Mint 19.1 Are these updates safe.

[leona]

Noticed the updater has changed, usually I wouldn't install level 4 updates due to possible problems, now no level 4 updates so do we assume anything that appears in the updater is safe?

the two I'm concerned with are
Linux Kernel 4.15.0.43.45 and Linux firmware 1.173.3
I thought I'd heard that there was a problem with the 4.15 kernel
So are these safe and if there a place we can go to find out?
Thanks.

[Pjotr]

I recommend to read this article that I've written about Update Manager in 19.1:
https://easylinuxtipsproject.blogspot.c ... pdate.html

[Seadreamer]

It depends on what you mean by safe. As far as malware, if you stick with the Mint repositories you won't get any. As for breaking your system it is possible but unlikely. That's what Timeshift is for.

Be sure to read the stuff from 'Pjotr'

[gm10]

Levels are set to be removed completely with LM 19.2, anyway. In my opinion it was always a terrible idea to introduce them in the first place, and while Clem doesn't entirely agree with me on that it's clear they have outlived their usefulness and the common position is that all updates should be applied. After all, this is why you're using an LTS release - to get long term support, and those updates are the support.

As Seadreamer pointed out, Timeshift, which Update Manager suggests you set up, allows you to recover from bad updates.

[Pjotr]

Levels are set to be removed completely with LM 19.2, anyway.

Why not let them stay (hidden, like now) for the people who want to use them (like I)?

[KBD47]

Levels are set to be removed completely with LM 19.2, anyway.

Why not let them stay (hidden, like now) for the people who want to use them (like I)?

I agree. I preferred having these options. There was a reason this policy was started--some updates break things.
Edit: I'm concerned Mint is putting backups in place of stricter update policy

[gm10]

Levels are set to be removed completely with LM 19.2, anyway.

Why not let them stay (hidden, like now) for the people who want to use them (like I)?

I haven't discussed this specifically with Clem (only my general hate for levels ), but I saw that he added it to the roadmap last month: https://github.com/linuxmint/Roadmap

So far no code has been written that I'm aware of. I've got over 20 pull requests pending for mintupdate alone, he'll probably be busy through 19.3 working through those, anyway, haha.

There was a reason this policy was started--some updates break things.

You can blacklist them. I have a pull request pending that allows you to blacklist specific versions only even.

I consider a blanket-exclusion of security updates for critical system components a critical mistake, and nobody will ever convince me otherwise. Individually reviewing updates and refusing to install a specific one for specific reasons is another story entirely, I do that, too.

PS: Here's a good recent example why security concerns aside, filtering updates by levels is a terrible idea and can leave your system in a bad state: viewtopic.php?f=47&t=283578

[kevin987]

Noticed the updater has changed, usually I wouldn't install level 4 updates due to possible problems, now no level 4 updates so do we assume anything that appears in the updater is safe?

the two I'm concerned with are
Linux Kernel 4.15.0.43.45 and Linux firmware 1.173.3
I thought I'd heard that there was a problem with the 4.15 kernel
So are these safe and if there a place we can go to find out?
Thanks.

I've had no problems with kernel 4.15.0-43 and firmware. Mint 19 came with the 4.15 kernel series and if you've had no problem with it before, there's very little chance you'll have a problem now.

The only problem with 4.15 that I'm aware of was its initial delay in implementation due to Intel's issues with the Meltdown and Spectre CPU fix.

https://itsfoss.com/linux-kernel-4-15-release-delayed/

[michael louwe]

Levels are set to be removed completely with LM 19.2, anyway. In my opinion it was always a terrible idea to introduce them in the first place, and while Clem doesn't entirely agree with me on that it's clear they have outlived their usefulness and the common position is that all updates should be applied. After all, this is why you're using an LTS release - to get long term support, and those updates are the support.

As Seadreamer pointed out, Timeshift, which Update Manager suggests you set up, allows you to recover from bad updates.

.
If imposed, looks like Time for me to Shift away from Linux Mint 19.2 onward. Maybe to Ubuntu 18.04.2 if Canonical Inc retains the update Levels as an option.

[thx-1138]

I consider a blanket-exclusion of security updates for critical system components a critical mistake, and nobody will ever convince me otherwise. Individually reviewing updates and refusing to install a specific one for specific reasons is another story entirely, I do that, too.

Amen.

And not just for security reasons, from a usability aspect as well.
People have run into issues even because...newer versions of dpkg were withhold, or util-linux & others.
Or the even more simple consequence of 'my graphics stack doesn't work' - well, if no related package was ever updated...

The result is an end-user base where you almost never know in advance if the software versions installed are up to date,
or 1 year older, or the very same as...back on release date, causing (unnecessary) questions & extra troubleshooting here.
Surely one thing is say Ubuntu 16.04 (April 21, 2016), another one Ubuntu 16.04.5 (August 2, 2018),
let alone the current result of mix-&-matching packages from in-between point releases:
it's meant to work properly & evolve as a 'whole', not via cherry-picking.

Besides of a way to distinguish some core packages that a user might want (or not) to withhold for a few days,
say systemd, grub, Xorg and couple others, i never saw the need myself for either 5 or 4 'levels'.

[smurphos]

If imposed, looks like Time for me to Shift away from Linux Mint 19.2 onward. Maybe to Ubuntu 18.04.2 if Canonical Inc retains the update Levels as an option.

Ubuntu has never had levels or any similar system - optional or not - it is a Mint invention.

The Ubuntu updater has always updated everything by default and with default settings encourages end users just to accept updates without even looking at them.

[leona]

Levels are set to be removed completely with LM 19.2, anyway. In my opinion it was always a terrible idea to introduce them in the first place, and while Clem doesn't entirely agree with me on that it's clear they have outlived their usefulness and the common position is that all updates should be applied. After all, this is why you're using an LTS release - to get long term support, and those updates are the support.

As Seadreamer pointed out, Timeshift, which Update Manager suggests you set up, allows you to recover from bad updates.

.
If imposed, looks like Time for me to Shift away from Linux Mint 19.2 onward. Maybe to Ubuntu 18.04.2 if Canonical Inc retains the update Levels as an option.

Ya I was going to go to 18.04 but magnification is still broken on that release, don't know when that'll be patched, its an open issue at the moment, so stayed with Mint.
I started with Mint when Ubuntu went Unity, and in those early days it was strongly suggested not to apply level 4 and 5 updates as they were, to quote, 'Untested' and 'unstable', so I have kept that process, but now levels are gone (or hidden), are we to assume that all updates are safe and tested now? I think it was on an update video that I saw the mentioned an issue with the 4.15.43 kernel so they suggested not to apply it, so how do we get to know if, 1 there is an issue with an update and 2, when its fixed?
Don't get me wrong not knocking it at all, just need to find the info to be informed.
Can be as bad a windows updates a? known for breaking without warning

[michael louwe]

If imposed, looks like Time for me to Shift away from Linux Mint 19.2 onward. Maybe to Ubuntu 18.04.2 if Canonical Inc retains the update Levels as an option.

Ubuntu has never had levels or any similar system - optional or not - it is a Mint invention.

The Ubuntu updater has always updated everything by default and with default settings encourages end users just to accept updates without even looking at them.

.
This means the updating features will be about the same for LM 19.2 and Ubuntu 18.04 = the plus points of LM over Ubuntu being eroded or removed = there may not be much point in staying with LM from 19.2 onward.

[gm10]

If the only reason you stick with Mint is the ability to automatically prevent a (badly maintained) list of applications from updating (rather than individually blocking them) then you should probably have left long ago.

Here's the current list by the way:

Code: Select all

$ grep 4 /usr/lib/linuxmint/mintUpdate/rules
# Level 4
4|acpid|*
4|*lightdm|*
4|*slick-greeter|*
4|*linux-|*
4|*mdm|*
4|*nvidia|*
4|*xorg|*
4|bcmwl|*
4|ndiswrapper|*
4|grub2|*
4|grub|*
4|linux|*
4|mesa|*
4|plymouth|*
4|systemd|*
4|ubuntu-drivers-common|*
4|upstart|*

[michael louwe]

.

.
I think from LM 19.2 onward, there will only be security and recommended/optional updates, similar to Ubuntu 18.04 and Win 7.
.
More work is needed to provide LM users with the granulation of Level 1 to Level 5 updates or between safe and risky/dangerous updates.
.
In Win 7, as an average home user, I did not trust System Restore to always restore successfully. So, I also will not trust Timeshift in LM 19. By being careful with manual updating, I have kept my Win 7 system running smoothly from 2012 until 2016 and then LM 17.x from 2016 until today, ie never once having to resort to System Restore or an OS reinstall.
....... Business users may need to do things differently wrt applying updates and having system recovery backups because they are high value targets for hackers.

[DAMIEN1307]

i really do wonder sometimes when people say that updates from ubuntu based linux systems cause as many problems as what i hear about.

since 2016, i have always excepted ALL updates offered...the only two times i ever had a problem was due to 2 different borked up kernels, (always staying in the same series as what the distribution has as LTS), that was always simply resolved via GRUB menu and reverting to the previous kernel until the next kernel update came out and resolved the situation...end of problem.

my thinking is that maybe more often than not, peoples problems are not really the updates themselves, but more probably more to do with just how they have configured their systems that do not play well with certain updates as they come down the line.

linux systems allow you to do anything you want with them, it doesnt mean that what people do with their systems is necessarily good for the system, nor does it mean that the updates will play well with their severely altered configurations...DAMIEN

[gm10]

my thinking is that maybe more often than not, peoples problems are not really the updates themselves, but more probably more to do with just how they have configured their systems that do not play well with certain updates as they come down the line.

linux systems allow you to do anything you want with them, it doesnt mean that what people do with their systems is necessarily good for the system, nor does it mean that the updates will play well with their severely altered configurations...DAMIEN

I agree, it's when people start piling in software from external sources - which of course does not get tested at Ubuntu - that they start seeing problems. Personally I've yet to run into an issue with a system update at all. I wasn't even affected by 4.15.0-24 although that was certainly one that caused a lot of people legitimate issues, mainly because Update Manager at the time had flawed logic about suggesting to update to that revoked kernel version (I fixed that since).

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).

[Moem]

Individually reviewing updates and refusing to install a specific one for specific reasons is another story entirely, I do that, too.

Casual users (like me!) won't know what to look for. For us, reviewing updates is as much use as a chocolate teapot.

[gm10]

Individually reviewing updates and refusing to install a specific one for specific reasons is another story entirely, I do that, too.

Casual users (like me!) won't know what to look for. For us, reviewing updates is as much use as a chocolate teapot.

Oh I completely understand, but the solution then cannot be not to apply it. That's like not getting your car repaired because you don't understand how the engine works. Instead you pick a repair shop you trust and let them do it. Same for Linux updates, pick a distribution you trust and let them do their thing.

[Moem]

the solution then cannot be not to apply it. That's like not getting your car repaired because you don't understand how the engine works. Instead you pick a repair shop you trust and let them do it. Same for Linux updates, pick a distribution you trust and let them do their thing.

Fair enough.And if we can make Timeshift easier to use, then that should take care of most problems caused by the rare problematic update. I'm sure that some people would argue that TS is already easy enough, but the trouble that we see people having with it says otherwise.