On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 at 14:41:22 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
> On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 at 14:29:16 UTC, Paulo  Pinto wrote:

> Isn't NASDAQ enough?

You might be right, after all. There are some Windows-specific symptoms that support that assertion:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-01/nasdaq-shuts-options-market-for-almost-entire-day-on-malfunction.html

On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 at 14:44:06 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
> On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 at 05:09:45 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

> Does it affect dash?

No. It is a "bashism", ie an extension specific to Bash. Busybox users are not concerned neither.

> A pity, on windows one can roll new software versions as long as they are maintained.

It depends on the software (many abandoned Windows XP while still "officially supported") and you shall not ask about the quality of this software neither. Is not the same effort that goes into legacy versions that it goes into newer versions.

BTW updating software on Windows is the PITAst of all ever (except maybe some medieval tortures). You have to install software manually, software after software. The first thing that I love in Linux is the centralized update.

On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 at 14:44:06 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
> 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.

This claim is so strange I can't even understand what it is about. Which repositories get abandoned?

On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 at 15:42:04 UTC, eles wrote:
> On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 at 14:41:22 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 at 14:29:16 UTC, Paulo  Pinto wrote:
>
>> Isn't NASDAQ enough?
>
> You might be right, after all. There are some Windows-specific symptoms that support that assertion:
>
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-01/nasdaq-shuts-options-market-for-almost-entire-day-on-malfunction.html

I mean, the asserion is: is enough, even more than enough.

On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 at 15:45:26 UTC, eles wrote:
> The first thing that I love in Linux is the centralized update.

The downside is it's taken down centrally too, while distributed windows software continues to work independently of each other.

On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 at 15:48:58 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> This claim is so strange I can't even understand what it is about. Which repositories get abandoned?

Repositories of the not latest version of the OS. Because only latest version receives development. That is, if the OS doesn't have rolling updates.

On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 at 16:57:07 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
> On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 at 15:45:26 UTC, eles wrote:
>> The first thing that I love in Linux is the centralized update.
>
> The downside is it's taken down centrally too, while distributed windows software continues to work independently of each other.

Yes, this is exactly the reason why Microsoft is moving towards the Microsoft Store. They must have taken notes.

For how long will the repository taken down? 24 hours? 3 days? You speak about Red Hat or Debian or Ubuntu repositories? And? You cannot live without the super-updates for 3 days?

The problem that you expose is negligible.

> Repositories of the not latest version of the OS. Because only latest version receives development. That is, if the OS doesn't have rolling updates.

Most of them, have. And for the release-style distributions, upgrade is rather straightforward, much less disruptive than in the Windows world.

You need to test Linux. Seriously.

On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 at 16:57:07 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
> On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 at 15:45:26 UTC, eles wrote:

> Repositories of the not latest version of the OS. Because only latest version receives development. That is, if the OS doesn't have rolling updates.

What is the difference wrt Microsoft phasing out a Windows version? Except tha upgrading from Windows to Windows is such a PITA that even the Brazen Bull seems to be just a nice couch.

On 10/1/14 12:57 PM, Kagamin wrote:
> On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 at 15:48:58 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>> This claim is so strange I can't even understand what it is about.
>> Which repositories get abandoned?
>
> Repositories of the not latest version of the OS. Because only latest
> version receives development. That is, if the OS doesn't have rolling
> updates.

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LTS

-Steve

On 1 October 2014 18:12, Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d-announce <digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On 10/1/14 12:57 PM, Kagamin wrote:
>>
>> On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 at 15:48:58 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>>>
>>> This claim is so strange I can't even understand what it is about. Which repositories get abandoned?
>>
>>
>> Repositories of the not latest version of the OS. Because only latest version receives development. That is, if the OS doesn't have rolling updates.
>
>
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LTS
>

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.

Iain.

On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 at 16:57:07 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
> On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 at 15:45:26 UTC, eles wrote:
>> The first thing that I love in Linux is the centralized update.
>
> The downside is it's taken down centrally too, while distributed windows software continues to work independently of each other.
>
> On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 at 15:48:58 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>> This claim is so strange I can't even understand what it is about. Which repositories get abandoned?
>
> Repositories of the not latest version of the OS. Because only latest version receives development. That is, if the OS doesn't have rolling updates.

This is simply telling lies, sorry. All distros that don't have rolling release model provide LTS versions that get all important updates (including security updates, of course) for years. For example Ubuntu LTS lasts for 4 years where one can count on fast updates.

And even after that period your distro does not disappear magically, you are simply force to install necessary updates manually (as opposed to 1 click / command update from repo), basically getting you back to Windows _default_ state of things.