What is Mint's current "official" recommendation about updates?

[somelurker]

Right now, there is no option to disable the icon from showing at all once all desired updates are applied. In general, I think users need to be able to set the behavior of Update Manager to best suit their needs, and right now a single behavior is forcefully imposed on them.

But such an option does exist already:
In the Preferences of Update Manager, click the Options button and remove the tick for: "Always show security updates" (which is, if I understand correctly, your main gripe). You might also want to remove the tick for "Always show kernel updates".

I don't think this is the same thing. Doesn't "Always show security updates" just mean all packages that fix a security-related problem show up in the list of possible updates? If so, this has nothing to do with defining the criteria under which Update Manager's icon shows up in the Notification Area.

This thread is expressively about the latest version of Update Manager (UM) in Mint 18.3 and the change, as introduced with it, as expressively said in the starting post.

Are you suggesting kernel versions are recommended a different way in 18.3's version of Update Manager? Because unless they are, and unless Update Manager hides its icon when irrelevant kernel versions are recommended, I think I made a fair point. The user can install a completely different series of kernel versions and be just as secure without being nagged by Update Manager.

For the average user this is the paramount consideration. And they are most likely about 90 % of all users. Following that I strongly disagree.

Are you saying that security should be the factor users consider paramount, or that in deciding how Update Manager behaves, Mint's developers should consider security paramount? If the former, see my point about the various uses to which a computer can be put. A Netflix-only machine does not need to be updated every 2 hours. If the latter, just look at the 3 choices presented to the user that I've already mentioned: "Don't break my computer!", "Optimize stability and security", and "Always update everything.". If it had been the developer's intent to consider only security at the exclusion of all other values, such choices would not have a purpose.

How exactly? I miss any practical suggestion. Shall a user have to walk through all of the thousands of installed packages and judge them? I do not claim to know all of them and I cannot imagine, that only one person knows all of them.

The situation is much simpler than you are implying. Just allow users to choose what level of security update to select by default. This is a feature Update Manager already has. It was the way UM used to behave, and the default behavior doesn't revert back to that, the user should at least be allowed to configure a setting to revert back to the previous behavior.

What hinders you to deactivate UM autostart in this case completely? I agree, that it makes no sense to update a VM, which gets reset to the snapshot after usage. But this is no argument against for displaying th updates for average users.

The administrator may still want to update occasionally. Deactivating UM completely would be a waste of time because it would have to be reactivated again each time updates are desired. Also, I never argued against having the option of displaying updates for any user. I simply argued for giving them a choice. In particular, if a user chooses to only show updates of a particular level, that choice should be respected by the UM notification icon.

Ultimately, I am the user of my system, and I should get to decide how much importance to place on security. Nobody tells me how many locks I need to put on my door. I make that decision and if a burglar breaks in, I accept all the consequences of my decision. But it should be my decision nonetheless.

You have the decision. If you do not use the preferences, than this is also your decision - and you have to "accept the consequences". Quite easy.

That's not my point. The problem isn't whether the user wants to use the preferences. My point is that preferences do not exist that allow users to choose when the Update Manager go away, except to disable it completely. There are moderate choices between the current extreme of showing the icon when even a single, potentially system-breaking update is not installed and the other extreme of turning off Update Manager completely. Let the user choose when to show it. I've already mentioned the most obvious example example: Showing the icon when levels of updates selected by default are installed.

Third, the view that all updates must be applied is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for ensuring security in all contexts. To equate applying all updates with total security is an oversimplification.

You are right in so far, that the real world is not only black and white. And of course you are right, that a fully updated system does not mean, that there are no security holes, e. g. because there is for a given leak no fix available. This is bad reality. But it does not change, that a not applied security fix is nothing else than a security hole. An open hole is never an advantage regarding security, but always a leak. Nothing can change that.

My larger point still stands. Even if a package that's not installed would fix a vulnerability in software, that vulnerability may be irrelevant to a particular use case. The uninstalled package is only an advantage in terms of security, and only in certain contexts. Why should I need to install a LibreOffice update if I never use LibreOffice, even if it's a critical vulnerability? It would just be a waste of disk space. Taking up disk space for no good reason is a disadvantage in the area of usability.

Again I miss any practical suggestion. Besides that: You can disable all level and security and kernel updates from displaying and you have, what you want. But also again: Simply deactivating UM is the quicker method.

You are assuming that the user wants the quickest possible solution. Speed is not necessarily your ally when you're trying to install updates without breaking your system. When someone is on a busy schedule, they may only be able to install updates one by one. The user may want to install the updates slowly, perhaps one day at a time, or at whatever pace their schedule allows. Such users don't want to disable all security and kernel updates from displaying. They want to still be able to see the updates. They just don't want the icon popping up.

I should also point out that you may want to skip a particular package temporarily without permanently disabling it. If I want to skip a particular version because the newest version is buggy, I'll have to remember to unhide that package later on, or I will miss the version after the buggy version. In this case, it would be better to leave the update displayed but let the user stop showing the Update Manager icon just because that update hasn't been installed. The icon is just a piece of code. It can't possibly know why the user would want to skip the update temporarily, so it should defer to user choice.

Very correct. But than don't let it display. I do not understand, why somebody wants the icon to get displayed but decides, to not apply the updates. Even less I understand, why somebody does want UM to lie. A lie is a lie, how ever you describe the circumstances. If a user has a very spacial usage, than he can accommodate UM to his very special need. But Mint is made with the average user in mind, and that are about 90 %.

Regarding the 3 policies: I had written already 1 year ago, that those policies are a mistake in itself and I have linked in one of my posts in this thread to this post.

How exactly is the icon lying? When the UM icon pops up, is there some kind of objective and universal meaning that it must have? Clearly, there is no such meaning. The appearance of the icon isn't the solution to a mathematical equation or the expression of a principle of physics. It would be more accurate to classify it under semiotics. A certain hand gesture may be a sign of respect in one culture, but extremely offensive in another. If a user wants to use the icon to alert him when new updates he has never seen before are available, how is that choice any less valid than the default behavior right now (the user must install all updates or the icon will not disappear)? Right now, there is no setting in Mint 18.3's Update Manager that allows the first choice rather than the second, and that's a problem when the default behavior of Update Manager changes as it did post-18.3.

Which nagging? UM shows an icon. Point. No popup or anything else, nothing. This icon represents an information. Maybe you don't like the information, but this does not change the least about the state of the system. You can ignore it, you can dismiss UM, but this does not change anything about the current state.

Again, there is no necessary connection between the icon and any particular truth. The icon doesn't represent a particular piece of information. It's not a question of whether or not I like the information, but what information I want the icon to convey to me. I want the icon to tell me when new updates I have never seen before are now available, not to remind me to install every update, including system-breaking packages or packages for which I've chosen to skip a version, but not block completely. That way, the icon serves a more useful purpose for me.

Am I telling you that the behavior you desire of always showing the icon when any package you haven't yet installed for any reason is inferior? No, but it is just one choice among many. Imho, it shouldn't be the default behavior, but even if it is, the user should be allowed to opt out of it without completely killing Update Manager or blocking packages.

[JosephM]

So I haven't read every post in this thread so I apologize if this has already been brought up.

This looks to be changing quite drastically in Mint19. The update manager, the levels, the approach to handling updates, has always led to some confusion among users. In the new update manager much of this is now gone by default. No levels. With the integration of timeshift the idea is now to set up system snapshots and upgrade everything, all the time. Mint is known for new user friendliness. The update manager just really isn't very new user friendly at the moment. I do believe there will also be new guides to help users when they need to recover from a snapshot.

For people who want the old behaviour, you can still turn on and set the levels the old way in the preferences.

[somelurker]

So I haven't read every post in this thread so I apologize if this has already been brought up.

This looks to be changing quite drastically in Mint19. The update manager, the levels, the approach to handling updates, has always led to some confusion among users. In the new update manager much of this is now gone by default. No levels. With the integration of timeshift the idea is now to set up system snapshots and upgrade everything, all the time. Mint is known for new user friendliness. The update manager just really isn't very new user friendly at the moment. I do believe there will also be new guides to help users when they need to recover from a snapshot.

For people who want the old behaviour, you can still turn on and set the levels the old way in the preferences.

This sounds interesting, but I've found the levels very helpful. If an upgrade breaks the system, I would still like to know which package caused the problem, and it would take more time to isolate the problem by testing each package one by one than if I could install all packages of levels 1, 2, and 3 first. If the system is still fine, then I could try all level 4 packages one by one, and then level 5 packages one by one if needed.

Recently, I had a system on which I had just installed Mint 18.3. At the time I did the installation, I didn't know about TimeShift. The system was fine after installing level 1-3 updates, but a level 4 update broke the system, and I didn't know which; nor did I have any way of rolling back to the immediately preceding package. I was forced to wipe the drive and start over. Fortunately, it was very early in the installation process.

It saves much time if I could take advantage of testing that others have already done. Without the levels, every user would essentially have to do their own testing every time, which may be beyond the patience and ability of many. I hope the levels are kept past Mint 19, even if they aren't the default behavior.

[AZgl1800]

My approach now, being relatively new to Linux.... just a year's experience...

I make a Timeshift prior to using Update Manager, and just let it all fly at once.
I have no way to evaluate each module that is being upgraded.

If, after the updates have run a day or so, I make a new Timeshift and label it appropriately.
I label every Timeshift snapshot, and I only do Manual Snapshots, that way I know what is going on.

[Cosmo.]

This thread is expressively about the latest version of Update Manager (UM) in Mint 18.3 and the change, as introduced with it, as expressively said in the starting post.

Are you suggesting kernel versions are recommended a different way in 18.3's version of Update Manager?

Where do you see any suggestion in my quote? BTW: My 18.3 system has never got any kernel 4.4. There are only 4.10 installations (the originally installed kernel) and 4.13.

Are you saying that security should be the factor users consider paramount, or that in deciding how Update Manager behaves, Mint's developers should consider security paramount?

Both.

A Netflix-only machine does not need to be updated every 2 hours.

You can set in UM preferences, after which time UM shall check for new updates. You have the choice, all what is needed is, that you use the choice. If you want you can set it to 16 hours (after this time you are likely in bed) and you get the next updates (if available) only at the next day.

If it had been the developer's intent to consider only security at the exclusion of all other values, such choices would not have a purpose.

I said already, that the policies are IMO in principle wrong.

Just allow users to choose what level of security update to select by default. This is a feature Update Manager already has. It was the way UM used to behave

What is "level of security update"? What and where does UM have such a thing? You have the choice of the levels and the options for security and kernel updates. In this regard nothing has been changed.

the user should at least be allowed to configure a setting to revert back to the previous behavior.

An option to make UM lie? You cannot mean this seriously.

The administrator may still want to update occasionally. Deactivating UM completely would be a waste of time because it would have to be reactivated again each time updates are desired.

Whatever "occasionally" might mean. Daily? Than change the interval time, as I said already above. Besides that calling a shut down UM from the menu is a matter of seconds. If you place it into the quick launcher applet some more seconds less. "Waste of time": Do you count your life in milliseconds?

In particular, if a user chooses to only show updates of a particular level, that choice should be respected by the UM notification icon.

UM does respect your setting. It is all a matter, that you do your settings properly. See also the last post by Pjotr regarding that. And also here: None of those settings have been changed or removed in 18.3. It appears, that you did not look exactly at the options of UM, but this is not UM's fault.

Showing the icon when levels of updates selected by default are installed.

We are again at the point where you request UM to lie. It is your decision, if UM shall show not pre-selected updates. You want it - you get it. So simple. But saying to show the green icon, although a simple click on it reveals in the opened GUI, that there pending updates, is quite obviously a request for a lie.

Even if a package that's not installed would fix a vulnerability in software, that vulnerability may be irrelevant to a particular use case.

UM does not show updates for packages, which are not installed. The use case is irrelevant.

Why should I need to install a LibreOffice update if I never use LibreOffice, even if it's a critical vulnerability?

If you don't need LO, remove it from the system and UM will never present an update (quite obviously, as something, that does not exist, can never get updated). Or set the LO update to the ignore list of UM. A matter of 3 seconds.

When someone is on a busy schedule, they may only be able to install updates one by one. The user may want to install the updates slowly, perhaps one day at a time, or at whatever pace their schedule allows.

Nothing to say against this attempt. In the contrary, it is the recommendation of the UM help file. So taking this method: The user installs one of the open updates at the end of the day. On the next day UM gives via the blue icon a reminder, that other updates are still pending. So UM displays exactly the current state of the system. If all updates have been applied - perhaps after a few days more - UM shows with the green check mark that the user has completed the update task. Just as it should be.

They want to still be able to see the updates. They just don't want the icon popping up.

Is my English language really so hard to understand? I wrote already, that nothing pops up at all. UM has no function to pop up anything.
Besides that: If the user - your scenario - wants to get after some time the remaining updates, what is wrong in giving him the reminder?

Besides that: Things can get be made very much easier by using TimeShift (TS), which I mentioned in this thread already. The simple thing is to have a current snapshot, apply all updates and in case, that something got broken - this is not the typical case, but possible - revert the system to the previous state. It is a matter of a few minutes. With TS in mind one could imagine, that the levels are not needed any more; I wrote also this consideration some weeks ago (not sure if in this or another thread).

If I want to skip a particular version because the newest version is buggy, I'll have to remember to unhide that package later on, or I will miss the version after the buggy version.

This is indeed a valid suggestion, which I fully support. Nothing is so good, that it cannot made better. Here is a point, where UM needs some enhancement. (But this has nothing to do with the changed behavior of the icon.)

How exactly is the icon lying? When the UM icon pops up, is there some kind of objective and universal meaning that it must have?

For the third time: Nothing pops up. You insinuate with your wording a behavior, which exists only in your imagination.
The green check mark says: Your system is up to date. If this is actually not the case, than this is a lie. If you consider "up to date" as an objective and universal meaning, than yes, this is like a on / off trigger. A system can be up to date or it can be not up to date. Something between does not exist.

Right now, there is no setting in Mint 18.3's Update Manager that allows the first choice rather than the second

If it would exist, it would have to get named "lie at me and give me the illusion of an up to date system, although it is not the case". Not a serious approach.

I want the icon to tell me when new updates I have never seen before are now available, not to remind me to install every update.

The meaning of the green check mark can easily be read in the tool tip, if you hover it. Green means: Up to date. If this is not the case, than the green check mark would be just as completely wrong as in case, that your network indicator would show "connected", although you are not.

the user should be allowed to opt out

And now we are again at the request for "lie at me, I feel better with the lie". I just think about the case, that in the change log for the coming version the Mint team proudly presents the new feature: UM has learned to lie. A kind of learning artificial intelligence?

[Cosmo.]

I would still like to know which package caused the problem, and it would take more time to isolate the problem by testing each package one by one than if I could install all packages of levels 1, 2, and 3 first. If the system is still fine, then I could try all level 4 packages one by one, and then level 5 packages one by one if needed.

So far I agree. The level system is useful to encircle the cause for a regression. We have to see, how it goes in LM 19.

Besides that: Assumed, that the optional level system in LM 19 has the same definition as in LM 18.2 / 18.3, level 5 shall never get applied. Level 5 means: This update exists in the repositories (most likely in those by Ubuntu), so we cannot eliminate it, but to solve the situation we put it in level 5. (Only from theory and UM help file, I have until today never seen any level 5 update since 18.2.)

[JeremyB]

Hi Cosmo.

I see it as no more of a lie that hidden updates don't trigger the updates available icon, why should it be different if a user wants some updates visible but not selected to install?

Can anything be done about the kernels? The 4.15 kernel is in Ubuntu xenial repos but most of the dkms packages in xenial will not likely be patched to support 4.15 until August

[Cosmo.]

I see it as no more of a lie that hidden updates don't trigger the updates available icon, why should it be different if a user wants some updates visible but not selected to install?

I have asked a number of users, why they let updates (levels, security and kernel options) display, that they do not want to install. Nobody was able or willing to give an answer. We have here a standing word which says: No answer is also an answer.
And what do you mean with "hidden updates"? If you have set to show them, than they are not hidden. If you set to not display them, then the icon gets green (if no "not hidden" updates are pending).
But if the users sets to display them (why ever), than in case of a pending update the system is obviously not up to date. Saying up to date (= green) would be a lie, because up to date and not up to date can never be both true at the same time. - Compare it with my above example for the network connection: This is either on or off, something in between is impossible.

Can anything be done about the kernels? The 4.15 kernel is in Ubuntu xenial repos but most of the dkms packages in xenial will not likely be patched to support 4.15 until August

I don't know. But I wonder, what this question has to do with the update manager?

[somelurker]

Where do you see any suggestion in my quote? BTW: My 18.3 system has never got any kernel 4.4. There are only 4.10 installations (the originally installed kernel) and 4.13.

It follows from what I said earlier. I said "I think Update Manager is simply suggesting the latest version of the 4.4.0-x series because it assumes all users are using the 4.4.0-x series of kernels. However, this is a false assumption. This shows that security is not black and white and that user choice can sometimes directly impact the relevance of an update to security." When you argued that this thread is about the latest version of UM in Mint 18.3, you implied that UM forcing users to install irrelevant kernel versions was not relevant to this thread. It is relevant if the behavior remains unchanged in 18.3.

Are you saying that security should be the factor users consider paramount, or that in deciding how Update Manager behaves, Mint's developers should consider security paramount?

Both.

I already responded to both cases. See my previous reply.

You can set in UM preferences, after which time UM shall check for new updates. You have the choice, all what is needed is, that you use the choice. If you want you can set it to 16 hours (after this time you are likely in bed) and you get the next updates (if available) only at the next day.

You stripped out part of my words from that paragraph, which takes this statement of context. Here's the rest of what I said: "... just look at the 3 choices presented to the user that I've already mentioned: "Don't break my computer!", "Optimize stability and security", and "Always update everything.". If it had been the developer's intent to consider only security at the exclusion of all other values, such choices would not have a purpose."

Being able to choose how frequently Update Manager shows is not the same thing as being able to choose what updates trigger its icon. I could want to update only a particular group of updates frequently, but the rest very infrequently.

I said already, that the policies are IMO in principle wrong.

I don't think so. See my point from my initial post about the usability of a computer. Let's take your extreme example a step further. A computer locked underground in a concrete vault is very secure. But of what use is it? The primary purpose of a computer is not just to be secure, but to serve the user's needs.

What is "level of security update"? What and where does UM have such a thing? You have the choice of the levels and the options for security and kernel updates. In this regard nothing has been changed.

I meant "level of update".

An option to make UM lie? You cannot mean this seriously.

See the point I made in my previous post on semiotics. UM cannot be lying because the appearance of the icon has no objective meaning. The icon would be lying if it said "you have installed all available updates," but it doesn't say that. It just shows up. When it shows up is something the user can already control, as you pointed out. What it means - i.e. under what circumstances it appears - is also something the user should be allowed to control.

Whatever "occasionally" might mean. Daily? Than change the interval time, as I said already above. Besides that calling a shut down UM from the menu is a matter of seconds. If you place it into the quick launcher applet some more seconds less. "Waste of time": Do you count your life in milliseconds?

Ok, so you can solve the frequency of updates by changing the time interval. But how about being more selective about the type of updates the user wants to install? You can't control that with 18.3's UM right now.

UM does respect your setting. It is all a matter, that you do your settings properly. See also the last post by Pjotr regarding that. And also here: None of those settings have been changed or removed in 18.3. It appears, that you did not look exactly at the options of UM, but this is not UM's fault.

I responded to his post. There is no setting that allows you to choose what causes the UM's icon to appear - only when it appears, and that's less useful. I had no complaint with the settings in pre-18.3 UM because its behavior was logical. Clearly if I didn't select an update I had no intention of installing it right away. So why should the icon show up because I chose to postpone or skip that particular update? But now in 18.3, the icon insists on showing up. This new behavior creates a problem that requires a new setting to fix (or a reversion to its previous behavior).

We are again at the point where you request UM to lie. It is your decision, if UM shall show not pre-selected updates. You want it - you get it. So simple. But saying to show the green icon, although a simple click on it reveals in the opened GUI, that there pending updates, is quite obviously a request for a lie.

My point wasn't specifically about the green icon, but about the appearance of the shield icon at all. Maybe this is why you keep calling the icon a "lie". In pre-18.3 UM, the shield doesn't show up if unselected levels of updates have not been installed. In 18.3, the shield shows up as long as any update, even levels that you specifically chose not to select, are not installed because you dont want to install them for whatever reason. This is a problem.

Nothing to say against this attempt. In the contrary, it is the recommendation of the UM help file. So taking this method: The user installs one of the open updates at the end of the day. On the next day UM gives via the blue icon a reminder, that other updates are still pending. So UM displays exactly the current state of the system. If all updates have been applied - perhaps after a few days more - UM shows with the green check mark that the user has completed the update task. Just as it should be.

You argued all along that the official UM policies were "in principle wrong" when it served your argument. Why is its recommendation so important now?

Also, "end of the day" is an understatement. The default is set to 2 hours, so the icon is basically there all the time unless you either disable UM completely or increase the interval. Neither option is acceptable when you want only specific levels of updates at shorter intervals and undesired or potentially problematic updates at longer intervals.

Is my English language really so hard to understand? I wrote already, that nothing pops up at all. UM has no function to pop up anything.
Besides that: If the user - your scenario - wants to get after some time the remaining updates, what is wrong in giving him the reminder?

This is a mere quibble over semantics. Perhaps "popping up" isn't the right phrase, but it is clear from the context what I meant: the UM icon appearing at the bottom right of your screen.

Regarding the second point, you're assuming that the user wants to install every update available. The reality can be far more complicated. What if they need to skip a version? If they hide the package, they will have to check periodically to see if a newer version than the skipped version is available. You can't just assume every user wants to install every update all the time. The appearance of the icon is a very useful way to remind users to install updates, but what level of updates they want to be reminded to install should be under their control.

Besides that: Things can get be made very much easier by using TimeShift (TS), which I mentioned in this thread already. The simple thing is to have a current snapshot, apply all updates and in case, that something got broken - this is not the typical case, but possible - revert the system to the previous state. It is a matter of a few minutes. With TS in mind one could imagine, that the levels are not needed any more; I wrote also this consideration some weeks ago (not sure if in this or another thread).

Yes, I remember. And I'm grateful you mentioned TimeShift, because what you mention as "not the typical case" is quite typical for me. In fact, it just happened within the past week. I didn't know about TS until I read your post on it, and installing all the updates suggested by UM instantly broke my system. I still don't know which package it was; only that it was level 4. One can easily imagine a typical user who only wants to install levels 1-3 installing 4 also, to make the UM icon more useful. If it just shows all the time, there's no way to know when actual, desired levels of updates are available. Again, let the user decide what criteria causes the icon to appear in your panel.

I strongly disagree with getting rid of levels. Without them, you could not isolate level 4 updates and test them one by one. Even with TimeShift, this would be a major problem. I'd rather install level 1-3 updates with a single TimeShift snapshot, then create a separate snapshot for all the level 4-5 updates, and then revert to a previous snapshot if something breaks. This would not be possible if you eliminate levels, because making 5-10 TimeShift snapshots (one for each level 4-5 update) is feasible, whereas making hundreds of TimeShift snapshots (one for every level 1-5 update) is not feasible. Levels are one of the features that make Mint superior to Ubuntu. We should not get rid of a useful feature.

This is indeed a valid suggestion, which I fully support. Nothing is so good, that it cannot made better. Here is a point, where UM needs some enhancement. (But this has nothing to do with the changed behavior of the icon.)

It has everything to do with the icon if we're talking about the shield icon rather than just the checkmark or exclamation mark. I'm talking about the shield appearing at all; not just what color it shows. I think this is fair given what the original poster said:

Now, it appears the only way to get rid of the blue "updates available" icon is to select the "Always update everything" update policy, and update everything. Is it now official Mint recommendation that users should install ALL updates? That's certainly the way it looks to me. If this is not the official Mint recommendation, then how can I get rid of the blue icon when I have installed all updates for my chosen update policy?

Getting rid of the icon doesn't necessarily mean changing it to a green checkmark. You can get rid of it by making the shield disappear too. My version of Mint (18) doesn't show any green check mark when all selected updates are installed. It just makes the shield disappear. Maybe it's because I have the setting "Only show a tray icon when updates are available or in case of errors." selected. But I think we're talking about the same thing. If this setting were unchecked, it would probably show the icon but with a green check mark. Since I have it unchecked, I don't see an icon at all. So we're probably still talking about the same thing. If all this is correct, we can control whether an icon (or check mark) shows up, but not when it shows up, so our entire discussion over whether users should be able to control what causes the icon to show up (or, equivalently, the green checkmark to show up) remains.

[RobertService]

"There is no problem so complicated that you can't find a very simple answer to it if you look at it right."
--Douglas Adams,‭ ‬The Salmon of Doubt

What is there about...

"...There is no sense wasting more words on this--there is only one answer, one conclusion: this problem belongs to Linux MINT; it has been created by Mint, and needs to be resolved by Mint.
You, jimallyn, and the rest of us will not get an answer until Mint gives us an unequivocal, logically consistent answer."

...that you don't understand?

I've got the answer--it is to be found in a simple re-casting of the above, put into very explicit terms for those whose powers of inference are in need of, er, augmentation. See if this helps--

"...There is no sense wasting more words on this--there is only one answer, one conclusion: this problem belongs to Clement Lefebvre; it has been created by Clement Lefebvre, and needs to be resolved by Clement Lefebvre.
You, jimallyn, and the rest of us will not get an answer until Clement Lefebvre gives us an unequivocal, logically consistent answer."
All better now, folks?

And what, exactly, does all this additional--since the time of the original post--useless verbiage provide? Certainly not any concrete work to restore Mint to First Place on DistroWatch. Certainly not any deep understanding hidden from us mere mortals. Certainly no exposition of occult truths. And--glaringly--most definitely no erudition on anyone's part.
If this problem is not fixed, and quickly, Mint's slide from first place is only going to get worse. Mint will be displaced by a simpler, and more elegantly simple distribution. Mint used to be elegant...

“I well understand the gentleman’s desire to speak on‭; ‬he needs the practice badly.‭"‬--Winston Churchill

‭"‬Simplicity is a great virtue but it requires hard work to achieve it and education to appreciate it.‭ ‬And to make matters worse:‭ ‬complexity sells better‭" ‬-‭ ‬Edsger W.‭ ‬Dijkstra‭

[somelurker]

If this problem is not fixed, and quickly, Mint's slide from first place is only going to get worse. Mint will be displaced by a simpler, and more elegantly simple distribution. Mint used to be elegant...

Actually, if you go to https://distrowatch.com/ right now, you will see that by the default data span of 6 months, Mint is indeed in first place. It's true that we are only in 3rd place if we only use data from the past week, but I question the statistical significance of such a sample size. Not that our ranking on some site should necessarily be the paramount concern here. I think if the product is good, the rankings, if they are an accurate indicator of quality, will take care of themselves. There is no evidence that a minor disagreement over one feature has any causal connection to the rankings you place so much importance on.

I do agree that the current behavior of Update Manager is problematic, however.

[AZgl1800]

When I looked at Update Manager today, it was showing kernel 4.4.x

huh? I am using 4.13.0-39

so, I just did a right click and told it to never show that to me again.

I have zero interest in trying to reconfigure my laptop all over again, every time a new kernel comes along, I loose things.

WiFi disappears every time, and is the first thing that makes me want to kill the person who sent out an update that breaks things. My configuration should always be preserved, but it is not.

[Pjotr]

So I haven't read every post in this thread so I apologize if this has already been brought up.

This looks to be changing quite drastically in Mint19. The update manager, the levels, the approach to handling updates, has always led to some confusion among users. In the new update manager much of this is now gone by default. No levels. With the integration of timeshift the idea is now to set up system snapshots and upgrade everything, all the time. Mint is known for new user friendliness. The update manager just really isn't very new user friendly at the moment. I do believe there will also be new guides to help users when they need to recover from a snapshot.

For people who want the old behaviour, you can still turn on and set the levels the old way in the preferences.

Interesting, but rather disconcerting as well.... Timeshift does have its disadvantages, one of them being that it needs a lot of disk space. I really think that it would be better if the level system would remain default, regardless of the integration with Timeshift.

I consider the level system of Update Manager as the crown jewel of Mint. I would be sorry to see that become a non-default feature.

[Cosmo.]

@somelurker:
We have reached the point, where we are running in circles. Continuing this discussion will not bring any further new arguments and is a waste of time. I recognize, that you found the wrong behavior until 18.2 better; that might be, but it does not make it better, even less correct.

Regarding the next version of UM: It is far too early to say anything about it, the existing information is far too few to judge about it. The current blog - only 1 day old - does not give the least detail about it at all. If I can see it, I will look into the details, not earlier. The integration of TS sounds good, but if it will be well done, is at now unclear. The dependency for a x-app-library, which the version in the Mint repositories have, but not the original version of TS, sounds bad and is not understandable; it is also known, that this can create trouble in some circumstances. The factually not existing maintenance of the Mint package for TS is a joy killer. The translation - done by Mint - is partially so bad, that TS is near to unusable, because quite different options got the identical wording. Or can anybody see the difference between "exclude applications" and "exclude applications" (retranslated from the German locale)? Actually the first one is for "Exclude all", the second for "Include all", as it appears in the English original. And there are more translation problems. It lead to the result, that the TS developer removed the German translation from the latest version completely after my report. Those are the questions, which occupy me.

[JeremyB]

I see it as no more of a lie that hidden updates don't trigger the updates available icon, why should it be different if a user wants some updates visible but not selected to install?

I have asked a number of users, why they let updates (levels, security and kernel options) display, that they do not want to install. Nobody was able or willing to give an answer. We have here a standing word which says: No answer is also an answer.
And what do you mean with "hidden updates"? If you have set to show them, than they are not hidden. If you set to not display them, then the icon gets green (if no "not hidden" updates are pending).
But if the users sets to display them (why ever), than in case of a pending update the system is obviously not up to date. Saying up to date (= green) would be a lie, because up to date and not up to date can never be both true at the same time. - Compare it with my above example for the network connection: This is either on or off, something in between is impossible.

Can anything be done about the kernels? The 4.15 kernel is in Ubuntu xenial repos but most of the dkms packages in xenial will not likely be patched to support 4.15 until August

I don't know. But I wonder, what this question has to do with the update manager?

I just liked to see what updates were available and see what the changes were. Some people didn't care about newer kernels or linux-firmware but the changelog info was helpful at times when troubleshooting issues in the forums.

The Update Manager is the easiest way to find the new kernels in Mint, the only people I see using the 4.15 kernel on the ubuntu forums are 18.04 users but there are already a few Mint users using 4.15 on LM 18. The easiest fix would be for ubuntu to wait until the dkms packages are patched and uploaded to xenial repos before uploading the new kernels

[Pjotr]

The translation - done by Mint - is partially so bad, that TS is near to unusable, because quite different options got the identical wording. Or can anybody see the difference between "exclude applications" and "exclude applications" (retranslated from the German locale)? Actually the first one is for "Exclude all", the second for "Include all", as it appears in the English original. And there are more translation problems. It lead to the result, that the TS developer removed the German translation from the latest version completely after my report. Those are the questions, which occupy me.

Well, maybe you can step in and improve the German translation yourself:
https://translations.launchpad.net/linu ... +translate

All it takes is membership of the German translation team, which you can apply for by clicking on "Join the team":
https://launchpad.net/~linuxmint-transl ... eam-german

[Cosmo.]

For which purpose? To create some more for Clem's software vault?

There are more reasons, why I will not do this, but they are not for public discussion (although even more serious).

[Cosmo.]

Some people didn't care about newer kernels or linux-firmware but the changelog info was helpful at times when troubleshooting issues in the forums.

Not the average user case, isn't it?

I personally use my VB guests to do things like that and more for providing support.

[clem]

For which purpose? To create some more for Clem's software vault?

There are more reasons, why I will not do this, but they are not for public discussion (although even more serious).

OK so in the meantime, we heard of some German translation issues... from a German user, but he won't fix it and we don't speak German. Well that's great. Good talk.

[Cosmo.]

Simple facts (and of course you know them):
1. There was never an update for TS in the Mint repo, although Tony provided several new versions with bug fixes (partially critical like the inability to use drives with more thn 2 TB).
2. You had in the past opened an issue yourself regarding TS and Tony fixed it. You must have had a reason to open the issue. But I cannot imagine a reason to hide this fix for the Mint users (except those who use the ppa). Once again the famous quote from Sergio Leone's movie "The good, the bad and the ugly" comes into my mind: There are 2 kind of users: The one who get updates and the others who use Mint. I talk about bug fixes, not feature releases. Same story goes about Firefox, where the last update came for Mint users with 1 week delay. - You rolled your eyes, now you know why.

There are countless cases, where I reported issues, which got simply ignored, partially exactly on that place, where you wanted them to have: In the beta blogs. I don't talk about rejected suggestions, I talk about reported and reproducible bugs. After a number of them I have decided, that I will pay back with the same currency. If you don't like the currency, than you should not use it. You have the power to force me to not write (lock, delete the account), but you have reached your limit, when you want me to force to write. Besides that; you wouldn't even less like to read about the details in a public place.

Above that there is the case, where a member of the dev team took the impudence to write in the public to insult me and no one of the officials felt the need to calm him down. Perhaps they had fear. I tell you: I don't. With this event the top of the iceberg has been reached. It lead to the result, that I stopped each activity at GH/LM.