Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #680043 > unrolled thread

MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy

Contents

  MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2024-12-13 15:40 +0000
    Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2024-12-13 21:56 +0000
      Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2024-12-14 10:31 -0500
        Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2024-12-15 01:01 +0000
    Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> - 2024-12-13 22:07 -0500
      Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-14 05:39 +0000
        Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-14 08:10 -0500
          Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2024-12-14 16:09 +0000
          Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-14 22:18 +0000
            Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2024-12-14 22:37 +0000
            Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-15 08:53 -0500
              Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-15 22:28 +0000
                Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-15 20:04 -0500
                  Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-16 06:42 +0000
                    Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-16 10:38 -0500
                      Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-17 22:28 +0000
                        Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-17 18:21 -0500
                          Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-19 07:14 +0000
                            Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-19 08:52 -0500
            Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2024-12-15 11:21 -0500
              Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2024-12-15 15:36 -0500
                Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2024-12-15 21:02 +0000
                Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2024-12-16 07:21 -0500
                  Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-16 11:10 -0500
                    Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2024-12-17 22:09 -0600
        Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> - 2024-12-14 10:31 -0500
          Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-14 22:22 +0000
            Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-15 08:58 -0500
        Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2024-12-14 15:59 +0000
        Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-14 19:53 +0000
          Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-15 08:40 -0500
      Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-14 05:43 +0000
        Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-14 08:15 -0500
          Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2024-12-14 16:14 +0000
            Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-14 19:57 +0000
              Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-12-14 15:06 -0500
                Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-15 00:06 +0000
                  Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2024-12-15 07:45 +0000
                Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-15 08:48 -0500
              Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2024-12-15 07:29 +0000
                Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-15 08:43 +0000
                  Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2024-12-16 10:30 +0000
            Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-15 08:13 -0500
              Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2024-12-16 10:33 +0000
                Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-16 20:18 +0000
                  Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2024-12-17 08:26 +0000
              Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-17 22:29 +0000
                Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-17 18:21 -0500
                Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-12-17 19:22 -0500
                  Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> - 2024-12-17 19:37 -0500
                    Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-12-17 20:23 -0500
                      Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-17 20:36 -0500
                        Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> - 2024-12-18 01:54 +0000
                          Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-17 21:22 -0500
                    Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-17 20:34 -0500
                    Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-18 03:24 +0000
                      Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2024-12-18 08:24 -0500
                        Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2024-12-19 18:37 -0600
                          Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-19 20:12 -0500
                            Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> - 2024-12-20 01:26 +0000
                            Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> - 2024-12-20 09:25 -0500
                              Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-20 10:23 -0500
                    Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-19 07:14 +0000
                      Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-19 08:52 -0500
                  Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-17 20:32 -0500
                    Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-19 04:43 +0000
                      Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2024-12-19 07:58 -0500
                        Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-19 09:04 -0500
                        Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> - 2024-12-19 11:25 -0500
                          Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-12-19 11:50 -0500
                            Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-19 12:26 -0500
                            Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2024-12-19 13:39 -0500
                          Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-19 12:21 -0500
                            Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2024-12-19 13:53 -0600
                              Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-19 17:14 -0500
                      Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-19 08:48 -0500
      Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-14 08:01 -0500
        Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2024-12-14 16:21 +0000
          Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2024-12-14 16:54 +0000
          Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-15 08:15 -0500
            Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2024-12-15 13:47 +0000
              Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-15 10:27 -0500
            Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-16 05:46 +0000
            Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2024-12-16 10:37 +0000
              Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-16 11:04 -0500
                Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2024-12-17 08:22 +0000
        Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-14 20:01 +0000
          Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-15 08:43 -0500
            Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2024-12-15 14:05 +0000
            Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-15 18:23 +0000
              Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-15 14:56 -0500

Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5  Next page →

#680387

On 12/15/24 11:21 AM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>> ...
>> This is why you don’t even need to do a reboot if it is sufficient to
>> simply stop and start the affected services.
> 
> The aptiude front-end for apt might detect an issue with versions. You can then
> examine the issue and see a list of one or more solutions; you can then pick
> the solution you want.  And in a few days, that issue will likely be gone
> anyway.

What some of this has prompted me to think about is how there's 
relatively recent security folks who are suggesting to reboot one's 
smartphone nightly, as a security measure against spyware/etc.

 From this perspective, it would seem that a hard reboot might not be a 
bad thing for desktop PCs too.  Sure, I can see the desire for high 
uptime on Cloud/Web/server stuff, but for a desktop?  Nah, just make it 
part of the overnight maintenance cycle as a procedure to minimize risks 
from malware.


-hh

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#680399

On Sun, 15 Dec 2024 15:36:19 -0500, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>
wrote in <vjnek3$l418$2@dont-email.me>:

> On 12/15/24 11:21 AM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>> ...
>>> This is why you don’t even need to do a reboot if it is sufficient to
>>> simply stop and start the affected services.
>> 
>> The aptiude front-end for apt might detect an issue with versions. You can then
>> examine the issue and see a list of one or more solutions; you can then pick
>> the solution you want.  And in a few days, that issue will likely be gone
>> anyway.
> 
> What some of this has prompted me to think about is how there's 
> relatively recent security folks who are suggesting to reboot one's 
> smartphone nightly, as a security measure against spyware/etc.
> 
>  From this perspective, it would seem that a hard reboot might not be a 
> bad thing for desktop PCs too.  Sure, I can see the desire for high 
> uptime on Cloud/Web/server stuff, but for a desktop?  Nah, just make it 
> part of the overnight maintenance cycle as a procedure to minimize risks 
> from malware.
> 
> 
> -hh

Reminds me of back in the early 90's at the college, when our student-access
Unix (Linux) host would reboot nightly at 3am.

The idea was to clear out any cruftiness in the kernel, as well as
restart long-running processes that might have leaked memory, or
gotten themselves into undesirable states, or what-have-you.

-- 
-v System76 Thelio Mega v1.1 x86_64 NVIDIA RTX 3090 Ti
   OS: Linux 6.12.4 Release: Mint 21.3 Mem: 258G
   "If at first you don't succeed, you must be a programmer."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#680477

-hh wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:

> On 12/15/24 11:21 AM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>> ...
>>> This is why you don’t even need to do a reboot if it is sufficient to
>>> simply stop and start the affected services.
>> 
>> The aptiude front-end for apt might detect an issue with versions. You can then
>> examine the issue and see a list of one or more solutions; you can then pick
>> the solution you want.  And in a few days, that issue will likely be gone
>> anyway.
>
> What some of this has prompted me to think about is how there's 
> relatively recent security folks who are suggesting to reboot one's 
> smartphone nightly, as a security measure against spyware/etc.
>
>  From this perspective, it would seem that a hard reboot might not be a 
> bad thing for desktop PCs too.  Sure, I can see the desire for high 
> uptime on Cloud/Web/server stuff, but for a desktop?  Nah, just make it 
> part of the overnight maintenance cycle as a procedure to minimize risks 
> from malware.

I didn't worry about "malware" after Red Hat 6 (the original version, not the
RHEL version).

Since I no longer expose my home machines on the network (I am home all
the time anyway, and access email and project code through other's servers),
I don't worry about rebooting, except to drop into Windows to test some
code.

My biggest worry is about visiting battery-draining sites.  Jesus!

-- 
Nobody knows the trouble I've been.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#680493

Le 2024-12-16 à 07:21, Chris Ahlstrom a écrit :
> -hh wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
> 
>> On 12/15/24 11:21 AM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>>> ...
>>>> This is why you don’t even need to do a reboot if it is sufficient to
>>>> simply stop and start the affected services.
>>>
>>> The aptiude front-end for apt might detect an issue with versions. You can then
>>> examine the issue and see a list of one or more solutions; you can then pick
>>> the solution you want.  And in a few days, that issue will likely be gone
>>> anyway.
>>
>> What some of this has prompted me to think about is how there's
>> relatively recent security folks who are suggesting to reboot one's
>> smartphone nightly, as a security measure against spyware/etc.
>>
>>   From this perspective, it would seem that a hard reboot might not be a
>> bad thing for desktop PCs too.  Sure, I can see the desire for high
>> uptime on Cloud/Web/server stuff, but for a desktop?  Nah, just make it
>> part of the overnight maintenance cycle as a procedure to minimize risks
>> from malware.
> 
> I didn't worry about "malware" after Red Hat 6 (the original version, not the
> RHEL version).
> 
> Since I no longer expose my home machines on the network (I am home all
> the time anyway, and access email and project code through other's servers),
> I don't worry about rebooting, except to drop into Windows to test some
> code.
> 
> My biggest worry is about visiting battery-draining sites.  Jesus!

I'm surprised that you have that much time left over from being the 
neighbourhood cum dumpster.

-- 
CrudeSausage

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#680678

CrudeSausage wrote:

>Le 2024-12-16 à 07:21, Chris Ahlstrom a écrit :
>>
>> Since I no longer expose my home machines on the network (I am home all
>> the time anyway, and access email and project code through other's servers),
>> I don't worry about rebooting, except to drop into Windows to test some
>> code.
>> 
>> My biggest worry is about visiting battery-draining sites.  Jesus!
>
>I'm surprised that you have that much time left over from being the 
>neighbourhood cum dumpster.

Hahaaha

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#680180

On 12/14/2024 12:39 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Dec 2024 22:07:11 -0500, DFS wrote:
> 
>> The massive update to Win11 24H2 was a few mouse clicks.
> 
> Over how many hours?


1/2 of 1.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#680245

On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 10:31:45 -0500, DFS wrote:

> On 12/14/2024 12:39 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 13 Dec 2024 22:07:11 -0500, DFS wrote:
>> 
>>> The massive update to Win11 24H2 was a few mouse clicks.
>> 
>> Over how many hours?
> 
> 1/2 of 1.

Did that include the minimum of eight hours connected to the Internet 
before it could determine what to update?

<https://tech.slashdot.org/story/22/02/01/2056211>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#680318

Le 2024-12-14 à 17:22, Lawrence D'Oliveiro a écrit :
> On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 10:31:45 -0500, DFS wrote:
> 
>> On 12/14/2024 12:39 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 13 Dec 2024 22:07:11 -0500, DFS wrote:
>>>
>>>> The massive update to Win11 24H2 was a few mouse clicks.
>>>
>>> Over how many hours?
>>
>> 1/2 of 1.
> 
> Did that include the minimum of eight hours connected to the Internet
> before it could determine what to update?
> 
> <https://tech.slashdot.org/story/22/02/01/2056211>

I don't even doubt that. I hated Windows 10 because it routinely fucked 
things up with the updates. I can't remember how many times an update 
resulted in my machine no longer having a valid license.

-- 
CrudeSausage

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#680191

On 2024-12-14, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Dec 2024 22:07:11 -0500, DFS wrote:
>
>> The massive update to Win11 24H2 was a few mouse clicks.
>
> Over how many hours?

An apt question. I've never seen a Windows update that worked better than a 
Linux update.

-- 
“Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy 
what has been invented or made by the forces of good.”  —J.R.R. Tolkien

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#680215

On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 05:39:50 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> On Fri, 13 Dec 2024 22:07:11 -0500, DFS wrote:
> 
>> The massive update to Win11 24H2 was a few mouse clicks.
> 
> Over how many hours?

A little over half an hour for my work machine with a wired connection to 
a big pipe. It took a little longer at home with a wireless connection. It 
did go smoothly. I've had updates fail in the past and have had to do the 
kill the update service, delete the SotftwareUpdate directory cha-cha.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#680311

Le 2024-12-14 à 14:53, rbowman a écrit :
> On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 05:39:50 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 13 Dec 2024 22:07:11 -0500, DFS wrote:
>>
>>> The massive update to Win11 24H2 was a few mouse clicks.
>>
>> Over how many hours?
> 
> A little over half an hour for my work machine with a wired connection to
> a big pipe. It took a little longer at home with a wireless connection. It
> did go smoothly. I've had updates fail in the past and have had to do the
> kill the update service, delete the SotftwareUpdate directory cha-cha.

I had updating issues way more often with 10 than I did with 11 but yes, 
11 has crapped out on me before. It usually happens if a third-party 
application, like MyASUS, installed new versions of device drivers 
before Windows Update managed to. The former just installed them whereas 
Windows Update detected that they were available and was waiting for a 
user prompt to install them.

I will say this much:

1) Even on new installations, Windows's system files end up being 
corrupted requiring a repair with SFC and/or DISM. This happens way too 
often to be considered an accident. You can tell that it's corrupted 
when basic things are suddenly slow to respond.
2) New Windows installs often keep System Restore disabled which 
neutralizes the usefulness of the most obvious tool allowing a user to 
fix his installation.

-- 
CrudeSausage

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#680132

On Fri, 13 Dec 2024 22:07:11 -0500, DFS wrote:

> On 12/13/2024 10:40 AM, vallor wrote:
> 
>> It's a lot easier to update Linux than Windows or MacOS.
> 
> 
> Maybe, maybe not.
> 
> The massive update to Win11 24H2 was a few mouse clicks.  Absolutely no
> other user input was required.

There is a GUI but I prefer command line.

>sudo dnf update --refreah

gets the job done. I do have to enter my password. It then tells me which 
packages will be updated and their sizes and asks me if I want to 
continue. 

I did update two machines to 24H2 this week. I got to play several games 
of Mahjong solitaire while checking back  'Downloading 3%', Downloading 
13%' and so forth, and then several mare with 'Installing 5%' etc. At the 
end I had to restart. More games, 'Updating you computer..' Finally I was 
able to log in.  'Hi! Getting things ready for you' 

I have no idea what was updated although I probably could hunt down the 
KB. The good news is it doesn't seem to have broken anything. I did a work 
machine that I hardly ever use anymore and a laptop which is solely used 
for accessing the corporate VPN so it wasn't a real stress test.

I suppose some day I'll move to Fedora 41 and Ubuntu 24.2 but if it ain't 
broken...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#680154

Le 2024-12-14 à 00:43, rbowman a écrit :
> On Fri, 13 Dec 2024 22:07:11 -0500, DFS wrote:
> 
>> On 12/13/2024 10:40 AM, vallor wrote:
>>
>>> It's a lot easier to update Linux than Windows or MacOS.
>>
>>
>> Maybe, maybe not.
>>
>> The massive update to Win11 24H2 was a few mouse clicks.  Absolutely no
>> other user input was required.
> 
> There is a GUI but I prefer command line.
> 
>> sudo dnf update --refreah
> 
> gets the job done. I do have to enter my password. It then tells me which
> packages will be updated and their sizes and asks me if I want to
> continue.
> 
> I did update two machines to 24H2 this week. I got to play several games
> of Mahjong solitaire while checking back  'Downloading 3%', Downloading
> 13%' and so forth, and then several mare with 'Installing 5%' etc. At the
> end I had to restart. More games, 'Updating you computer..' Finally I was
> able to log in.  'Hi! Getting things ready for you'
> 
> I have no idea what was updated although I probably could hunt down the
> KB. The good news is it doesn't seem to have broken anything. I did a work
> machine that I hardly ever use anymore and a laptop which is solely used
> for accessing the corporate VPN so it wasn't a real stress test.
> 
> I suppose some day I'll move to Fedora 41 and Ubuntu 24.2 but if it ain't
> broken...

Like I just wrote in my previous post, the reason Windows did all that 
is because it essentially installed a new copy of the operating system 
on your computer and left the previous version on the disk in case there 
is a problem so you can revert to it. Linux overwrites, Windows installs 
anew. If I ran the operating system on a hard disk and had a slow 
Internet connection, I'd absolutely hate Windows for doing that. Since I 
don't, I appreciate the new installation which preserves all of my 
programs and settings yet cleans out any crap I might have amassed on 
the previous install.

-- 
CrudeSausage

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#680199

On 2024-12-14, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
> Le 2024-12-14 à 00:43, rbowman a écrit :
>> On Fri, 13 Dec 2024 22:07:11 -0500, DFS wrote:
>> 
>>> On 12/13/2024 10:40 AM, vallor wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's a lot easier to update Linux than Windows or MacOS.
>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe, maybe not.
>>>
>>> The massive update to Win11 24H2 was a few mouse clicks.  Absolutely no
>>> other user input was required.
>> 
>> There is a GUI but I prefer command line.
>> 
>>> sudo dnf update --refreah
>> 
>> gets the job done. I do have to enter my password. It then tells me which
>> packages will be updated and their sizes and asks me if I want to
>> continue.
>> 
>> I did update two machines to 24H2 this week. I got to play several games
>> of Mahjong solitaire while checking back  'Downloading 3%', Downloading
>> 13%' and so forth, and then several mare with 'Installing 5%' etc. At the
>> end I had to restart. More games, 'Updating you computer..' Finally I was
>> able to log in.  'Hi! Getting things ready for you'
>> 
>> I have no idea what was updated although I probably could hunt down the
>> KB. The good news is it doesn't seem to have broken anything. I did a work
>> machine that I hardly ever use anymore and a laptop which is solely used
>> for accessing the corporate VPN so it wasn't a real stress test.
>> 
>> I suppose some day I'll move to Fedora 41 and Ubuntu 24.2 but if it ain't
>> broken...
>
> Like I just wrote in my previous post, the reason Windows did all that 
> is because it essentially installed a new copy of the operating system 
> on your computer and left the previous version on the disk in case there 
> is a problem so you can revert to it. Linux overwrites, Windows installs 
> anew. If I ran the operating system on a hard disk and had a slow 
> Internet connection, I'd absolutely hate Windows for doing that. Since I 
> don't, I appreciate the new installation which preserves all of my 
> programs and settings yet cleans out any crap I might have amassed on 
> the previous install.

There's no real comparison. The way Windows updates simply sucks. Maybe some 
day Microsoft will figure out how to do it right. But there's reasons why 
Linux can update WITHOUT rebooting and Windows can't. Windows is an inferior 
OS.

-- 
“Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy 
what has been invented or made by the forces of good.”  —J.R.R. Tolkien

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#680217

On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 16:14:43 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

> There's no real comparison. The way Windows updates simply sucks. Maybe
> some day Microsoft will figure out how to do it right. But there's
> reasons why Linux can update WITHOUT rebooting and Windows can't.
> Windows is an inferior OS.

In all fairness my Fedora box is using an older kernel that what was 
downloaded because I haven't rebooted in a month. The good part is since I 
doubt there is any advantage for me with the new kernel I don't have to 
reboot and the other applications are updated correctly.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#680223

rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 16:14:43 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>
>> There's no real comparison. The way Windows updates simply sucks. Maybe
>> some day Microsoft will figure out how to do it right. But there's
>> reasons why Linux can update WITHOUT rebooting and Windows can't.
>> Windows is an inferior OS.
>
>In all fairness my Fedora box is using an older kernel that what was 
>downloaded because I haven't rebooted in a month. The good part is since I 
>doubt there is any advantage for me with the new kernel I don't have to 
>reboot and the other applications are updated correctly.


I have to reboot for most updates with Debian, I just put it off till
I feel like doing it, then do it, boot up again, boom.  It's a minor
concern, really, I'm not going for uptime as much as I am having the
best distro, and Debian seems to be it.

-- 
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent.  States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#680260

On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 15:06:50 -0500, Joel wrote:

> I have to reboot for most updates with Debian, I just put it off till I
> feel like doing it, then do it, boot up again, boom.  It's a minor
> concern, really, I'm not going for uptime as much as I am having the
> best distro, and Debian seems to be it.

I'm still running 32-bit Bullseye on that machine and it doesn't get much 
love. I don't think Bookworm even has a 32-bit option. Long story but I 
had to do 32-bit builds and that became increasingly painful on 64-bit 
distros.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#680296

On 2024-12-15, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 15:06:50 -0500, Joel wrote:
>
>> I have to reboot for most updates with Debian, I just put it off till I
>> feel like doing it, then do it, boot up again, boom.  It's a minor
>> concern, really, I'm not going for uptime as much as I am having the
>> best distro, and Debian seems to be it.
>
> I'm still running 32-bit Bullseye on that machine and it doesn't get much 
> love. I don't think Bookworm even has a 32-bit option. Long story but I 
> had to do 32-bit builds and that became increasingly painful on 64-bit 
> distros.

32-bit Bookworm is available. A couple weeks ago I updated a 2006 Dell 
Latitude D420 (Core Solo, 32-bit) Debian machine to Bookworm. No particular 
reason, I did it just to see if it could be done.

https://www.debian.org/distrib/

You used to be able to find 32-bit live USB .ISOs more easily. I think 
they're still available but not "officially."

-- 
“Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy 
what has been invented or made by the forces of good.”  —J.R.R. Tolkien

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#680315

Le 2024-12-14 à 15:06, Joel a écrit :
> rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 16:14:43 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>>
>>> There's no real comparison. The way Windows updates simply sucks. Maybe
>>> some day Microsoft will figure out how to do it right. But there's
>>> reasons why Linux can update WITHOUT rebooting and Windows can't.
>>> Windows is an inferior OS.
>>
>> In all fairness my Fedora box is using an older kernel that what was
>> downloaded because I haven't rebooted in a month. The good part is since I
>> doubt there is any advantage for me with the new kernel I don't have to
>> reboot and the other applications are updated correctly.
> 
> 
> I have to reboot for most updates with Debian, I just put it off till
> I feel like doing it, then do it, boot up again, boom.  It's a minor
> concern, really, I'm not going for uptime as much as I am having the
> best distro, and Debian seems to be it.

I'm looking forward to hearing how your faggot ass hopped to another 
distribution in about a month.

-- 
CrudeSausage

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#680295

On 2024-12-14, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 16:14:43 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>
>> There's no real comparison. The way Windows updates simply sucks. Maybe
>> some day Microsoft will figure out how to do it right. But there's
>> reasons why Linux can update WITHOUT rebooting and Windows can't.
>> Windows is an inferior OS.
>
> In all fairness my Fedora box is using an older kernel that what was 
> downloaded because I haven't rebooted in a month. The good part is since I 
> doubt there is any advantage for me with the new kernel I don't have to 
> reboot and the other applications are updated correctly.

Yeah. I like the way Fedora does that better than Ubuntu/Linux Mint. With 
them you get a "reboot required" message with some updates — even though you 
can ignore the message if you want to.

-- 
“Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy 
what has been invented or made by the forces of good.”  —J.R.R. Tolkien

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy

csiph-web