Linux Mint 17 "Qiana" Cinnamon is out!

[killer de bug]

In the future, they won't be auto served to updates, hopefully. I think that will be eliminated after all is solidified with the new release of Mint 17. You know, normally, Level 5 updates don't appear at all. Surely that will be fixed by the Mint team and will require no further steps on the part of the user.

Thanks for the advice.

Linux Mint 17 is supported until 2019. You may get security update for your current kernel. You don't know

[brandeberger]

I've had quite a lot of issues since upgrading to 17 Qiana (64 bit Cinnamon).

-system sluggish, takes longer to perform tasks
-bootsplash Mint logo is distorted and off to the side as if in the wrong resolution
-google chrome no longer behaves itself (crashes after watching full-screen videos)
-randomly loses wifi connection
-terminal randomly closes.

I can't help feeling this is probably more to do with my inexperience with Mint, and is possibly to do with graphics card or bus drivers. I'll probably try reinstalling then if no joy then I'll probably go back to 16.

[killer de bug]

Thanks, I guess 17 is going to be different than all the other versions in that regard. Frankly, if it comes from Mint, I'll install it with no reservations even if it is kernel related. I always have a valid backup and a good image.

And here is probably your next level 5 security update

https://lists.debian.org/debian-securit ... 00130.html
http://threatpost.com/debian-urging-use ... law/106516

Ubuntu will probably push some new kernel updates in the next days (if it's not already available...)

[mr_raider]

Thanks, I guess 17 is going to be different than all the other versions in that regard. Frankly, if it comes from Mint, I'll install it with no reservations even if it is kernel related. I always have a valid backup and a good image.

And here is probably your next level 5 security update

https://lists.debian.org/debian-securit ... 00130.html
http://threatpost.com/debian-urging-use ... law/106516

Ubuntu will probably push some new kernel updates in the next days (if it's not already available...)

Code: Select all

CVE-2014-3144 / CVE-2014-3145

    A local user can cause a denial of service (system crash) via
    crafted BPF instructions.

No local user in my household is in any position to craft BPF instructions

[killer de bug]

No local user in my household is in any position to craft BPF instructions

Sure, you're not obliged to apply the fix. But what I was saying is that these updates will be visible in your Update Manager. Nothing else

[rustleg]

Hi,

On the topic of the Update Manager:
...
We've the best policy out there on security vs stability, we don't send users in the wall with a comfortable "click here to dist-upgrade" upgrade tool so it's very frustrating when the rationale is ignored like that and we get flak for not making it trivial for you to break your box.
...
So there you go... as you can see, you can make the wrong decision to always upgrade everything, or to never upgrade anything... or you can spend some time and do some research on the few package updates we flag as both secure and unsafe for you and rely on levels to get the best of both worlds.
...

Regarding updates, I have to disagree with two of your statements. First I think you have made it fairly trivial to break the box in one instance. A friend of mine has borked his installation of Mint 17 (Mate) by clicking "Select All" before "Install Updates". You might say it was irresponsible to select all without wondering why some weren't selected already, but unfortunately he's not the sort of person who checks all the preferences of each package before he uses it and also not to examine the minutiae of release notes and new features. Maybe there was a moment of indecision about "level" but then this looks too "technical" so ignore it. The old system didn't have "level" so this is some new enhancement - but Mint has been a pretty solid and reliable system for some years so let's go ahead and keep our system up to date with all updates. Err... turns out it was a BIG MISTAKE updating everything, but too late.

Even if you look at the notes on the Update Manager it soon starts to talk about root mode, differentiating between types of updates, etc. The eyes glaze over well before this stage.

My second issue is with the explanation in the second excerpt above which I don't understand. If you're going to do some research on updates "we flag as both secure and unsafe for you" then you're not simply relying on levels. Relying on levels is where the user trusts the Mint team to make good judgements about saftey in the context of both security and stability rather than doing any research of their own.

My opinion for what it's worth is that although I applaud the new features in Update Manager which gives users more informed choices, I think you should not tick "Always show security updates" in the default installation. I appreciate this is a matter of judgement but I submit that it is too easy for a casual user or newbie to select all. Those more paranoid amongst us will be more likely to check the preferences and then want to see all security updates. And also to know what to do when something unsafe deliberatly chosen breaks the system.

Don't take this as dissatisfaction with Mint. Both I and my friend think it's brilliant and thank all the Mint team for such a great distro.

[kmb42vt]

@rustleg - Just so you know and as I stated before in a previous comment on this thread, the most probable reason these level 5 updates are now shown is due to one Ubuntu developer's offhand comment (a rather old comment in a mailing list) about the so-called lack of security in Linux Mint because kernel, Xorg and Firefox (believe it or not) were not updated by default, a comment that was somehow picked up by the media and blown way out of proportion. Of course, the "comment monsters" had a field day with this as well.

So now these level 5 updates are now shown by default but are not checked. Before version 17, level 4 and 5 updates were not enabled by default but could easily be if the user chose to do so however, they'd be checked by default if they were enabled.

So now we see the reason Linux Mint initially chose not to enable level 4 and 5 updates by default in the first place. Your comment is the perfect example of why this was so. After years of Linux Mint versions without so much as a peep about this so called "lack-of-security", there was a sudden uproar about something that didn't actually exist in the first place since, in the past, the Mint devs always announced to it's users and the world in general when a level 5 update(s) needed to be applied due to a valid security vulnerability or a major bug.

Unfortunately, there's no middle ground here. Either Mint shows these level 5 updates or not. Personally, I don't think there's a right answer here.

[killer de bug]

So now these level 5 updates are now shown by default but are not checked. Before version 17, level 4 and 5 updates were not enabled by default but could easily be if the user chose to do so however, they'd be checked by default if they were enabled.

It's only some of these level 5 updates which are shown by default. Not all. Major kernel upgrades will not be displayed by default for example...

[kmb42vt]

So now these level 5 updates are now shown by default but are not checked. Before version 17, level 4 and 5 updates were not enabled by default but could easily be if the user chose to do so however, they'd be checked by default if they were enabled.

It's only some of these level 5 updates which are shown by default. Not all. Major kernel upgrades will not be displayed by default for example...

True, but level 5 updates never contained major kernel upgrades anyway to my knowledge and experience, only security/bug fix updates to the existing kernel.

[killer de bug]

True, but level 5 updates never contained major kernel upgrades anyway to my knowledge, only security/bug fix updates to the existing kernel.

I was pretty sure that Canonical were offering newer kernel upgrades for the LTS releases... Am I wrong?

[kmb42vt]

True, but level 5 updates never contained major kernel upgrades anyway to my knowledge, only security/bug fix updates to the existing kernel.

I was pretty sure that Canonical offers newer kernel upgrades for the LTS releases... Am I wrong?

Heh, yes and no. I'm pretty certain that Ubuntu tends to patch major upgrades/fixes the existing mainline LTS kernel rather than install a newer kernel, as in installing the 3.14 kernel in Trusty when a user runs "apt-get dist-upgrade". This, of course, would mean two kernels would be installed rather than just patching and upgrading the existing kernel, 3.13.0-24, with say, 3.13.0-29.

And just by happenstance, we're all going to find out about this real soon. It appears the mainline 3.13.0-24.47 currently installed in Ubuntu 14.04 and thus Linux Mint 17, has a rather major security vulnerability that is fixed in the 3.14 kernel. However, in reading the news about this, Ubuntu has patched the existing 3.13.0 kernel and will be shortly releasing the 3.13.0-29.53 update which will replace the existing 3.13.0-24.47. To me, patching the existing mainline kernel isn't what I would call a major kernel upgrade?

[killer de bug]

For me it is clear that Canonical is offering new kernels during LTS life

Default kernel in 12.04 was 3.2.

Both the 3.2 and 3.5 versions of the Linux kernel included as part of the 12.04.2 release have a workaround for 1040557,

Ubuntu Kernel 3.11
By default, the 12.04.4 point release will ship with a newer 3.11 Ubuntu kernel from Ubuntu 13.10, and a matching X.org stack. This is based on the 3.11.0 Extended Upstream Stable Kernel Release. The purpose of providing a newer kernel in the 12.04.4 point release is for hardware enablement. For more information regarding the 12.04.4 LTS Hardware Enablement Stack, please refer to:

Source is here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PrecisePangolin ... ntuDesktop

[rustleg]

@kmb42vt - Thanks for the background. Unfortunately I had come to clem's post from a link from another thread and I read subsequent comments but not earlier ones. However reading more of the detail now I understand some of the difficulties. I think I'd still prefer the dangerous security updates not to be automatically visible.

Whilst reading this I was also wondering myself about what happens to these security issues and Mintybits questions don't seem to have been addressed:

...
And I also want to know what happens next. After some time do these deselected kernel updates become a higher, selected level? I mean, after sufficient testing or time has passed? How does this work? The kernel people don't make these changes just for the sake of it...especially ones they call secuirty changes...so at what point do they become "safe"?

I don't necessarily agree with the implication of importance in "The kernel people don't make these changes just for the sake of it..." and I don't pretend to know as much about updating as many of this thread's contributors, but I wondered if there was a serious vulnerability in the kernel how this gets fixed in updates. Perhaps instead of a new kernel some sort of less dangerous patch is applied (here I'm talking without knowing whether patching a kernel is even possible)? Or could there be an inevitable need to apply a dangerous update for the sake of serious vulnerability mitigation?

[kmb42vt]

For me it is clear that Canonical is offering new kernels during LTS life

....

Source is here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PrecisePangolin ... ntuDesktop

Ah, I had forgotten all about the "point releases" for 12.04. This was a new thing for Ubuntu LTS versions wasn't it starting with 12.04? I was working with the 6 month releases and didn't have 12.04 or Linux Mint 13 installed longer than that. Thanks for reminder.

[mr_raider]

For me it is clear that Canonical is offering new kernels during LTS life

....

Source is here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PrecisePangolin ... ntuDesktop

Ah, I had forgotten all about the "point releases" for 12.04. This was a new thing for Ubuntu LTS versions wasn't it starting with 12.04? I was working with the 6 month releases and didn't have 12.04 or Linux Mint 13 installed longer than that. Thanks for reminder.

Not just the point releases. I suggest you read the full documentation on how kernel upgrades are handled.

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Kernel/LTSEnablementStack

It means as an LTS user you can keep using the original kernel for the full life cycle, or upgrade to backported kernels at your discretion.

[kmb42vt]

Not just the point releases. I suggest you read the full documentation on how kernel upgrades are handled.

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Kernel/LTSEnablementStack

It means as an LTS user you can keep using the original kernel for the full life cycle, or upgrade to backported kernels at your discretion.

Okay, that makes it clearer. My use of "point releases" was incorrect but my understanding was pretty close. Thanks for the link.

[leeb]

Best release yet! Love it.

[sdim]

Many thanks to Clem and the team for working so hard for this release.
As far as I've seen it looks and feels amazing, but being a Mint fan for almost 7 years now, allow me one comment.

I understand that Mint, and especially the Cinnamon edition, has taken a new direction since Petra, and I think this is superb.
The desktop (correct me if I'm wrong) no longer depends on Gnome so much as in previous releases (or so I've understood).
Why is it that we cannot, or at least, it is not adviseable to directly upgrade from , say, 16 to 17 with the "apt-get dist-upgrade" command
but we have to have a clean installation? One of the pc's I own runs on Ubuntu and I've been upgrading continuously for the last three or four releases without a hitch.
Is it so difficult for Mint, the first distro worldwide (according to Distrowatch and our personal preference) to manage something like that?
I truly beleieve that a distro of that caliber needs to give users the ease of upgrading to every new release instead of having to clean install every time.
Please excuse me for expressing this gripe, but it's the only one I've had so far, and I have to let it out, as I love Mint too much not to talk about it.

Again, congrats to the whole team.
Thank you for another great release, everyone.

[JosephM]

@sdim
On the issue of upgrading, it's really no different in Mint then it is in Ubuntu. The main difference is in philosiphy. While many people, including myself, can or have upgraded successfully to new versions of Mint in the past, it can certainly go wrong. While Ubuntu's approach is to say go ahead and do it, Mint doesn't recommend it because a fresh install is the safer route to go. If you know or are willing to learn to fix any issues that might arise from an upgrade then by all means give it a shot.

[sdim]

My friend, you have probably misinterpreted what I said and that's why I hadn't aired my view until now.
If I knew how to fix isuues about anything in Linux, I would have already contributed, have no doubt about that.
It's just that every time I upgraded in Ubuntu, nothing got messed up, but when I tried to do it in Mint, I got an unbootable system.
It's not a matter of philosophy if you want to prevent users from the hassle of having to clean install every once in a while. It's logical and what's expected.
I had no problem doing it all this time, but think of the people who are not into this or are not willing to back up their whole system just to move on to the next release.
This is the only thing I consider a minor drawback in an OS I have loved for years an am still loving.

A final thought.
You know, to love something means a lot of things, but it especially means one thing, at least according to me:
Trying to improve it in any way you can.

Again, excellent work, everyone. You have given us a remarkable OS. Keep up the good work.