Dicebot, el  1 de October a las 17:44 me escribiste:
> 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.

5 years ;-)
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LTS

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca)                     http://llucax.com.ar/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No es malo que en la condición humana exista la mentira. Miente el púber
si quiere ponerla.
	-- Ricardo Vaporeso. Madrid, 1921.

On Thursday, 2 October 2014 at 11:12:12 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
> On Thursday, 2 October 2014 at 07:43:54 UTC, eles wrote:
>> update-manager -d
>>
>> It works.
>
> Does it perform package upgrade? The comments are rather scary:
> ---
> Hi, I have installed Linux mint 15 with Mint4Win as Dual boot with Windows 7.
> Then upgraded it to Mint 16 and it was running fine.
> But when I upgrade to Mint 17 (Qiana), after restarting the partition loop0 (or loopback0 or something like that) fails to load.
> It shows an error like, Press I to ignore, S to skip or M for manual recovery.

Hi,

A bit of news here, as just updated my knoledge about Linux Mint & Linux Mint Debian Edition.

In short, from this discussion and its comments:

http://segfault.linuxmint.com/2014/08/upcoming-lmde-2-to-be-named-betsy/

Linux Mint Debian abandons its (semi-)rolling model and will basically become just a kind of Ubuntu, but based on Debian Stable (Ubuntu, AFAIK, is based on Debian Unstable). The will require full-upgrades every 2 years, but the upgrades shall be smooth (no reinstall required). For two years, you will not need to do such upgrade, just the basic security upgrades and some updates (mainly browser and email clients).

Linux Mint, starting from version 17, marks a departure from previous releases (this is why you migh have encountered difficulties in upgrading) by keeping the same code base (Ubuntu 14.04 LTS) for the next 5 years. So, during this time, it will basically be a rolling-distribution, as some software will get updated just as regular (security fixes etc.) happens. Probably, after those 5 years, they will change the code base to the next Ubuntu LTS, which will start a new 5-years long upgrade.

One piece of advice: Debian Testing might seem (by the name) more secure than Debian Unstable. The truth is that the latter is more up-to-date and receives security fixes first (they are entering the Debian Unstable first, then they are pre-validated before going in Debian Testing). More, Debian Unstable is not as unstable as its name might tell but, yes, it requires you messing sometimes (read: maybe once every three months) with the apt-get and vim. But is not such a big deal.

On 10/05/2014 04:54 AM, eles wrote:
> On Thursday, 2 October 2014 at 11:12:12 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
>> On Thursday, 2 October 2014 at 07:43:54 UTC, eles wrote:
>>> update-manager -d
>>>
>>> It works.
>>
>> Does it perform package upgrade? The comments are rather scary:
>> ---
>> Hi, I have installed Linux mint 15 with Mint4Win as Dual boot with
>> Windows 7.
>> Then upgraded it to Mint 16 and it was running fine.
>> But when I upgrade to Mint 17 (Qiana), after restarting the partition
>> loop0 (or loopback0 or something like that) fails to load.
>> It shows an error like, Press I to ignore, S to skip or M for manual
>> recovery.
>
> Hi,
>
> A bit of news here, as just updated my knoledge about Linux Mint & Linux
> Mint Debian Edition.
>
> In short, from this discussion and its comments:
>
> http://segfault.linuxmint.com/2014/08/upcoming-lmde-2-to-be-named-betsy/
>
> Linux Mint Debian abandons its (semi-)rolling model and will basically
> become just a kind of Ubuntu, but based on Debian Stable (Ubuntu, AFAIK,
> is based on Debian Unstable). The will require full-upgrades every 2
> years, but the upgrades shall be smooth (no reinstall required). For two
> years, you will not need to do such upgrade, just the basic security
> upgrades and some updates (mainly browser and email clients).
>
> Linux Mint, starting from version 17, marks a departure from previous
> releases (this is why you migh have encountered difficulties in
> upgrading) by keeping the same code base (Ubuntu 14.04 LTS) for the next
> 5 years. So, during this time, it will basically be a
> rolling-distribution, as some software will get updated just as regular
> (security fixes etc.) happens. Probably, after those 5 years, they will
> change the code base to the next Ubuntu LTS, which will start a new
> 5-years long upgrade.
>

Very interesting. This is pretty major news for Mint. Not sure how I feel about it, but it's certainly worth knowing. Glad you posted.

> One piece of advice: Debian Testing might seem (by the name) more secure
> than Debian Unstable. The truth is that the latter is more up-to-date
> and receives security fixes first (they are entering the Debian Unstable
> first, then they are pre-validated before going in Debian Testing).
> More, Debian Unstable is not as unstable as its name might tell but,
> yes, it requires you messing sometimes (read: maybe once every three
> months) with the apt-get and vim. But is not such a big deal.

When I got a new laptop a few weeks ago to stick linux on (yay!), and was deciding on distro, I did read that thing about Deb unstable getting security updates slightly earlier than Deb testing.

Personally, I ended up opting for Deb testing anyway because the "cooldown period" of a few days (for non-security releases) was very appealing to me. Sort of a minor little mini-guardrail between me and the bleeding edge. Y'know - just in case. And TBH, as big a deal as security is, I'm even more concerned about system instability anyway (not that I don't trust Deb "unstable" to still be reasonably stable, I'm sure it is). But that's just me.

Anyway, since Deb testing does apparently still have a "fast track" for major security fixes (via umm..."testing-updates" IIRC), even if it isn't *as* prompt as Deb unstable, that pretty much clinched the deal for me ;).

FWIW.

It's my first experience with rolling-release, so we'll see how it goes, but so far so good.

So far the biggest irritation is just simply the lack of TortoiseGit and *good* integration between BeyondCompare and Dolphin. But of course, that has nothing to do with choosing deb testing ;) A few other rough edges (to be expected), but man am I loving a lot of things about finally jumping to linux as a primary system after a full 20 *mostly* good years of windows. (Aside from a couple admittedly great, but minor, improvements - Win 8/8.1 is *HORRID*. And that's not even the one that finally pushed me away anyway - two years of Win7 and I was "Ok, that's freaking it, I NEED day-to-day linux now, fuck the new post-XP MS, can't take anymore of this goofy straightjacketed Apple-wannabe crap.")

Wow, sorry for the rambling, didn't really mean to venture so far with all that ;)

Anyway, yea. Linux distros. Lots of info about them :)

On 10/01/2014 04:50 PM, Nick Sabalausky 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?
> 

Debian Backports: backports.debian.org

-- 
Paul O'Neil
Github / IRC: todayman

On Friday, 3 October 2014 at 11:25:59 UTC, eles wrote:
> Debian and Debian-based asks you to confirm file overwrite (usually, the diff is displayed too).

Isn't it the same package manager? It should be able to do the same on mint. Or may be fstab can be copied somewhere and then back at some point?

On Sunday, 5 October 2014 at 08:54:46 UTC, eles wrote:
> Linux Mint, starting from version 17, marks a departure from previous releases (this is why you migh have encountered difficulties in upgrading) by keeping the same code base (Ubuntu 14.04 LTS) for the next 5 years. So, during this time, it will basically be a rolling-distribution, as some software will get updated just as regular (security fixes etc.) happens.

Truly rolling or only security updates?
Well, I'm ok with a fresh install. But can it run under the target linux itself? Or rather what to run from the disk? Since mint4win installation is a virtual disk, I'm not sure the installer will find it gracefully, they're usually partition-oriented. Not sure if this eliminates problem with fstab though.

On Sunday, 5 October 2014 at 21:13:01 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
> On Friday, 3 October 2014 at 11:25:59 UTC, eles wrote:
>> Debian and Debian-based asks you to confirm file overwrite (usually, the diff is displayed too).
>
> Isn't it the same package manager? It should be able to do the same on mint. Or may be fstab can be copied somewhere and then back at some point?

It should be the same, but I am never sure about the homegrown patches that the Mint team applies (for example, they applied that patch that presents "update packs").


> Truly rolling or only security updates?

Actually, a kind of releases, every 6 months, but that only comes down to updating the Mint plug-ins and a selected handful of programs (probably, browser, update manager and e-mail clients). There is no much difference wrt a rolling release, because the code base does not change. Basically, the "releases" will be nothing else that some glorified update packs, so basically the same that LMDE does today. Call it a "semi-rolling". At least this is my understanding of it.

> Well, I'm ok with a fresh install.

My advice is to wait a bit for the new LMDE to get out. Installing LMDE now as the current model approaches its end of life is not the best, since mostly sure, you'll have to do it again since they change the code base (from testing to stable).

> But can it run under the target linux itself? Or rather what to run from the disk? Since mint4win installation is a virtual disk, I'm not sure the installer will find it gracefully, they're usually partition-oriented. Not sure if this eliminates problem with fstab though.

Sorry, I have no direct experience with Mint directly, I extrapolate my understanding of other distribution to it, from the comments. Could not answer to those questions as they require first-hand experience.

Anyway, if you feel a bit adventurous, the current LMDE model is somewhat continued by a distribution called SolidXK (google it) and a new-comer on the scene is Tranglu, that I just installed in a VM and which looks very promising (a mix of Debian Stable, Testing and Unstable, release-style, but hopefully with undisruptive upgrades).

On Sunday, 5 October 2014 at 21:53:08 UTC, eles wrote:
> On Sunday, 5 October 2014 at 21:13:01 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
>> On Friday, 3 October 2014 at 11:25:59 UTC, eles wrote:

> it) and a new-comer on the scene is Tranglu, that I just

*Tanglu

http://www.tanglu.org/en/

On 10/2/14 3:42 AM, Kagamin wrote:
> On Thursday, 2 October 2014 at 07:14:35 UTC, Iain Buclaw via
> Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
>> Doesn't Linux Mint provide an upgrade facility for you?
>
> No idea.

I use Linux Mint, I believe I upgraded once *. I don't think it was complex, just an upgrade through the standard UI for updates.

* Note: I have a bad memory when it comes to things like this :)

-Steve

On Monday, 6 October 2014 at 15:06:04 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On 10/2/14 3:42 AM, Kagamin wrote:
>> On Thursday, 2 October 2014 at 07:14:35 UTC, Iain Buclaw via
>> Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
>>> Doesn't Linux Mint provide an upgrade facility for you?
>>
>> No idea.
>
> I use Linux Mint, I believe I upgraded once *. I don't think it was complex, just an upgrade through the standard UI for updates.
>
> * Note: I have a bad memory when it comes to things like this :)
>
> -Steve

Mint always supported upgrades between LTS releases. There were no upgrades between non-LTS releases, which were basically just bit-more-stable betas. That's changed now as posted above, Mint 14.04 to 15.10 (and possibly longer) will be seamlessly upgradable release to release as Mint gradually diverges away from its Ubuntu base. 16.04 may be a reset, or they may continue to diverge further, or they may move fully to Debian; but they'll probably still have an upgrade path as it will be an LTS.

On 10/6/14 12:10 PM, Kiith-Sa wrote:
> On Monday, 6 October 2014 at 15:06:04 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> On 10/2/14 3:42 AM, Kagamin wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 2 October 2014 at 07:14:35 UTC, Iain Buclaw via
>>> Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
>>>> Doesn't Linux Mint provide an upgrade facility for you?
>>>
>>> No idea.
>>
>> I use Linux Mint, I believe I upgraded once *. I don't think it was
>> complex, just an upgrade through the standard UI for updates.
>>
>> * Note: I have a bad memory when it comes to things like this :)
>
> Mint always supported upgrades between LTS releases. There were no
> upgrades between non-LTS releases, which were basically just
> bit-more-stable betas. That's changed now as posted above, Mint 14.04 to
> 15.10 (and possibly longer) will be seamlessly upgradable release to
> release as Mint gradually diverges away from its Ubuntu base. 16.04 may
> be a reset, or they may continue to diverge further, or they may move
> fully to Debian; but they'll probably still have an upgrade path as it
> will be an LTS.

Hm.. I think I had Linux Mint 12, and I upgraded to 13 (not the LTS version).

Maybe it wasn't so seamless, as I said I have a bad memory.

-Steve