Mint Update Policy

[Fixer1234]

Note:
The original thread titled "level 5 updates!!", started by gt1972, has been split above the post by fixer1234.
The support thread had ended.
The rest which you will find here is no longer about the question "Should I keep the installed updates or revert the update?" It turned into general discussion about the right approach to updating a system.

------------------------------(note above added by me, Fixer1234's post starts below)------------------------------

Hi. Totally new to linux. Have just installed linux mint 17 on my acer aspire zg5. When doing the updates, I also installed the level 5 'dangerous' updates by mistake. Question is: should I leave them be, or uninstall them? If so, how to do it? Any advice here? Thanks.

Sounds like you resolved the issue, but this is a very confusing implementation by Mint and unnecessarily dangerous for newbies. Some updates are labelled as "security" updates, but prioritized as dangerous to install. Is the Mint team trying to make newbie's heads explode? It isn't clear why anything categorized as 5 would ever be suggested or even offered for download as an update. Even alpha software doesn't include known hazards. Most people should be advised to set the Update Manager preferences (and the default settings should be), to not show 4s OR 5s and to not always show "security updates".

[killer de bug]

Most people should be advised to set the Update Manager preferences (and the default settings should be), to not show 4s OR 5s and to not always show "security updates".

It was like this in the past and a dev from ubuntu created useless FUD on Linux Mint being unsecure...

The new behavior makes sense.

[Fixer1234]

It was like this in the past and a dev from ubuntu created useless FUD on Linux Mint being unsecure...

The new behavior makes sense.

There are unambiguous definitions for levels 4 and 5. Are you saying that someone is mischaracterizing software in the update list, claiming, for example, that specific software is "known to affect the stability of the system" when it is not? That's a pretty dastardly thing to do, maligning someone's hard work in creating the software when it is actually perfectly safe.

[Hecubus]

This will give you a better understanding of the update manager. Scroll about halfway down on this page and read what clem posted about the update manager. http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.p ... 2&start=60

I think the information in Clem's post about updates should be stickied (e.g. Should I apply "dangerous" level 4-5 updates?") because as long as the updates are labeled as "dangerous", people will keep coming in here fearful that they damaged their system from simply applying updates.

I think "potentially dangerous" would be a much better description.

When you take the verbiage at face value, it does seem like the level 4 and 5 updates will certainly harm your system and while this disparity in the description and reality continues, this question will be asked ad infinitum as new users arrive.

[karlchen]

Hi, folks.

Definitely it makes sense to display level 4 and level 5 updates in case they (also) fix security vulnerabilities.

A note on level 5 updates:

Level 5 updates are kernel updates and linux-firmware updates.
Unless you have configured the Linux Mint software management not to do so, it will preserve the previous kernel whenever you install an updated kernel version through mintupdate.
So on the one hand, of course, new bugs in a new kernel can cause severe problems. But on the other hand you have always got the choice to use the Grub boot menu to boot your previous kernel. So you will always be able to return to a functioning state without too much hassle. You can even reconfigure Grub to boot the previous kernel by default in case a new kernel causes problems.
During the past 5 years of running Ubuntu / Linux Mint, there have only been 2 occasions where I had to go back to the previous kernel, because the updated kernel introduced a bug which also affected me.

A note on level 4 up dates:

Level 4 updates are often driver software packages, including video driver software. I cannot tell anything about proprietary AMD/ATI video drivers based on my own experience. Yet, I can tell that there have been 2 occurences during the past 5 years of running Ubuntu / Linux Mint, where updated proprietary NVidia driver software caused severe misbehaviour on the affected machines. And in this case neither the previous driver software was still on the disk, nor were the previous driver software packages still available in the software repositories.
In both cases I had a very funny time retrieving the previous (known good) driver version, re-installing it and locking the driver version.
So based on my personal experience, level 4 updates can be much more troublesome than level 5 updates, in particular if proprietary third party driver software is being updated, because the old driver software will not be put aside on your disk like kernel updates do with the previous kernel. Moreover previous versions of third party driver software may simply disappear from the repositories the moment the new version is put online.
Hence my personal strategy with respect to proprietary NVidia drivers is 3-fold:
(1) save all installation packages of the current driver software in a safe local place
(2) only allow the NVidia drivers to be updated if the current version malfunctions, maybe due to changes in the latest kernel
(3) allow the NVidia drivers to be updated if it is known to be exploitable due to security vulnerabilites

Summary:
The current default mintUpdate configuration: install level [1], [2] and [3] updates by default. Display level [4] and [5] irrespective of their level provided they fix security holes, makes sense. Let me add I would always accept security updates and recommend doing so.
Level 4 updates, at least those affecting proprietary driver software, can be much more troublesome than level 5 updates.

Just my point of view.

Cheers,
Karl

[killer de bug]

There are unambiguous definitions for levels 4 and 5. Are you saying that someone is mischaracterizing software in the update list, claiming, for example, that specific software is "known to affect the stability of the system" when it is not? That's a pretty dastardly thing to do, maligning someone's hard work in creating the software when it is actually perfectly safe.

Since some updates are hidden by default, a guy from the Ubuntu team was saying that Linux Mint was unsecure because the team was not providing important security to its users... Which was false. The updates were just hidden but you were still able to apply them...

[Fixer1234]

Guys, let me explain why your answers are not reassuring and actually kind of make my point. I'm writing from the perspective of a recent emigree from Windows and someone who decades ago had a small computer business that catered to non-technical users. As a whole, the Linux world is of, by, and for computer people. If you are technically inclined and know your way around a computer, Linux can be a fun and perfectly natural environment. There are some distros that make no pretense about being hard core (if you have to ask newbie questions, you don't belong here). In the world of computer users, a small percentage are good candidates for Linux of any flavor and a small percentage of those are candidates for a hard core distro.

For a lot of computer users, the computer is a device (a black box), that does stuff for them. They expect to turn it on and accomplish a task (the task being something done by an application, not something that has to do with the computer's infrastructure). They don't want to know how a toaster works. They want to recognize the slots where bread goes in and toast comes out. The limits of their desired technical information is how to work the knob that makes the toast lighter or darker.

Apple computers were designed for these people. Since Apple computers are expensive and not the standard platform in most businesses, most of these users get trained on Windows. Windows is almost as good an environment at hiding what goes on behind the curtain. Non-technical Windows users expect everything to work correctly out of the box. It's bad enough that they have to learn how to use the applications software; they don't expect to have to get involved in making stuff work.

With Microsoft dropping support for XP and announcing the end of support for Win 7, and blowing it with the user interface on Win 8, at least for most desktop users, the more adventurous of these Windows users are exploring Linux as an option. A few distros are designed to be attractive to these users. Mint is one and is probably the fastest growing because it is the one Windows users are steered to as being an easy transition. However, Mint gets only half of the transition formula right.

There are two major aspects to what non-technical users coming from Windows expect and require. One is usability, and Mint has gotten that right; perhaps one of the best distros in that regard. It is ready to use out of the box. The software bundle is pretty close to a direct replacement for what they use in Windows. The bundled utilities cover almost all of the basic infrastructure stuff and do it with a GUI interface. Desktops are available that are very similar in style to Windows and very polished. On the surface, it is ready for prime time.

The second aspect is the problem. Non-technical users expect stuff to work and be bulletproof, and to do so without their intervention. Windows occasionally releases an update that causes problems. When that happens, users are incensed. It is like a violation of a fundamental trust. Nothing is supposed to be released to the public until it is "perfect". That's what those beta-testing nerds are for. In Linux, particularly distros that are not based on "stable" versions, the expectation is that if you are there, you are an alpha or beta tester. If you want stuff to work "flawlessly", go with something like Debian stable or Open SUSE. If you want something based on Ubuntu, expect some stuff not to work right.

For non-technical users coming from Windows, it is appalling to see OS releases with known bugs, or updates that are known to cause problems but maybe they won't cause problems on your machine. For a non-technical user, there is nothing more like being between a rock and a hard place than to be offered an official update that fixes a security flaw but may screw up your computer in the process. Figure it out and get back to me when you know it works and is safe. Saying it's OK because there is a manual work-around to undo it if it messes up your computer is not an acceptable answer for these users.

Karlchen mentions drivers. Some drivers are still in their infancy, available at all only because the kind of people who thrive in the Linux environment have taken it upon themselves to do the work for companies willing to share their specs or reverse engineered something in other cases. It's an area that isn't ready for prime time for some of the hardware that Windows users have on their machines.

Maybe "Linux for the masses" is a ways off. It is a little like the frontier days of the American West -- it's still no place for "city slickers".

[killer de bug]

Fxer1234: Read this please: http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.p ... 60#p871748
And as a reminder: http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm

[slipstick]

Hence my personal strategy with respect to proprietary NVidia drivers is 3-fold:
(1) save all installation packages of the current driver software in a safe local place
(2) only allow the NVidia drivers to be updated if the current version malfunctions, maybe due to changes in the latest kernel
(3) allow the NVidia drivers to be updated if it is known to be exploitable due to security vulnerabilites

Being new to Linux, I really don't know how to save the installation packages of driver software or how to restore it. It seems the best solution for me, and perhaps for other newbie's, if there are security related level 4 or 5 updates is to use Clonezilla or a similar program to make an image of my system, then apply the updates and see if they break anything. If so, I can get back where I started and I know not to ever apply that update. Of course, if there are several of these level updates at once and only one of these causes problems and if I want to apply all the ones that don't cause problems, this will be tedious.

[Fixer1234]

Fxer1234: Read this please: http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.p ... 60#p871748
And as a reminder: http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm

Exactly. I completely agree with both posts and they are excellent posts. My point was not that these characteristics are good or bad, or that Linus is better or worse than (or different from), Windows. Linux is different. My point was about users. Users are different, too. For some users, Linux is the best thing since sliced bread. For some other users, Linux is a terrible fit in meeting their needs. For all the reasons described in the second post you embedded, the Linux environment is a long way from being an appropriate place to meet the needs of technophobes who get by in the Windows world. Eventually, that might not be the case. The perspecitve of that post was that expectations for the two environments should realistically reflect the nature of each environment. The perspective I was trying to explain is that of the technophobes. The characteristics that make Linux what it is are irrelevant to these users because "what it is" is not an environment that is compatible with their needs.

Where I was going with what I tried to explain is this. There are developers in the Linux world who are trying to create distros that will be easier transitions for Windows users. Zorin is hailed as the perfect transition distro because it does a good job of emulating the Windows desktop and comes with Wine pre-installed. It is a worthy but misguided effort. A Linux desktop that is graphically a little different from Windows is not the hurdle that keeps Windows users out of Linux. Each successive version of Windows had a slightly different desktop (ignoring Win 8.x), and users quickly adapted. Mint is a better transition tool because it does a better job of dealing with some of the actual issues (and the desktop offerings are plenty attractive to Windows users even though they are a little different). For the technically-inclined, Mint may be the best transition.

I was talking about the technophobes and why, for them, there is no Linux distro appropriate to meet their needs. The issue is precisely the kind of stuff discussed in that second post--the characteristics that make Linux what it is. There are two "opposing" schools of thought in Linux. Some want to expand the Linux user base beyond computerphiles to the general population. Others feel that we should be keeping out the riff raff; Linux should never be for the great unwashed. We should not be diluting the Linux gene pool to turn it into Windows for the unworthy and ungrateful. Given the state of Linux today, the second group has a more appropriate viewpoint for technophobes. We should not be trying to attract them to Linux because it is just the wrong fit.

My own belief is that Linux can evolve into something anyone can use. The question is, what needs to change? For those whose goal is a Linux that meets the needs of non-technical users, where should the focus be? What are the needs that aren't being addressed, yet? The usability requirements are pretty close to there, at least with Mint. Maybe some more user documentation (I'm talking embedded, comprehensive user manuals, not the ability to surf the web with each question and find some forum posts). We're still chipping at the edges of the user base, attracting computerphiles. Tweaking desktops at this point isn't going to attract a new base of users.

What is missing that is an absolute requirement for technophobes is the kind of bulletproof stability that keeps Linux hidden from view so they almost never have to deal with it. They require an operating system that just works and does it without their intervention. If something does require their intervention, it needs to be child's play. There is nothing that precludes this in the Linux world. The distros that are based on stable releases are a giant step closer. Couple that with some GUI software to handle almost everything that needs to be dealt with, including undoing a bad update. Have a "technophobe" option for dealing with technical decisions they are not equipped or inclined to make, like defaulting to the safest choice on updates as decided by the "experts". I'm talking about Fisher Price Linux. If people want to attract non-technical users to Linux, that is the current gaping hole to focus on.

[gt1972]

Thanks so much for all your replys folks - lots of helpful stuff here in case of problems!

[killer de bug]

Exactly. I completely agree with both posts and they are excellent posts.

You obviously did not get the point...
There is no good choice between applying blindly all the updates or don't update at all. It's not Windows where updates are pushed and you can't do anything except waiting in front of your screen... In Linux Mint users are requested to think a little bit about what there are doing. That's it. If they don't want to think, they can use Ubuntu and apply blindly all the updates. Or stay with Windows.

[eanfrid]

I'm talking about Fisher Price Linux

This does exist already: Android tablets. Android gives you no freedom, requires no brain and updates happen... when you buy a new tablet.

[Fixer1234]

Exactly. I completely agree with both posts and they are excellent posts.

You obviously did not get the point...
There is no good choice between applying blindly all the updates or don't update at all. It's not Windows where updates are pushed and you can't do anything except waiting in front of your screen... In Linux Mint users are requested to think a little bit about what there are doing. That's it. If they don't want to think, they can use Ubuntu and apply blindly all the updates. Or stay with Windows.

I did get the point. It's great that Mint offers some options to make your own decisions. I really like that for myself. An all or nothing approach is not a good choice, and a lot of non-technical people do stay with Windows for reasons like that. They just don't know enough and are not comfortable enough making those kinds of decisions. They are happy to let the "experts" make those kinds of decisions for them if it enables them to get their work done on a computer without having to deal with it. Most cars can be adjusted between a "performance" optimization and an "economy" optimization. Some people want to get involved in tuning their car exactly the way they want it. Other people just want to get from point A to point B in something that makes them feel comfortable and don't want to have to think about how the car works.

Right now, there are certain choices available. Use Mint and get involved in the decision making, use an all or nothing strategy, use Ubuntu and blindly apply updates, or stay with Windows. Why can't we develop another option? Is there any reason why Linux cannot, or should not, evolve to meet the needs of non-technical computer users? It just requires thinking outside the box.

[Fixer1234]

I'm talking about Fisher Price Linux

This does exist already: Android tablets. Android gives you no freedom, requires no brain and updates happen... when you buy a new tablet.

Exactly. There is a huge population for whom Android is a perfect solution, and it's affordable. There is a large population for whom Apple offers an ideal solution, but many of those people never got into it because it wasn't the platform used at work. A substantial portion of Windows users would gladly use Android if it would run their applications software, but they are familiar with Windows already so it is good enough for them.

Linux already provides a platform that will run the applications software and can provide a great GUI experience. The piece currently missing is the infrastructure support that would make it a realistic alternative to the users for whom Android or Apple would be the best fit (and the closest available option is Windows, or actually, most Windows users). Linux is one of the most flexible and scalable OSs around. Is there anything inherent in Linux that precludes melding the characteristics of Windows and Android--an OS with the simplicity of Android and the capabilities of Windows? How about just matching the simplicity of Windows?

What keeps Linux from replacing Windows as the default workplace OS? It's mainly that the target audience for Linux developers is themselves and other computerphiles. The few developers reaching out to non-technical potential users are doing it from their own perspective, without recognizing that non-technical users think differently and have a very different set of priorities. So yes, what you said. A perfect target on the horizon: Android Linux. Somewhere along that evolutionary branch will come Windows Linux, at which point the world will beat a path to the door. It's not that Windows is better or Linux should become Windows. It's that Windows (and Android) address the needs of a large population of users and Linux can attract those users by having a branch of the family tree that addresses those needs.

There are benefits to having a much larger base of users. It makes it attractive for hardware manufacturers and software developers to support Linux. It increases the base of contributors, people doing things like developing user documentation and training. In general, it magnifies the benefits of an open source environment.

[eanfrid]

I think you did not get that I completely dislike Android. This is a Linux distribution, built from the ground as a golden jail by google, which targets the largest audience i.e.

Other people just want to get from point A to point B in something that makes them feel comfortable and don't want to have to think about how the car works.

so it works for technophobic people. However, this is a track that leads far away from almost everything that makes "Linux". So I really don't want my Linux distro to ever become this kind of "product". I want to be aware of and to learn the different paths that lead from A to B and I want to learn and know how my car works.

[Fixer1234]

Then you are very lucky to not be one of those people. I did pick up just a hint of disdain for Android. You have an OS that makes you happy and you would not be among those clamoring for an Android distro. Would you begrudge those poor souls a different distro that would give them happiness, also, if it didn't get any cooties on your distro?

[eanfrid]

You are free to use whatever you want if it suits your needs (or you think so) and makes you happy, including Windows, Android, ChromeOS... As long as you don't try to convince me they are "good" for me or to force me to use either one I do not try to push open-source or Linux distros as the unique universal "good" solution either.

[killer de bug]

I did get the point.

No you don't.

Why can't we develop another option? Is there any reason why Linux cannot, or should not, evolve to meet the needs of non-technical computer users? It just requires thinking outside the box.

What don't you understand in: "with every updates there is a risk of breakage". We cannot just select updates for 100,000 users and expect that no one will encounter a problem. That's it!

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

What keeps Linux from replacing Windows as the default workplace OS? It's mainly that the target audience for Linux developers is themselves and other computerphiles. The few developers reaching out to non-technical potential users are doing it from their own perspective, without recognizing that non-technical users think differently and have a very different set of priorities.

Is it?
Or maybe it's because Windows is preinstalled in every computer sold in the world... Maybe...

I think you did not get that I completely dislike Android.

He didn't...

[Hecubus]

Why can't we develop another option? Is there any reason why Linux cannot, or should not, evolve to meet the needs of non-technical computer users? It just requires thinking outside the box.

At the end of the day, it could be a real gamechanger, outside of the box!

Well, I tried to get as many buzzwords in as I could think of. What do you suggest?

Windows does not guarantee that an update won't brick your system or that a recovery to a previous day will work. It just doesn't tell you that so most people don't worry about it. It's almost like you want to punish LM for telling the truth - well "dangerous" is a little much to describe level 5 updates but hopefully you get my general point.


p.s. I think if they just used "potentially dangerous" instead of "dangerous" to describe level 5 updates it would go a long way to making more sense.