Windows Update get's a lot of flak. To be honest my only problem is that it forces an update and defaults to do so completely automatically. It does also occasionally have problems.
Anyway, this isn't really about Windows Update. When I mentioned my Windows Update issues (minor really, just don't want it to reboot without my consent and close everything I'm working on) they effectively said that Linux Mint fixes every single problem with Windows Update.
Now, being that I had used Mint before and I was well aware that it fixed absolutely nothing, I decided to fire up Mint 16, Petra, in a fresh VM install. After installation, I ran an Update.
Total size was around 200MB of updates. Fairly large, but hey, if it works, no problem.
So I left it updating and went on about my business in my host. I forgot about the VM until the next day, when I switched to it, and was greeted by this:
In other words, this is not "automatic" by any metric at all. It stopped probably within a few minutes to display this prompt.
What is it asking? It's asking me if I want to replace defaults.list. Should I know what this is or what it does? Why is it asking me? It was a fresh install, so is it asking because there can be side effects from replacing a default? Did it detect changes to that file? Why is it asking for that file, and not any of the others?
I expanded the window to see the differences, which was helpful in that it told me absolutely nothing except displaying a bunch of line noise garbage that might have been meaningful if I either knew or cared what defaults.list is supposed to do.
the best part is that once I expanded it, I could not shrink it; pressing the - to shrink it hid the textbox displaying differences, but left the dialog at it's expanded size.
The problem being that now I could not press either of the buttons. So I pressed enter, on the idea that the default had been sensibly chosen.
The default was in fact to keep the current file. So now my defaults.list file is out of date. that VM works fine however the issue here is that the System asked me a stupid question. Even after I learned what the defaults.list file was, I am still puzzled by why it would ask that question. Whomever designed it was following the motto "when it doubt, ask the user". Ignoring the fact that the user may not be equipped to answer that question.
The default was in fact to keep the current file. So now my defaults.list file is out of date. that VM works fine however the issue here is that the System asked me a stupid question. Even after I learned what the defaults.list file was, I am still puzzled by why it would ask that question. Whomever designed it was following the motto "when it doubt, ask the user". Ignoring the fact that the user may not be equipped to answer that question.
Lovely program and UI design, there. Arch Linux's pacman will at least, in such situations, automatically overwrite files like this and rename the older version (that you may or may not have manually tweaked) to filename.extension.pacold or something like that without prompting.
Does Mint 16's update manager still suddenly close, making you think it's gone and segfaulted or something when it's finished updating? That's also super user friendly.
Does Mint 16's update manager still suddenly close, making you think it's gone and segfaulted or something when it's finished updating? That's also super user friendly.
I think so, I seem to remember starting it again to see if it would show any further updates, which I wouldn't have had to do had it stayed alive, I suppose.
Mai nreason I focussed on Mint was because that is what the person I was discussing it with used. He was going on about how everything "just works" with Linux, then posted a picture of Windows Update to show how "terrible" the OS is- "Never have to deal with this in Linux Mint" which is why I captured the screenie.
I seem to recall that it will install Kernel updates but they won't actually be 'enabled' until the system is restarted- I'm not sure if there is hot-patching in any capacity yet. That's fine, but the updaters (such as synaptic) will install said patches and insist the system is up to date, even though it will technically require a reboot. There is ksplice, but Mint doesn't use that- apparently that requires further installation/configuration, including the excitement of manually fixing the APT line in software sources. I'm unsure if that allows the Standard Update tool to splice in Kernel changes.
Either way, the only reasonable way to get kernel changes (or lib changes, in many cases) in place on pretty much any system is a proper reboot. I think that's why Windows Update doesn't use it, even though hot-patching of Windows Components has been supported since Server 2003, they decided to go the route of simply rebooting after those sorts of low-level changes, most likely due to a few caveats with hot-patching that could result in problems or certain applications continuing to use non-hotpatched code.
Thus the problem for me is that folks like my friend seem to think that because their Linux distribution doesn't force an update, that not only is it not necessary, but "Windows can't do that"; even though the real reason is that in both cases Hot-patching of low-level components is something thatshould only be done by those who know what they are doing, and otherwise a reboot is going to be needed; since Linux distributions don't use ksplice( or, to be fair, Mint doesn't, at least) A reboot is really needed to get the update fully installed.
It might just be related to apt-based updaters. Though from what I can tell ksplice support is really only something you'll get if you have a support contract with somebody like red hat or ksplice themselves.
Since Arch Linux and some other distros are more or less designed for folks already familiar with the Linux eco-system and (typically) they are not marketed as a "Windows replacement" even if they do happen to have some UI irregularities, the type of users who use it are going to be experienced enough to know what they need to do, or, to answer the questions such a program may ask. I'm more 'against' the idea that 'anybody can use Linux on their desktop PC' because those supposed alternatives make the sort of UI blunders I describe, but most people who claim it to be a viable alternative are experienced enough to not actually see how that would be a UI blunder to a new user of such a system.
I can't speak for Mint, however I have heard stories with update problems.
Setting up the kernel to hotpatch is pretty simple and from a server standpoint you are going to stay on an older kernel. Of course you are probably going to be running RHEL or another platform with a more competent updater.
I have set up Ubuntu machines with unattended-upgrades with the machines having started on 12.04 and they are now on 13.10. Nothing has broken yet in any major way, a Gnome shell update ruined some of my configs however that was simple enough to fix.
On the size of updates if someone implements zync into their package manager then they will get much love from me. Fedora can do something similar with their delta stuff. I use this to grab my phone updates and it saves a lot of extra downloading.
apt-get is also terrible and can only pull from one server at a time. I use apt-fast on all Ubuntu machines I ever use.
Also from a server standpoint WSUS is great and no Linux distro to my knowledge has anything similar built in.
That is true. I have the same problem as BC_P I want to go to bed. But I must stay with the updates because I must turn off the power.
IF you are referring to this:
(minor really, just don't want it to reboot without my consent and close everything I'm working on)
I Fixed it afterwards by changing Update options. My problem at that time was that I was in the middle of something that is a pain to get interrupted (debugging with a crapton of windows open and explorer windows open on the network VPN, terminals, etc.) And Windows 8/8.1 at default settings basically tells you what is going to happen and gives you no chance to stop it. "PC will reboot in 10 minutes, if you don't like it too bad" type thing. Changing update options at that point didn't stop it since such a change requires a reboot so eventually it just force closed everything I was doing. Then it took three hours to install one update.
You know you can hit the "shut down" button while windows is installing updates, and it will finish installing, then turn off the computer, yes?
But I want to turn off the power at the wall. I can't sleep green lights from my speakers and since it is as hot as heck here it is impossible to sleep with a heavy cover over my face you would be surprised to see how much it lights up the room and I need 0 light to fall asleep.
Not to mention doing my bit for the environment I suppose.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
This is a legacy account, meaning it is no longer active
On the above complaints about updates interrupting.
Man only if Windows had schedules updates that could bring a computer out of sleep mode. If it had that you could set that up and never be interrupted by updates ever again.
But I want to turn off the power at the wall. I can't sleep green lights from my speakers and since it is as hot as heck here it is impossible to sleep with a heavy cover over my face you would be surprised to see how much it lights up the room and I need 0 light to fall asleep.
Every modern motherboard has a "good night" function in the BIOS for the case lights where they turn off after a certain time at night, or are just off all together. You don't need your speakers on if you're shutting the computer down either.
Not to mention doing my bit for the environment I suppose.
You really aren't doing anything significant. If anything you are causing more damage because the power plant is still generating the same amount of electricity, it's just not going to your house.
On the above complaints about updates interrupting.
Man only if Windows had schedules updates that could bring a computer out of sleep mode. If it had that you could set that up and never be interrupted by updates ever again.
99% sure this exists somewhere in the control panel. My old NAS was set up this way.
Man only if Windows had schedules updates that could bring a computer out of sleep mode. If it had that you could set that up and never be interrupted by updates ever again.
Oh what jolly fun that one is. It does have such, but it is not the most pleasant thing ever.
Ideally, if Windows Update is set to Automatic. An if the bios is set to S3 (I think or better) sleep state then Windows can wake the system up if it has not been used in awhile and check for updates at the daily time set. It is ultimately bios dependent and as well kind of sleep mode, but hibernation wont work as that is different. It also must be AC powered to add to that for it is a requirement.
It is ultimately bios dependent on what sleep state and handling the bios does. By this, if the bios allows the OS to handle ACPI wakeup events or if the bios handles in which probably wont allow this to work as the OS needs control.
Complete rat nest if you want a simple version that I could throw out. Or just to say it's crap.
Oh what jolly fun that one is. It does have such, but it is not the most pleasant thing ever.
Ideally, if Windows Update is set to Automatic. An if the bios is set to S3 (I think or better) sleep state then Windows can wake the system up if it has not been used in awhile and check for updates at the daily time set. It is ultimately bios dependent and as well kind of sleep mode, but hibernation wont work as that is different. It also must be AC powered to add to that for it is a requirement.
It is ultimately bios dependent on what sleep state and handling the bios does. By this, if the bios allows the OS to handle ACPI wakeup events or if the bios handles in which probably wont allow this to work as the OS needs control.
Complete rat nest if you want a simple version that I could throw out. Or just to say it's crap.
That was kinda tongue in cheek I know it exists and it always works well for me. There is also a setting to do it during the computers normal maintenance also while the OS defrags automatically.
Anyway, this isn't really about Windows Update. When I mentioned my Windows Update issues (minor really, just don't want it to reboot without my consent and close everything I'm working on) they effectively said that Linux Mint fixes every single problem with Windows Update.
Now, being that I had used Mint before and I was well aware that it fixed absolutely nothing, I decided to fire up Mint 16, Petra, in a fresh VM install. After installation, I ran an Update.
Total size was around 200MB of updates. Fairly large, but hey, if it works, no problem.
So I left it updating and went on about my business in my host. I forgot about the VM until the next day, when I switched to it, and was greeted by this:
In other words, this is not "automatic" by any metric at all. It stopped probably within a few minutes to display this prompt.
What is it asking? It's asking me if I want to replace defaults.list. Should I know what this is or what it does? Why is it asking me? It was a fresh install, so is it asking because there can be side effects from replacing a default? Did it detect changes to that file? Why is it asking for that file, and not any of the others?
I expanded the window to see the differences, which was helpful in that it told me absolutely nothing except displaying a bunch of line noise garbage that might have been meaningful if I either knew or cared what defaults.list is supposed to do.
the best part is that once I expanded it, I could not shrink it; pressing the - to shrink it hid the textbox displaying differences, but left the dialog at it's expanded size.
The problem being that now I could not press either of the buttons. So I pressed enter, on the idea that the default had been sensibly chosen.
The default was in fact to keep the current file. So now my defaults.list file is out of date. that VM works fine however the issue here is that the System asked me a stupid question. Even after I learned what the defaults.list file was, I am still puzzled by why it would ask that question. Whomever designed it was following the motto "when it doubt, ask the user". Ignoring the fact that the user may not be equipped to answer that question.
Lovely program and UI design, there. Arch Linux's pacman will at least, in such situations, automatically overwrite files like this and rename the older version (that you may or may not have manually tweaked) to filename.extension.pacold or something like that without prompting.
Does Mint 16's update manager still suddenly close, making you think it's gone and segfaulted or something when it's finished updating? That's also super user friendly.
I think so, I seem to remember starting it again to see if it would show any further updates, which I wouldn't have had to do had it stayed alive, I suppose.
Mai nreason I focussed on Mint was because that is what the person I was discussing it with used. He was going on about how everything "just works" with Linux, then posted a picture of Windows Update to show how "terrible" the OS is- "Never have to deal with this in Linux Mint" which is why I captured the screenie.
I seem to recall that it will install Kernel updates but they won't actually be 'enabled' until the system is restarted- I'm not sure if there is hot-patching in any capacity yet. That's fine, but the updaters (such as synaptic) will install said patches and insist the system is up to date, even though it will technically require a reboot. There is ksplice, but Mint doesn't use that- apparently that requires further installation/configuration, including the excitement of manually fixing the APT line in software sources. I'm unsure if that allows the Standard Update tool to splice in Kernel changes.
Either way, the only reasonable way to get kernel changes (or lib changes, in many cases) in place on pretty much any system is a proper reboot. I think that's why Windows Update doesn't use it, even though hot-patching of Windows Components has been supported since Server 2003, they decided to go the route of simply rebooting after those sorts of low-level changes, most likely due to a few caveats with hot-patching that could result in problems or certain applications continuing to use non-hotpatched code.
Thus the problem for me is that folks like my friend seem to think that because their Linux distribution doesn't force an update, that not only is it not necessary, but "Windows can't do that"; even though the real reason is that in both cases Hot-patching of low-level components is something thatshould only be done by those who know what they are doing, and otherwise a reboot is going to be needed; since Linux distributions don't use ksplice( or, to be fair, Mint doesn't, at least) A reboot is really needed to get the update fully installed.
It might just be related to apt-based updaters. Though from what I can tell ksplice support is really only something you'll get if you have a support contract with somebody like red hat or ksplice themselves.
Since Arch Linux and some other distros are more or less designed for folks already familiar with the Linux eco-system and (typically) they are not marketed as a "Windows replacement" even if they do happen to have some UI irregularities, the type of users who use it are going to be experienced enough to know what they need to do, or, to answer the questions such a program may ask. I'm more 'against' the idea that 'anybody can use Linux on their desktop PC' because those supposed alternatives make the sort of UI blunders I describe, but most people who claim it to be a viable alternative are experienced enough to not actually see how that would be a UI blunder to a new user of such a system.
This is a legacy account, meaning it is no longer active
This is a good thing, from a computer security standpoint.
Unless you like running a vulnerable machine for months after a major exploit is discovered.
Setting up the kernel to hotpatch is pretty simple and from a server standpoint you are going to stay on an older kernel. Of course you are probably going to be running RHEL or another platform with a more competent updater.
I have set up Ubuntu machines with unattended-upgrades with the machines having started on 12.04 and they are now on 13.10. Nothing has broken yet in any major way, a Gnome shell update ruined some of my configs however that was simple enough to fix.
On the size of updates if someone implements zync into their package manager then they will get much love from me. Fedora can do something similar with their delta stuff. I use this to grab my phone updates and it saves a lot of extra downloading.
apt-get is also terrible and can only pull from one server at a time. I use apt-fast on all Ubuntu machines I ever use.
Also from a server standpoint WSUS is great and no Linux distro to my knowledge has anything similar built in.
That is true. I have the same problem as BC_P I want to go to bed. But I must stay with the updates because I must turn off the power.
This is a legacy account, meaning it is no longer active
You know you can hit the "shut down" button while windows is installing updates, and it will finish installing, then turn off the computer, yes?
IF you are referring to this:
I Fixed it afterwards by changing Update options. My problem at that time was that I was in the middle of something that is a pain to get interrupted (debugging with a crapton of windows open and explorer windows open on the network VPN, terminals, etc.) And Windows 8/8.1 at default settings basically tells you what is going to happen and gives you no chance to stop it. "PC will reboot in 10 minutes, if you don't like it too bad" type thing. Changing update options at that point didn't stop it since such a change requires a reboot so eventually it just force closed everything I was doing. Then it took three hours to install one update.
But I want to turn off the power at the wall. I can't sleep green lights from my speakers and since it is as hot as heck here it is impossible to sleep with a heavy cover over my face you would be surprised to see how much it lights up the room and I need 0 light to fall asleep.
Not to mention doing my bit for the environment I suppose.
This is a legacy account, meaning it is no longer active
Man only if Windows had schedules updates that could bring a computer out of sleep mode. If it had that you could set that up and never be interrupted by updates ever again.
You really aren't doing anything significant. If anything you are causing more damage because the power plant is still generating the same amount of electricity, it's just not going to your house.
99% sure this exists somewhere in the control panel. My old NAS was set up this way.
Oh what jolly fun that one is. It does have such, but it is not the most pleasant thing ever.
Ideally, if Windows Update is set to Automatic. An if the bios is set to S3 (I think or better) sleep state then Windows can wake the system up if it has not been used in awhile and check for updates at the daily time set. It is ultimately bios dependent and as well kind of sleep mode, but hibernation wont work as that is different. It also must be AC powered to add to that for it is a requirement.
It is ultimately bios dependent on what sleep state and handling the bios does. By this, if the bios allows the OS to handle ACPI wakeup events or if the bios handles in which probably wont allow this to work as the OS needs control.
Complete rat nest if you want a simple version that I could throw out. Or just to say it's crap.
That was kinda tongue in cheek I know it exists and it always works well for me. There is also a setting to do it during the computers normal maintenance also while the OS defrags automatically.