On Friday, 3 October 2014 at 07:16:14 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
> On Thursday, 2 October 2014 at 12:44:08 UTC, eles wrote:
>> I doubt. At least, not easily. However, installing LMDE should be a one-time process (it's a rolling distribution).
>
> Do rolling distributions guarantee to not overwrite fstab? How mint package update differs from a rolling distro package update?

Mint is release-based. All packages are updated in a large group that is called "a release", unlike rolling distributions, where packages are updated package-by-package, sometimes even on daily basis.

The former attempt stability (because all packages are tested together, along with their interactions), while the latter attempt cutting-edge software (you update software as it gets produced).

No matter the distribution, security packages usually comes in in rolling-manner (because very important).

Unlike other release-style distribution, Mint simply does not support hot-upgrades, they recommend full reinstall (back-up your files, clean harddisk, install, restore files).

Anyway, the fact that they do not support it does not mean is not possible. It's just that they disclaim responsibility and they do not want to invest support into that.

So, it is possible, but you must be a bit of geek. And you cannot request their official helps/guides for that. Think of it as "undocumented feature" from their POV.

On Friday, 3 October 2014 at 11:31:07 UTC, eles wrote:
> On Friday, 3 October 2014 at 07:16:14 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
>> On Thursday, 2 October 2014 at 12:44:08 UTC, eles wrote:
>>> I doubt. At least, not easily. However, installing LMDE should be a one-time process (it's a rolling distribution).
>>
>> Do rolling distributions guarantee to not overwrite fstab? How mint package update differs from a rolling distro package update?
>
> Mint is release-based. All packages are updated in a large group that is called "a release", unlike rolling distributions, where packages are updated package-by-package, sometimes even on daily basis.
>
> The former attempt stability (because all packages are tested together, along with their interactions), while the latter attempt cutting-edge software (you update software as it gets produced).
>
> No matter the distribution, security packages usually comes in in rolling-manner (because very important).
>
> Unlike other release-style distribution, Mint simply does not support hot-upgrades, they recommend full reinstall (back-up your files, clean harddisk, install, restore files).
>
> Anyway, the fact that they do not support it does not mean is not possible. It's just that they disclaim responsibility and they do not want to invest support into that.
>
> So, it is possible, but you must be a bit of geek. And you cannot request their official helps/guides for that. Think of it as "undocumented feature" from their POV.

I recently upgraded a mint install by changing any and all references to repositories to the corresponding ones for the new release and then running apt-get dist-upgrade

It worked, but I wouldn't recommend it.

Clean reinstalls or rolling release are better approaches to the problem of updating an OS. Ubuntu, Windows and OS X have all subtlely or not-so-subtley let me down with automated upgrades at one point or another.

On Friday, 3 October 2014 at 11:31:07 UTC, eles wrote:
> The former attempt stability (because all packages are tested together, along with their interactions), while the latter attempt cutting-edge software (you update software as it gets produced).

This generally true but not entirely true. Rolling release model also implies testing of package inter-operation but any guarantees only apply to versions that match specific repository snapshot - most problems arise from trying to update some of packages but not all. At least this is the case for Arch.

On 10/3/2014 3:25 AM, David Nadlinger via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> On Friday, 3 October 2014 at 07:16:14 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
>> On Thursday, 2 October 2014 at 12:44:08 UTC, eles wrote:
>>> I doubt. At least, not easily. However, installing LMDE should be a
>>> one-time process (it's a rolling distribution).
>>
>> Do rolling distributions guarantee to not overwrite fstab? How mint
>> package update differs from a rolling distro package update?
>
> Arch Linux warns you about the conflict and installs the new files as
> e.g. /etc/fstab.pacnew.
>
> David

I've used at various points in time Debian, Ubuntu, Redhat, Centos, and amazon linux.  At no point has any of them ever lost my fstab file, or any other critical file for that matter.  My oldest system at this point is about 8 years old and has been ubuntu since it was born and still is.  It's current and has rolled through every intervening version quite easily, which is a good thing since it's a vm off in a data center.

It's not hard to maintain systems, but they do require maintenance.  I wouldn't really expect to neglect a system for many years and be able to rapidly jump it all the way to current.  About once a year I go on a big maintenance spree, independent of more frequent minor maintenance.

My 2 cents,
Brad

On Friday, 3 October 2014 at 11:51:08 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> On Friday, 3 October 2014 at 11:31:07 UTC, eles wrote:
>> The former attempt stability (because all packages are tested together, along with their interactions), while the latter attempt cutting-edge software (you update software as it gets produced).
>
> This generally true but not entirely true. Rolling release model also implies testing of package inter-operation but any guarantees only apply to versions that match specific repository snapshot - most problems arise from trying to update some of packages but not all. At least this is the case for Arch.

Yes, kinda true, however there is a compromise between the dailyness of the updates and the depth of tests.

Release-style distributions have one more difference: they guarantee support for the provided software during the lifetime of the distribution. They might not provide new versions, but will provide security patches.

Even if a software is abandoned by its own author one day after the release gets out, at least in theory, the release team will continue to provide patches to ensure that the software maintains the interoperability and the security level with the rest of the distribution.

That alone and is quite an effort, but it matters for entreprise customers.

Rolling distributions are more like: "well, that software is not developed anymore, either you maintaint yourself, either you stick with the old version at your own risk."

On Friday, 3 October 2014 at 17:20:11 UTC, Brad Roberts via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> On 10/3/2014 3:25 AM, David Nadlinger via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
>> On Friday, 3 October 2014 at 07:16:14 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 2 October 2014 at 12:44:08 UTC, eles wrote:

>  My oldest system at this point is about 8 years old and has been ubuntu since it was born and still is.
>  It's current and has rolled through every intervening version quite easily

Yes. Ubuntu was not perfectly upgrading at its beginnings, but with years that passed they became better and better at this.

On 10/01/2014 05:15 PM, Dicebot wrote:
>
> [Mint] gained lot of popularity when
> Ubuntu switched to Unity as default desktop environment and Fedora moved
> with Gnome 3 - quite many users started looking for a distro with more
> conservative defaults.

Yea, y'know, about that [entirely predictable] phenomenon: I've occasionally wondered whether Canonical, and the Gnome devs (the ones that didn't jump ship to Mate/Cinn), and heck even MS and Mozilla...if they've been *deliberately* trying to decrease their userbase.

I know personally that permitting optional settings is *not* as difficult as those organizations/devs make it out to be, *especially* when compared to the effort involved in completely redoing a whole damn UI. So it's really the only explanation I can come up with to explain Gnome3/Win8/FF3/FF4/FF29/Unity/etc other than just "they must've all gone nuts" ;)

> However [Mint's] development / maintenance team does
> not seem to match that popularity burst.

Yes, of course that isn't a complaint against Mint. Despite having left it, I do like Mint, FWIW. I just wanted to go rolling release (and really, the non-free stuff isn't all that difficult to get up and running on straight Debian at this point - a lot of it worked out-of-the-box for me, and even Flash was trivial to install after a one-minute web search).

On 1 Oct 2014 21:55, "Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d-announce" < digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/01/2014 01:38 PM, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
>>
>>
>> One nice thing about Ubuntu is that they even give you access to future kernel versions through what they call HWE.  In short, I can run a 14.04 LTS kernel on a 12.04 server, so that I'm able to use modern hardware and take advantage of software that uses features of Linux that are actively worked on (like LXC) on an older software stack.
>>
>
> Is there anything similar in Debian?
>

I am not aware of any other distro doing this kind of support.  So I think that it's unique to Ubuntu.

Iain

Brad Roberts via Digitalmars-d-announce, el  1 de October a las 12:19 me escribiste:
> On 10/1/2014 6:41 AM, JN via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> >On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 at 05:09:45 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> >>
> >>Other OSes/distros are likely equally easy. Please, reply with examples to help ensure other people on the same OS/distro as you have no excuse not to update!
> >
> >I find it ironic that it's another "big global" security hole about which Windows users don't even have to be concerned about.
> 
> False.
> 
> All of my windows boxes needed to be updated.  One of the first things I do on any new windows box is install cygwin to get a saner development environment with bash as my shell.
> 
> I wouldn't be shocked at all if other windows apps bundle bash for

You mean...    "shellshocked"? 8-)

Sorry, somebody has to do it...


I still don't see where the irony is though, honestly.

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca)                     http://llucax.com.ar/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
una vez mas voy a arrastrar mi alma por el suelo
y no me importa sentirme mal, si es lo que quiero
tragando polvo, llorando sangre, anocheciendo
una vez mas voy a cerrar mis ojos para siempre

Steven Schveighoffer, el  1 de October a las 10:56 me escribiste:
> On 10/1/14 10:44 AM, Kagamin wrote:
> >On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 at 05:09:45 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> >>Apparently bash has it's own "heartbleed" now, dubbed "shellshock".
> >
> >Does it affect dash?
> 
> I don't know, but I think it doesn't. There are tests you can use to check if your shell is vulnerable, google can tell you :)
> 
> >Also, how does one update software on linux? Last I checked, when new version is out, repository of the previous version becomes utterly abandoned. A pity, on windows one can roll new software versions as long as they are maintained.
> 
> Generally, you use the package manager, but it is very dependent on what distribution you are using. For example, in Ubuntu or Linux Mint, the UI alerts you to updates, and it's as simple as clicking a button.

Even doing nothing is enough if you have automatic security updates enabled, which I would recommend.

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca)                     http://llucax.com.ar/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No le puse like en fb solo porque no quiero que fb sepa que me gusta
	-- Rata