windows is probably ahead in terms of backwards compatibility, but the first few comments in the thread were talking about machines getting updated without them applying the updates, which is not a thing I'm aware of happening on most Linux distros.
forgotmypw17 5y ago
I'm not sure who you mean by "they", but there's a lot of difference between distros, and many different ways to put the pieces together (or leave them out) Compiling from source is the most reliable way to run the latest and greatest version of a particular application that I've found to date, leaving out all the middlemen like package mantainers, whose competence I may or may not trust. And generally speaking, I'd trust a several-decades-old technique much more than something just released. As far as Windows software goes, I've found Wine to be a much more reliable platform for old Windows applications than Windows 7 or 10, although there's nothing better than emulated Windows 9x for running programs of that era. (I make "any browser" websites, so running 1995+ software is something I do on the regular.)