Pros and Cons of upgrading to Deuterium?

extraspecialbitter · 2017-08-13 12:49:57

In announcing the release of Deuterium a few months back, hhh stated "You do not need to install Deuterium if you have a working BunsenLabs installation!"

Taking the question a bit further, is there any advantage to performing this upgrade versus keeping one's Hydrogen system up-to-date?

Thanks in advance as always!

nobody · 2017-08-13 13:01:30

extraspecialbitter wrote:

Taking the question a bit further, is there any advantage to performing this upgrade versus keeping one's Hydrogen system up-to-date?

No.

It's just a set of upgraded packages.

There may be some differences in config files shipped which you won't use unless you create a new user account or copying /etc/skel over your current configs, but these are neglegible.

extraspecialbitter · 2017-08-13 13:05:55

twoion wrote:

extraspecialbitter wrote:
Taking the question a bit further, is there any advantage to performing this upgrade versus keeping one's Hydrogen system up-to-date?
No.
It's just a set of upgraded packages.
There may be some differences in config files shipped which you won't use unless you create a new user account or copying /etc/skel over your current configs, but these are negligible.

Thanks for the quick reply! I had suspected that by calling it a "point release" the main focus would be on new bl users or those wishing to install bl on a new computer or spare partition. I'm in the latter category, with a cheap late-model Dell laptop screaming for a new lease on life.

nobody · 2017-08-13 13:26:57

extraspecialbitter wrote:

twoion wrote:
extraspecialbitter wrote:
Taking the question a bit further, is there any advantage to performing this upgrade versus keeping one's Hydrogen system up-to-date?
No.
It's just a set of upgraded packages.
There may be some differences in config files shipped which you won't use unless you create a new user account or copying /etc/skel over your current configs, but these are negligible.
Thanks for the quick reply! I had suspected that by calling it a "point release" the main focus would be on new bl users or those wishing to install bl on a new computer or spare partition. I'm in the latter category, with a cheap late-model Dell laptop screaming for a new lease on life.

Point release, yes. In retrospect it seems it would have been more clear to not change nomenclature to a pun (Hydrogen->Deuterium) and just refresh the ISOs.

Head_on_a_Stick · 2017-08-13 13:40:10

twoion wrote:

In retrospect it seems it would have been more clear to not change nomenclature to a pun (Hydrogen->Deuterium) and just refresh the ISOs.

+1

@OP: please regularly update your system, it is unwise to let it get too far out of date, especially in respect of upgrades from the Debian Security Team.

You should be running these commands at least every month or so:

sudo apt update && sudo apt upgrade

If the output of the second command claims that some packages are "left un-upgraded" then you may also have to use

sudo apt-get dist-upgrade

If you are using BunsenLabs for anything important then I would recommend installing the unattended-upgrades package to ensure that any Security-related updates are applied automatically and in a timely manner.

extraspecialbitter · 2017-08-13 13:58:30

I'm happy to say that I run "sudo apt-get update && apt-get upgrade" fairly frequently, and so far I haven't run into too many issues with packages failing to upgrade. What I hadn't done until now was add the "unattended-upgrades" package. Thanks for the tip.

As a humorous aside, I initially misread "unattended-upgrades" as "unintended-upgrades" and remember a fellow sys admin inadvertently running "yum -y update" without arguments on a very important server. By the time he was able to control-C out of the command, it was already too late.

Head_on_a_Stick · 2017-08-13 14:16:55

extraspecialbitter wrote:

remember a fellow sys admin inadvertently running "yum -y update" without arguments on a very important server. By the time he was able to control-C out of the command, it was already too late.

It's even worse with Arch — once the database is updated then all the packages must be upgraded too, you can't just chicken out and bail on the upgrade if you don't like the new package list... :cry:

KrunchTime · 2017-08-14 23:32:51

Head_on_a_Stick wrote:

It's even worse with Arch — once the database is updated then all the packages must be upgraded too, you can't just chicken out and bail on the upgrade if you don't like the new package list... :cry:

That seems kind of stupid. And you recommended that I try that distro?

Head_on_a_Stick · 2017-08-15 06:33:00

KrunchTime wrote:

That seems kind of stupid

Not really, it's just the nature of the distribution.

Arch forum Admistrator jasonwryan said it best, I think:

JWR wrote:

Arch is like a bike, it's only stable when it's rolling

Whenever new packages are uploaded to the Arch repositories, the maintainers presume that everybody has the very latest versions of all the other packages in Arch on their system and this means that a _full_ system upgrade is needed every time a new package is installed.

In my experience, problems only happen in Arch if you _stop_ updating regularly.

you recommended that I try that distro?

Yes, in my experience it is more reliable than Debian sid and *much* simpler to manage and manipulate.

Debian sid is not intended for day-to-day usage, the developers' focus is on the stable release; Arch _is_ intended for day-to-day use and the developers try to ensure that it always works (well, the critical parts at least).

KrunchTime · 2017-08-15 07:48:11

Head_on_a_Stick wrote:

KrunchTime wrote:
That seems kind of stupid
Not really, it's just the nature of the distribution.
Arch forum Admistrator jasonwryan said it best, I think:
JWR wrote:
Arch is like a bike, it's only stable when it's rolling
Whenever new packages are uploaded to the Arch repositories, the maintainers presume that everybody has the very latest versions of all the other packages in Arch on their system and this means that a _full_ system upgrade is needed every time a new package is installed.
In my experience, problems only happen in Arch if you _stop_ updating regularly.

Okay, that makes sense.

Head_on_a_Stick wrote:

you recommended that I try that distro?
Yes, in my experience it is more reliable than Debian sid and *much* simpler to manage and manipulate.
Debian sid is not intended for day-to-day usage, the developers' focus is on the stable release; Arch _is_ intended for day-to-day use and the developers try to ensure that it always works (well, the critical parts at least).

Thank you for the clarification. Another benefit is there is no freeze.

Last edited by KrunchTime (2017-08-15 07:49:29)

johnraff · 2017-08-16 01:23:51

Head_on_a_Stick wrote:

If you are using BunsenLabs for anything important then I would recommend installing the unattended-upgrades package to ensure that any Security-related updates are applied automatically and in a timely manner.

Should we consider shipping that by default?

KrunchTime · 2017-08-16 01:25:57

^ No, if shipping it also means enabling it. I'm only speaking for myself. I don't need/want something to automatically install stuff without my asking for it.

Head_on_a_Stick · 2017-08-16 06:17:23

johnraff wrote:

Head_on_a_Stick wrote:
If you are using BunsenLabs for anything important then I would recommend installing the unattended-upgrades package to ensure that any Security-related updates are applied automatically and in a timely manner.
Should we consider shipping that by default?

I was thinking the same thing — I use that package myself in the family Debian system, it really is very useful.

KrunchTime wrote:

I don't need/want something to automatically install stuff without my asking for it.

It is actually standard Debian practice for packages to install and enable any related systemd unit files automatically; I also find this irritating but it is entirely normal for Debian.

Arch and OpenBSD both do not automatically enable services upon installation, that is left to the user.

damo · 2017-08-16 09:22:06

Head_on_a_Stick wrote:

...
KrunchTime wrote:
I don't need/want something to automatically install stuff without my asking for it.
It is actually standard Debian practice for packages to install and enable any related systemd unit files automatically; I also find this irritating but it is entirely normal for Debian.
....

The issue here is whether you want automatic download and installation of packages. I'm with @KrunchTime: I would like to initiate it, or be asked first.

Sector11 · 2017-08-16 13:52:01

I'm with KrunchTime and damo. I would prefer updating/upgrading myself.

For example I don't want this yet.

Retrieving bug reports... Done
Parsing Found/Fixed information... Done
serious bugs of firefox-esr (52.2.0esr-1~deb8u1 → 52.3.0esr-1~deb8u1) <Outstanding>
 b1 - #871942 - firefox-esr: Firefox will not render the YouTube page correctly nor play YT videos rel 8/12/17.
Summary:
 firefox-esr(1 bug)
Are you sure you want to install/upgrade the above packages? [Y/n/?/...] n
**********************************************************************
****** Exiting with an error in order to stop the installation. ******
**********************************************************************
E: Sub-process /usr/sbin/apt-listbugs apt returned an error code (10)
E: Failure running script /usr/sbin/apt-listbugs apt
 
 16 Aug 17 @ 10:48:34 ~
   $

damo · 2017-08-16 14:15:40

^ HoaS is talking about auto-updates of security patches though, not general packages.

Sector11 · 2017-08-16 15:34:08

Yes I realize that and that's all oldstable is suppose to be getting at the moment I believe.

That's oldstable up there. That version of FF I don't want at the moment. So like you:

damo wrote:

I'm with @KrunchTime: I would like to initiate it, or be asked first.

Head_on_a_Stick · 2017-08-16 19:44:56

damo wrote:

The issue here is whether you want automatic download and installation of packages. I'm with @KrunchTime: I would like to initiate it, or be asked first.

I meant that the package works by installing and enabling a systemd .service that runs /sbin/unattended-upgrades automatically; Debian always presumes that the user wants the related .services enabled if the package is to be installed.

damo wrote:

S11 wrote:
That version of FF I don't want at the moment
HoaS is talking about auto-updates of security patches though, not general packages.

Updates for the firefox-esr package are always from the Debian Security Team.

@S11 — you should install the new version *as soon as possible* because the browser you are using has _known_ vulnerabilities and these are far more serious than any reported [1] inability to play YT videos.

Updates from the Debian Security Team should always be applied promptly, they are critical.

[1] Have you even tried the new version? My OpenBSD box plays YT fine with www/firefox-esr (same upstream version).

Sector11 · 2017-08-16 19:58:09

Head_on_a_Stick wrote:

@S11 — you should install the new version *as soon as possible* because the browser you are using has _known_ vulnerabilities and these are far more serious than any reported [1] inability to play YT videos.
Updates from the Debian Security Team should always be applied promptly, they are critical.

OK, burned into brain, and watching WTF Moments Caught On Camera #12 with FF 52.3.0 (64-bit)

Thank you, my bad. But the video is good.

damo · 2017-08-16 20:55:43

Head_on_a_Stick wrote:

...
I meant that the package works by installing and enabling a systemd .service that runs /sbin/unattended-upgrades automatically; Debian always presumes that the user wants the related .services enabled if the package is to be installed.
....

Is that the same thing as already used by the BL flash updater? In which case it is fair enough

#1 2017-08-13 12:49:57

Pros and Cons of upgrading to Deuterium?

#2 2017-08-13 13:01:30

Re: Pros and Cons of upgrading to Deuterium?

#3 2017-08-13 13:05:55

Re: Pros and Cons of upgrading to Deuterium?

#4 2017-08-13 13:26:57

Re: Pros and Cons of upgrading to Deuterium?

#5 2017-08-13 13:40:10

Re: Pros and Cons of upgrading to Deuterium?

#6 2017-08-13 13:58:30

Re: Pros and Cons of upgrading to Deuterium?

#7 2017-08-13 14:16:55

Re: Pros and Cons of upgrading to Deuterium?

#8 2017-08-14 23:32:51

Re: Pros and Cons of upgrading to Deuterium?

#9 2017-08-15 06:33:00

Re: Pros and Cons of upgrading to Deuterium?

#10 2017-08-15 07:48:11

Re: Pros and Cons of upgrading to Deuterium?

#11 2017-08-16 01:23:51

Re: Pros and Cons of upgrading to Deuterium?

#12 2017-08-16 01:25:57

Re: Pros and Cons of upgrading to Deuterium?

#13 2017-08-16 06:17:23

Re: Pros and Cons of upgrading to Deuterium?

#14 2017-08-16 09:22:06

Re: Pros and Cons of upgrading to Deuterium?

#15 2017-08-16 13:52:01

Re: Pros and Cons of upgrading to Deuterium?

#16 2017-08-16 14:15:40

Re: Pros and Cons of upgrading to Deuterium?

#17 2017-08-16 15:34:08

Re: Pros and Cons of upgrading to Deuterium?

#18 2017-08-16 19:44:56

Re: Pros and Cons of upgrading to Deuterium?

#19 2017-08-16 19:58:09

Re: Pros and Cons of upgrading to Deuterium?

#20 2017-08-16 20:55:43

Re: Pros and Cons of upgrading to Deuterium?

Board footer