This is (hopefully) an easy how-to:
https://easylinuxtipsproject.blogspot.c ... html#ID3.1
This is (hopefully) an easy how-to:
I'm with you on that one . I could understand the objections if people were talking about Clonezilla .
I could think of a few things, like
Setting up Timeshift is the first step on the welcome app, and if the user didn't do that then we suggest to them via Update Manager to do so (which can be disabled in the preferences), otherwise there's nothing.
This board needs a Like or thumbs-up option. I agree 100% with you, security comes first for me too, even at the risk of a performance hit. Anyone that knowingly chooses to have an insecure system is endangering not only themselves but all other systems that they communicate with. If the devs thought it was worth their time to patch a security hole then I think it's worth my time to install their update.smurphos wrote: ⤴Tue Mar 19, 2019 3:27 amPersonally my circumstances (nothing mission-critical on my machine, middle of the road hardware with no esoteric components, comprehensive backups, and alternative ways of getting things done) and my priorities - security comes first - I will take a performance hit or a risk to stability and have always pretty much ignored the level system and installed all updates with reasonable alacrity. I'm yet to suffer any downtime or any issue that has required a rollback with Timeshift as a result.
That makes too much sense for this thread.murray wrote:
If the devs thought it was worth their time to patch a security hole then I think it's worth my time to install their update.
Sometimes common sense isn't very common...
Exactly. And that is an overdramatic way to talk about changes in software. It's also not productive. So let's instead keep our heads cool.
First sensible thing you've said in a while, even though you didn't mean it that way. Easy answer: You should always trust the software developers. They created the operating system you're using, not you. They know more about it than you.
And if you don't trust them, don't run their operating system.
.smurphos wrote: ⤴Wed Mar 20, 2019 3:05 amNo Ubuntu update has permanently bricked a machine to my knowledge in any case - even https://betanews.com/2017/12/21/canonic ... r-laptops/ that you linked earlier which killed the BIOS was recoverable by a fairly simple process - https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+sour ... ug/1734147
.gm10 wrote: ⤴Wed Mar 20, 2019 3:42 amFirst sensible thing you've said in a while, even though you didn't mean it that way. Easy answer: You should always trust the software developers. They created the operating system you're using, not you. They know more about it than you.
My doctor has had the flu! How can I ever trust her with my health again?
Your points are taken, sure.
.Moem wrote: ⤴Wed Mar 20, 2019 5:08 amMy doctor has had the flu! How can I ever trust her with my health again?michael louwe wrote: ⤴ Wed Mar 20, 2019 4:44 pm
How can computer operators/users fully trust LM developers with security when even their own website could be hacked to issue corrupted LM ISOs.?
That is not at all similar to what happened when the Mint download page was hacked. The developers took quick action, and certainly did not deny responsibility. Furthermore they took measures to increase security.
The present trend of LM developers is and will be to push LM 18.2 and LM 19.2 (and later) users to blindly install all updates and to do Timeshift snapshot system restore for any buggy update = the "cure is better than prevention" policy. They may even force this trend and policy on the users eventually, ala Win 7/8.1's Patch Rollups or Win 10's forced auto-updates, eg in LM 20.x. It's a "take it or leave it". Some computer operators/users of LM will probably leave.Still, even if there are potential issues, it's always better to install the updates and handle the fallout later rather than sit on a number of public and open-source security vulnerabilities that anyone can exploit, or critical bugs that can cost you your data (there have been a few in various kernel versions, for example).
And that's really all there is to it. If you cannot accept that simple truth, nobody will force you to install 19.2, plus you can still re-create your beloved levels via the blacklist, so take it or leave it.
Unfortunately. It's also why we had to remove even the indicative icons of the "levels", which otherwise I would have liked to keep, because the original idea of helping the users with the impact assessment was a good one (although the actual list of packages was always arbitrary and incomplete and would have needed some work if kept). But since unfortunately it has been twisted into a bad practice of blindly not applying updates rather than assess them we had to cut it all out at the root.
Now that's rather silly to expect. Totally unfounded and highly unlikely.