On Sat, Apr 20, 2019 at 11:37 AM D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk <talk@gtalug.org> wrote:
| From: o1bigtenor via talk <talk@gtalug.org>
| I'm | finding that | there are some elements in *nix land that are insisting that because users | are so very very lax at updating their systems that the distro must itself | not only offer the updates but that said updates MUST happen.
It is perhaps reasonable that that be an option. It feels wrong that it be mandatory.
As a desktop user, I treat Firefox updates as urgent and mandatory. Firefox is my main exposure to Bad Guys.
Some of the customers for my sysadmin services (i.e. my family) don't like updates. They are of the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" school. And it is true that sometimes I've broken things through updates. But I still have faith regular updates are a net win.
Agreed - - - but I can tell you that an upgrade that causes system problems is very stressful!
There are some parallels between vaccine and updates.
Maybe more than a few? (grin!)
| To whit - - | Canonical has moved to this system in their implementations of both | snapd and also lxd. It is possible to reduce the frequency of the upgrades | from a daily inspection and possible update/upgrade to a maximum of | a month long period without update/upgrade.
Are you saying that updates are mandatory, but only for snapd and lxd? That sounds a bit odd.
Is it only security updates that are mandatory?
Snapd is used to install lxd.
I don't use snapd and lxd. Abstractly, both need to bridge between an inside environment and an outside one. Are the updates purely to the inside, to the outside, or both? Could the updates be required to make this bridging correct?
Not sure - - - just know that snapd can be set for an update/upgrade once a month. If that doesn't happen - - - well my system (Debian 9) would shut itself down.
I thought that one of the goals of snapd and of container systems was the decouple versioning of inside and outside. What other purpose is there for snapd, for example?
My guess is that this tightly coupled behavior would make it much easier to create a fee for such connection. This then monetizes the software. Both of these 'technologies' development occur after Canonical was rumored to be contemplating an IPO.
| I found out the hard way that this was a MUST from the software. Myself | I prefer to update/upgrade periodically - - - usually checking to make sure | that the software isn't going to get borked because the upgrade has flaws | in it (even more fun when the system gets borked due to flaws in the | software!!). It was suggested that it would be possible to skirt around the | constant update/upgrade cycle by using a firewall rule to hinder the forced | reach out from my system to 'mother ship'. Well that joy set up a system | that after such an update/upgrade request was blocked - - - well the system | would shut itself down. It was only after the second such incident that I | started investigating and by the fourth I could call the trend. Now I have | the issue of having directories that I am unable to remove even using rm -r | but there is a very long and definitely not simple technique whereby maybe | I will be able to purge my server of said mess.
Wow.
It would be interesting to know what the rationale for this is. There's a chance that the reason is reasonable.
The rationale - - - stated is to make sure that the user never has outdated software. (Implied is that users are the major issue causing software problems.) Not explained is why there is a need to run software on the bleeding edge. There just is no room left for something like Debian stable or software that is rock solid stable - - - there were a number of interesting bugs that showed up.
It's open source. You could rebuild it without the mandatory update feature. Or you could file a bug report. Or you could accept this loss of control. Or you could walk.
I don't have the skills to remove the offending part of the software. The forum topic where this was discussed was locked by the admins at least a few times as the users would be less than totally amazed and enthralled by the 'feature' and taking the dev team to task re: this gaff. I chose the last option.
| Hopefully not too much rant!
Interesting to me.
Regards