www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.announce - [OT Security PSA] Shellshock: Update your bash, now!

reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
Don't mean to be alarmist, but I'm posting this in case anyone else is 
like me and hasn't been paying attention since this news broke (AIUI) 
about a week ago.

Apparently bash has it's own "heartbleed" now, dubbed "shellshock". Warm 
fuzzy flashbacks of "TMNT: The Arcade Game" aside, this appears to be 
pretty nasty *and* it affects pretty much every version of bash ever 
released. And of course bash exists on practically everything, 
so...pretty big deal. Security sites, blogs-o'-spheres, cloudosphere, 
etc are all over this one. (Don't know how I managed to miss it until now.)

Patches have been issued (and likely more to come from what I gather), so:

Go update bash on all your computers and server, NOW. No, don't hit 
reply, do it now. Personally, I'd keep updating fairly frequently until 
the whole matter settles down a bit.

Since the security folks have been jumping at this, getting a fixed bash 
should be trivial. Debian already has patched versions in its repos 
(even for Debian 6 if you're using the LTS repo). Other distros likely 
have patched versions now too. So you have no excuse!

More info:
http://www.troyhunt.com/2014/09/everything-you-need-to-know-about.html
https://www.digitalocean.com/community/tutorials/how-to-protect-your-server-against-the-shellshock-bash-vulnerability
https://startpage.com/do/search?query=bash+shellshock

--------------------
HOW TO CHECK/UPDATE:
--------------------

Test for vulnerability like this (supposed to be one line):
$ env 'VAR=() { :;}; echo Bash is vulnerable!' 'FUNCTION()=() { :;}; 
echo Bash is vulnerable!' bash -c "echo Bash Test"

Update to a fixed bash:

Debian Testing (and probably Deb 7, though I don't have an installation 
of 7 to confirm):
$ sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get install bash

Debian 6: (Including setting up the LTS repos):
$ sudo cat 'deb http://http.debian.net/debian squeeze-lts main contrib 
non-free' >> /etc/apt/sources.list
$ sudo cat 'deb-src http://http.debian.net/debian squeeze-lts main 
contrib non-free' >> /etc/apt/sources.list
$ sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get install bash

Other OSes/distros are likely equally easy. Please, reply with examples 
to help ensure other people on the same OS/distro as you have no excuse 
not to update!
Sep 30 2014
next sibling parent Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On 10/01/2014 01:09 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 Debian 6: (Including setting up the LTS repos):
 $ sudo cat 'deb http://http.debian.net/debian squeeze-lts main contrib
 non-free' >> /etc/apt/sources.list
 $ sudo cat 'deb-src http://http.debian.net/debian squeeze-lts main
 contrib non-free' >> /etc/apt/sources.list
 $ sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get install bash


Pffft, ok, so I'm a little brain-fried. Obviously those first two lines 
should be:

$ sudo echo 'deb http://http.debian.net/debian squeeze-lts main contrib 
non-free' >> /etc/apt/sources.list
$ sudo echo 'deb-src http://http.debian.net/debian squeeze-lts main 
contrib non-free' >> /etc/apt/sources.list

Keep or omit the "non-free" and "contrib" as you wish. Or, you know, 
just get off of Debian 6 to say, Debian 7 or something ;)
Sep 30 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d-announce writes:
On 1 October 2014 06:09, Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d-announce
<digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com> wrote:

 Don't mean to be alarmist, but I'm posting this in case anyone else is like
 me and hasn't been paying attention since this news broke (AIUI) about a
 week ago.

 Apparently bash has it's own "heartbleed" now, dubbed "shellshock". Warm
 fuzzy flashbacks of "TMNT: The Arcade Game" aside, this appears to be pretty
 nasty *and* it affects pretty much every version of bash ever released. And
 of course bash exists on practically everything, so...pretty big deal.
 Security sites, blogs-o'-spheres, cloudosphere, etc are all over this one.
 (Don't know how I managed to miss it until now.)

 Patches have been issued (and likely more to come from what I gather), so:

 Go update bash on all your computers and server, NOW. No, don't hit reply,
 do it now. Personally, I'd keep updating fairly frequently until the whole
 matter settles down a bit.


At work we do two things:

1) Add our main email to the Debian Security ML, so we tend to know
about any vulnerabilities that need patching at least 24 hours before
it hits the media.

2) Use an automated configuration management system, such as Puppet.
By the time we read the initial email, the fix had already been
applied to all servers without manual intervention. ;)

Of course, merely updating your packages is not enough to keep you
safe.  You must also consider which front-end facing applications are
using the now patched software, and restart it.

grep libvulnerable /proc/*/maps | grep deleted


Iain
Oct 01 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On 10/1/14 1:09 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 Patches have been issued (and likely more to come from what I gather), so:


FWIW, MacOS X now has an update for bash that fixes the bug, apparently 
came out last night.

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT6495

-Steve
Oct 01 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "JN" <666total wp.pl> writes:
On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 at 05:09:45 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
wrote:

 Other OSes/distros are likely equally easy. Please, reply with 
 examples to help ensure other people on the same OS/distro as 
 you have no excuse not to update!


I find it ironic that it's another "big global" security hole 
about which Windows users don't even have to be concerned about.
Oct 01 2014
next sibling parent reply "eles" <eles eles.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 at 13:41:43 UTC, JN wrote:

 On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 at 05:09:45 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
 wrote:



 I find it ironic that it's another "big global" security hole 
 about which Windows users don't even have to be concerned about.


That's of course very true, since Windows runs on no serious 
servers.
Oct 01 2014
parent reply "Paulo Pinto" <pjmlp progtools.org> writes:
On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 at 13:58:25 UTC, eles wrote:

 On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 at 13:41:43 UTC, JN wrote:

 On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 at 05:09:45 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
 wrote:



 I find it ironic that it's another "big global" security hole 
 about which Windows users don't even have to be concerned 
 about.


 That's of course very true, since Windows runs on no serious 
 servers.


You would be surprised how some Fortune 500 companies are doing 
their serious work in 100% Windows servers.

Sadly I need to comply with NDAs.

--
Paulo
Oct 01 2014
parent reply "Kagamin" <spam here.lot> writes:
On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 at 14:29:16 UTC, Paulo  Pinto wrote:

 You would be surprised how some Fortune 500 companies are doing 
 their serious work in 100% Windows servers.

 Sadly I need to comply with NDAs.


Isn't NASDAQ enough?
Oct 01 2014
parent reply "eles" <eles eles.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 at 14:41:22 UTC, Kagamin wrote:

 On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 at 14:29:16 UTC, Paulo  Pinto 
 wrote:



 Isn't NASDAQ enough?


You might be right, after all. There are some Windows-specific 
symptoms that support that assertion:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-01/nasdaq-shuts-options-market-for-almost-entire-day-on-malfunction.html
Oct 01 2014
parent "eles" <eles eles.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 at 15:42:04 UTC, eles wrote:

 On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 at 14:41:22 UTC, Kagamin wrote:

 On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 at 14:29:16 UTC, Paulo  Pinto 
 wrote:



 Isn't NASDAQ enough?


 You might be right, after all. There are some Windows-specific 
 symptoms that support that assertion:

 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-01/nasdaq-shuts-options-market-for-almost-entire-day-on-malfunction.html


I mean, the asserion is: is enough, even more than enough.
Oct 01 2014
prev sibling parent reply Brad Roberts via Digitalmars-d-announce writes:
On 10/1/2014 6:41 AM, JN via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:

 On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 at 05:09:45 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 Other OSes/distros are likely equally easy. Please, reply with
 examples to help ensure other people on the same OS/distro as you have
 no excuse not to update!


 I find it ironic that it's another "big global" security hole about
 which Windows users don't even have to be concerned about.


False.

All of my windows boxes needed to be updated.  One of the first things I 
do on any new windows box is install cygwin to get a saner development 
environment with bash as my shell.

I wouldn't be shocked at all if other windows apps bundle bash for one 
reason or another too.  It might not come as part of the base install 
(though given the huge pile of stuff that gets installed, I wouldn't put 
huge bets on it not lurking off in a dark corner somewhere), but that's 
not the end of the story.
Oct 01 2014
next sibling parent Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On 10/01/2014 03:19 PM, Brad Roberts via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:

 On 10/1/2014 6:41 AM, JN via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:

 On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 at 05:09:45 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 Other OSes/distros are likely equally easy. Please, reply with
 examples to help ensure other people on the same OS/distro as you have
 no excuse not to update!


 I find it ironic that it's another "big global" security hole about
 which Windows users don't even have to be concerned about.


 False.

 All of my windows boxes needed to be updated.  One of the first things I
 do on any new windows box is install cygwin to get a saner development
 environment with bash as my shell.


Yea. I've been very tempted to put bash on my Win desktops as well. 
Heck, I may even have some old installation of msys/mingw bash still 
lying around somewhere.


 I wouldn't be shocked at all if other windows apps bundle bash for one
 reason or another too.  It might not come as part of the base install
 (though given the huge pile of stuff that gets installed, I wouldn't put
 huge bets on it not lurking off in a dark corner somewhere), but that's
 not the end of the story.


Yup, Git comes to mind. (Or at least Git GUI?) Don't know whether that 
actually exposes any attack vectors, but I guess that's kinda the big 
question everyone's trying to find out, isn't it? "What are all the 
possible attack vectors of this flaw?" Some of them have been 
discovered, but who knows what else there may be.
Oct 01 2014
prev sibling parent Leandro Lucarella <luca llucax.com.ar> writes:
Brad Roberts via Digitalmars-d-announce, el  1 de October a las 12:19 me
escribiste:

 On 10/1/2014 6:41 AM, JN via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:

On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 at 05:09:45 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

Other OSes/distros are likely equally easy. Please, reply with
examples to help ensure other people on the same OS/distro as you have
no excuse not to update!


I find it ironic that it's another "big global" security hole about
which Windows users don't even have to be concerned about.


 
 False.
 
 All of my windows boxes needed to be updated.  One of the first
 things I do on any new windows box is install cygwin to get a saner
 development environment with bash as my shell.
 
 I wouldn't be shocked at all if other windows apps bundle bash for


You mean...    "shellshocked"? 8-)

Sorry, somebody has to do it...


I still don't see where the irony is though, honestly.

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca)                     http://llucax.com.ar/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
una vez mas voy a arrastrar mi alma por el suelo
y no me importa sentirme mal, si es lo que quiero
tragando polvo, llorando sangre, anocheciendo
una vez mas voy a cerrar mis ojos para siempre
Oct 04 2014
prev sibling parent reply "Kagamin" <spam here.lot> writes:
On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 at 05:09:45 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
wrote:

 Apparently bash has it's own "heartbleed" now, dubbed 
 "shellshock".


Does it affect dash?
Also, how does one update software on linux? Last I checked, when 
new version is out, repository of the previous version becomes 
utterly abandoned. A pity, on windows one can roll new software 
versions as long as they are maintained.
Oct 01 2014
next sibling parent reply Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On 10/1/14 10:44 AM, Kagamin wrote:

 On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 at 05:09:45 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 Apparently bash has it's own "heartbleed" now, dubbed "shellshock".


 Does it affect dash?


I don't know, but I think it doesn't. There are tests you can use to 
check if your shell is vulnerable, google can tell you :)


 Also, how does one update software on linux? Last I checked, when new
 version is out, repository of the previous version becomes utterly
 abandoned. A pity, on windows one can roll new software versions as long
 as they are maintained.


Generally, you use the package manager, but it is very dependent on what 
distribution you are using. For example, in Ubuntu or Linux Mint, the UI 
alerts you to updates, and it's as simple as clicking a button.

I think the "utterly abandoned" claim is highly dubious.

-Steve
Oct 01 2014
parent Leandro Lucarella <luca llucax.com.ar> writes:
Steven Schveighoffer, el  1 de October a las 10:56 me escribiste:

 On 10/1/14 10:44 AM, Kagamin wrote:

On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 at 05:09:45 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

Apparently bash has it's own "heartbleed" now, dubbed "shellshock".


Does it affect dash?


 
 I don't know, but I think it doesn't. There are tests you can use to
 check if your shell is vulnerable, google can tell you :)
 

Also, how does one update software on linux? Last I checked, when new
version is out, repository of the previous version becomes utterly
abandoned. A pity, on windows one can roll new software versions as long
as they are maintained.


 
 Generally, you use the package manager, but it is very dependent on
 what distribution you are using. For example, in Ubuntu or Linux
 Mint, the UI alerts you to updates, and it's as simple as clicking a
 button.


Even doing nothing is enough if you have automatic security updates
enabled, which I would recommend.

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca)                     http://llucax.com.ar/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No le puse like en fb solo porque no quiero que fb sepa que me gusta
	-- Rata
Oct 04 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent "eles" <eles eles.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 at 14:44:06 UTC, Kagamin wrote:

 On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 at 05:09:45 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
 wrote:



 Does it affect dash?


No. It is a "bashism", ie an extension specific to Bash. Busybox 
users are not concerned neither.


 A pity, on windows one can roll new software versions as long 
 as they are maintained.


It depends on the software (many abandoned Windows XP while still 
"officially supported") and you shall not ask about the quality 
of this software neither. Is not the same effort that goes into 
legacy versions that it goes into newer versions.

BTW updating software on Windows is the PITAst of all ever 
(except maybe some medieval tortures). You have to install 
software manually, software after software. The first thing that 
I love in Linux is the centralized update.
Oct 01 2014
prev sibling parent reply "Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv> writes:
On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 at 14:44:06 UTC, Kagamin wrote:

 Also, how does one update software on linux? Last I checked, 
 when new version is out, repository of the previous version 
 becomes utterly abandoned. A pity, on windows one can roll new 
 software versions as long as they are maintained.


This claim is so strange I can't even understand what it is 
about. Which repositories get abandoned?
Oct 01 2014
parent reply "Kagamin" <spam here.lot> writes:
On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 at 15:45:26 UTC, eles wrote:

 The first thing that I love in Linux is the centralized update.


The downside is it's taken down centrally too, while distributed 
windows software continues to work independently of each other.

On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 at 15:48:58 UTC, Dicebot wrote:

 This claim is so strange I can't even understand what it is 
 about. Which repositories get abandoned?


Repositories of the not latest version of the OS. Because only 
latest version receives development. That is, if the OS doesn't 
have rolling updates.
Oct 01 2014
next sibling parent reply "eles" <eles215 gzk.dot> writes:
On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 at 16:57:07 UTC, Kagamin wrote:

 On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 at 15:45:26 UTC, eles wrote:

 The first thing that I love in Linux is the centralized update.


 The downside is it's taken down centrally too, while 
 distributed windows software continues to work independently of 
 each other.


Yes, this is exactly the reason why Microsoft is moving towards 
the Microsoft Store. They must have taken notes.

For how long will the repository taken down? 24 hours? 3 days? 
You speak about Red Hat or Debian or Ubuntu repositories? And? 
You cannot live without the super-updates for 3 days?

The problem that you expose is negligible.


 Repositories of the not latest version of the OS. Because only 
 latest version receives development. That is, if the OS doesn't 
 have rolling updates.


Most of them, have. And for the release-style distributions, 
upgrade is rather straightforward, much less disruptive than in 
the Windows world.

You need to test Linux. Seriously.
Oct 01 2014
parent reply "Kagamin" <spam here.lot> writes:
On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 at 17:07:53 UTC, eles wrote:

 For how long will the repository taken down? 24 hours? 3 days?


As long as nobody works on it, i.e. forever.


 You speak about Red Hat or Debian or Ubuntu repositories? And? 
 You cannot live without the super-updates for 3 days?

 The problem that you expose is negligible.


I don't update software without a reason. Only when something 
bugs me.


 Most of them, have. And for the release-style distributions, 
 upgrade is rather straightforward


A have linux mint 12 installation with mint4win (wubi), on linux 
mint forums I was told, that updating from the latest repository 
won't work. I would be grateful, if you explain, how to upgrade 
it to the latest version. Yeah, theoretically it should be able 
to just overwrite files on disk without paying much attention to 
disk nature.
Oct 01 2014
next sibling parent reply "Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv> writes:
On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 at 18:42:41 UTC, Kagamin wrote:

 A have linux mint 12 installation with mint4win (wubi), on 
 linux mint forums I was told, that updating from the latest 
 repository won't work. I would be grateful, if you explain, how 
 to upgrade it to the latest version. Yeah, theoretically it 
 should be able to just overwrite files on disk without paying 
 much attention to disk nature.


Linux Mint 12 is not LTS release (and _insanely_ old). You are 
supposed to do regular full upgrades with non-LTS releases, this 
is why bash update was not propagated to its repositories.

However you can simply go to 
http://packages.linuxmint.com/search.php?keyword=bash&release=any&section=any 
and download .deb package of more recent release from there to 
install manually. It may work or may not depending on how 
compatible dependencies are.

This a very unpleasant experience you get compared to sticking to 
LTS or up to date distro but pretty much on the same level as one 
you normally have in the Windows all the time. And with little 
time investments it is miles and miles ahead any possible Windows 
experience you can get even theoretically (speaking exclusively 
about upgrade/update process here).
Oct 01 2014
parent reply "Kagamin" <spam here.lot> writes:
On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 at 20:03:11 UTC, Dicebot wrote:

 This a very unpleasant experience you get compared to sticking 
 to LTS or up to date distro


Erm, upgrading to the latest version is exactly what I want, old 
version is of no interest to me. I read, one can reorient 
aptitude to latest repository and update everything, but I was 
told it won't work. So the question is how to update kernel and 
everything else?
Oct 02 2014
next sibling parent reply Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d-announce writes:
On 2 October 2014 08:00, Kagamin via Digitalmars-d-announce
<digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com> wrote:

 On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 at 20:03:11 UTC, Dicebot wrote:

 This a very unpleasant experience you get compared to sticking to LTS or
 up to date distro



 Erm, upgrading to the latest version is exactly what I want, old version is
 of no interest to me. I read, one can reorient aptitude to latest repository
 and update everything, but I was told it won't work.


Doesn't Linux Mint provide an upgrade facility for you?  Looks to me
that you have gone with the wrong distro of choice. ;)

Upgrading by using apt is doable, but from what you've demonstrated
about your knowledge, I wouldn't recommend it to you.


 So the question is how to update kernel and everything else?


http://community.linuxmint.com/tutorial/view/2

If your /home is on a separate partition, just download the latest LTS
iso and do a fresh install.  Only thing to note is that when it comes
to partitioning, you must absolutely not destroy your /home unless you
want your personal files gone.  :)

Iain.
Oct 02 2014
parent reply "Kagamin" <spam here.lot> writes:
On Thursday, 2 October 2014 at 07:14:35 UTC, Iain Buclaw via 
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:

 Doesn't Linux Mint provide an upgrade facility for you?


No idea.


 Upgrading by using apt is doable, but from what you've 
 demonstrated
 about your knowledge, I wouldn't recommend it to you.


How software's operation depends on me?
Oct 02 2014
next sibling parent "Kagamin" <spam here.lot> writes:
 How software's operation depends on me?


Ah, ok, I see the explanation in tutorial.
Oct 02 2014
prev sibling parent reply Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On 10/2/14 3:42 AM, Kagamin wrote:

 On Thursday, 2 October 2014 at 07:14:35 UTC, Iain Buclaw via
 Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:

 Doesn't Linux Mint provide an upgrade facility for you?


 No idea.


I use Linux Mint, I believe I upgraded once *. I don't think it was 
complex, just an upgrade through the standard UI for updates.

* Note: I have a bad memory when it comes to things like this :)

-Steve
Oct 06 2014
parent reply "Kiith-Sa" <kiithsacmp gmail.com> writes:
On Monday, 6 October 2014 at 15:06:04 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer 
wrote:

 On 10/2/14 3:42 AM, Kagamin wrote:

 On Thursday, 2 October 2014 at 07:14:35 UTC, Iain Buclaw via
 Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:

 Doesn't Linux Mint provide an upgrade facility for you?


 No idea.


 I use Linux Mint, I believe I upgraded once *. I don't think it 
 was complex, just an upgrade through the standard UI for 
 updates.

 * Note: I have a bad memory when it comes to things like this :)

 -Steve


Mint always supported upgrades between LTS releases. There were 
no upgrades between non-LTS releases, which were basically just 
bit-more-stable betas. That's changed now as posted above, Mint 
14.04 to 15.10 (and possibly longer) will be seamlessly 
upgradable release to release as Mint gradually diverges away 
from its Ubuntu base. 16.04 may be a reset, or they may continue 
to diverge further, or they may move fully to Debian; but they'll 
probably still have an upgrade path as it will be an LTS.
Oct 06 2014
parent Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On 10/6/14 12:10 PM, Kiith-Sa wrote:

 On Monday, 6 October 2014 at 15:06:04 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

 On 10/2/14 3:42 AM, Kagamin wrote:

 On Thursday, 2 October 2014 at 07:14:35 UTC, Iain Buclaw via
 Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:

 Doesn't Linux Mint provide an upgrade facility for you?


 No idea.


 I use Linux Mint, I believe I upgraded once *. I don't think it was
 complex, just an upgrade through the standard UI for updates.

 * Note: I have a bad memory when it comes to things like this :)


 Mint always supported upgrades between LTS releases. There were no
 upgrades between non-LTS releases, which were basically just
 bit-more-stable betas. That's changed now as posted above, Mint 14.04 to
 15.10 (and possibly longer) will be seamlessly upgradable release to
 release as Mint gradually diverges away from its Ubuntu base. 16.04 may
 be a reset, or they may continue to diverge further, or they may move
 fully to Debian; but they'll probably still have an upgrade path as it
 will be an LTS.


Hm.. I think I had Linux Mint 12, and I upgraded to 13 (not the LTS 
version).

Maybe it wasn't so seamless, as I said I have a bad memory.

-Steve
Oct 06 2014
prev sibling parent reply "eles" <eles eles.com> writes:
On Thursday, 2 October 2014 at 07:00:38 UTC, Kagamin wrote:

 On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 at 20:03:11 UTC, Dicebot wrote:

 This a very unpleasant experience you get compared to sticking 
 to LTS or up to date distro


 Erm, upgrading to the latest version is exactly what I want, 
 old version is of no interest to me. I read, one can reorient 
 aptitude to latest repository and update everything, but I was 
 told it won't work. So the question is how to update kernel and 
 everything else?


update-manager -d

It works.
Oct 02 2014
parent reply "Kagamin" <spam here.lot> writes:
On Thursday, 2 October 2014 at 07:43:54 UTC, eles wrote:

 update-manager -d

 It works.


Does it perform package upgrade? The comments are rather scary:
---
Hi, I have installed Linux mint 15 with Mint4Win as Dual boot 
with Windows 7.
Then upgraded it to Mint 16 and it was running fine.
But when I upgrade to Mint 17 (Qiana), after restarting the 
partition loop0 (or loopback0 or something like that) fails to 
load.
It shows an error like, Press I to ignore, S to skip or M for 
manual recovery.

Please tell me a way to fix this.
Or let me know if it is not possible.
---

Looks like my case. Are fstab and mtab replaced during upgrade?
Oct 02 2014
next sibling parent reply "eles" <eles eles.com> writes:
On Thursday, 2 October 2014 at 11:12:12 UTC, Kagamin wrote:

 On Thursday, 2 October 2014 at 07:43:54 UTC, eles wrote:

 update-manager -d

 It works.


 Does it perform package upgrade? The comments are rather scary:
 ---
 Hi, I have installed Linux mint 15 with Mint4Win as Dual boot 
 with Windows 7.
 Then upgraded it to Mint 16 and it was running fine.
 But when I upgrade to Mint 17 (Qiana), after restarting the 
 partition loop0 (or loopback0 or something like that) fails to 
 load.
 It shows an error like, Press I to ignore, S to skip or M for 
 manual recovery.

 Please tell me a way to fix this.
 Or let me know if it is not possible.
 ---

 Looks like my case. Are fstab and mtab replaced during upgrade?


You should drop Mint, they have a quite disruptive policy, but 
they are kinda unique in the Linux world. Better choice in the 
Mint world would be LMDE:

http://www.linuxmint.com/download_lmde.php

You simply made the wrong choice in the beginning.
Oct 02 2014
parent reply "Kagamin" <spam here.lot> writes:
On Thursday, 2 October 2014 at 11:40:31 UTC, eles wrote:

 You simply made the wrong choice in the beginning.


Well, it looked popular and easy. Can I upgrade my mint to lmde?
Oct 02 2014
parent reply "eles" <eles eles.com> writes:
On Thursday, 2 October 2014 at 12:06:16 UTC, Kagamin wrote:

 On Thursday, 2 October 2014 at 11:40:31 UTC, eles wrote:



 Well, it looked popular and easy.


Sorry. It's just that everything that glitters...


 Can I upgrade my mint to lmde?


I doubt. At least, not easily. However, installing LMDE should be 
a one-time process (it's a rolling distribution).

Alternatives are: Arch Linux, Debian Testing and a couple of 
others. Anyway, most of the release-based distribution (Mint is a 
special case) support upgrading, even if not rolling 
distributions (for example, Ubuntu).

I have not much experience with Mint (none, in fact), but even in 
the case of a full and disruptive upgrade they should preserve 
your settings and documents. However, I disclaim responsibility 
as I don't know how it works.
Oct 02 2014
parent reply "Kagamin" <spam here.lot> writes:
On Thursday, 2 October 2014 at 12:44:08 UTC, eles wrote:

 I doubt. At least, not easily. However, installing LMDE should 
 be a one-time process (it's a rolling distribution).


Do rolling distributions guarantee to not overwrite fstab? How 
mint package update differs from a rolling distro package update?
Oct 03 2014
next sibling parent reply "David Nadlinger" <code klickverbot.at> writes:
On Friday, 3 October 2014 at 07:16:14 UTC, Kagamin wrote:

 On Thursday, 2 October 2014 at 12:44:08 UTC, eles wrote:

 I doubt. At least, not easily. However, installing LMDE should 
 be a one-time process (it's a rolling distribution).


 Do rolling distributions guarantee to not overwrite fstab? How 
 mint package update differs from a rolling distro package 
 update?


Arch Linux warns you about the conflict and installs the new 
files as e.g. /etc/fstab.pacnew.

David
Oct 03 2014
parent reply Brad Roberts via Digitalmars-d-announce writes:
On 10/3/2014 3:25 AM, David Nadlinger via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:

 On Friday, 3 October 2014 at 07:16:14 UTC, Kagamin wrote:

 On Thursday, 2 October 2014 at 12:44:08 UTC, eles wrote:

 I doubt. At least, not easily. However, installing LMDE should be a
 one-time process (it's a rolling distribution).


 Do rolling distributions guarantee to not overwrite fstab? How mint
 package update differs from a rolling distro package update?


 Arch Linux warns you about the conflict and installs the new files as
 e.g. /etc/fstab.pacnew.

 David


I've used at various points in time Debian, Ubuntu, Redhat, Centos, and 
amazon linux.  At no point has any of them ever lost my fstab file, or 
any other critical file for that matter.  My oldest system at this point 
is about 8 years old and has been ubuntu since it was born and still is. 
  It's current and has rolled through every intervening version quite 
easily, which is a good thing since it's a vm off in a data center.

It's not hard to maintain systems, but they do require maintenance.  I 
wouldn't really expect to neglect a system for many years and be able to 
rapidly jump it all the way to current.  About once a year I go on a big 
maintenance spree, independent of more frequent minor maintenance.

My 2 cents,
Brad
Oct 03 2014
parent "eles" <eles215 gzk.dot> writes:
On Friday, 3 October 2014 at 17:20:11 UTC, Brad Roberts via 
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:

 On 10/3/2014 3:25 AM, David Nadlinger via 
 Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:

 On Friday, 3 October 2014 at 07:16:14 UTC, Kagamin wrote:

 On Thursday, 2 October 2014 at 12:44:08 UTC, eles wrote:







  My oldest system at this point is about 8 years old and has 
 been ubuntu since it was born and still is.
  It's current and has rolled through every intervening version 
 quite easily


Yes. Ubuntu was not perfectly upgrading at its beginnings, but 
with years that passed they became better and better at this.
Oct 03 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "eles" <eles eles.com> writes:
On Friday, 3 October 2014 at 07:16:14 UTC, Kagamin wrote:

 On Thursday, 2 October 2014 at 12:44:08 UTC, eles wrote:

 I doubt. At least, not easily. However, installing LMDE should 
 be a one-time process (it's a rolling distribution).


 Do rolling distributions guarantee to not overwrite fstab? How 
 mint package update differs from a rolling distro package 
 update?


Debian and Debian-based asks you to confirm file overwrite 
(usually, the diff is displayed too).
Oct 03 2014
parent reply "Kagamin" <spam here.lot> writes:
On Friday, 3 October 2014 at 11:25:59 UTC, eles wrote:

 Debian and Debian-based asks you to confirm file overwrite 
 (usually, the diff is displayed too).


Isn't it the same package manager? It should be able to do the 
same on mint. Or may be fstab can be copied somewhere and then 
back at some point?

On Sunday, 5 October 2014 at 08:54:46 UTC, eles wrote:

 Linux Mint, starting from version 17, marks a departure from 
 previous releases (this is why you migh have encountered 
 difficulties in upgrading) by keeping the same code base 
 (Ubuntu 14.04 LTS) for the next 5 years. So, during this time, 
 it will basically be a rolling-distribution, as some software 
 will get updated just as regular (security fixes etc.) happens.


Truly rolling or only security updates?
Well, I'm ok with a fresh install. But can it run under the 
target linux itself? Or rather what to run from the disk? Since 
mint4win installation is a virtual disk, I'm not sure the 
installer will find it gracefully, they're usually 
partition-oriented. Not sure if this eliminates problem with 
fstab though.
Oct 05 2014
parent reply "eles" <eles215 gzk.dot> writes:
On Sunday, 5 October 2014 at 21:13:01 UTC, Kagamin wrote:

 On Friday, 3 October 2014 at 11:25:59 UTC, eles wrote:

 Debian and Debian-based asks you to confirm file overwrite 
 (usually, the diff is displayed too).


 Isn't it the same package manager? It should be able to do the 
 same on mint. Or may be fstab can be copied somewhere and then 
 back at some point?


It should be the same, but I am never sure about the homegrown 
patches that the Mint team applies (for example, they applied 
that patch that presents "update packs").



 Truly rolling or only security updates?


Actually, a kind of releases, every 6 months, but that only comes 
down to updating the Mint plug-ins and a selected handful of 
programs (probably, browser, update manager and e-mail clients). 
There is no much difference wrt a rolling release, because the 
code base does not change. Basically, the "releases" will be 
nothing else that some glorified update packs, so basically the 
same that LMDE does today. Call it a "semi-rolling". At least 
this is my understanding of it.


 Well, I'm ok with a fresh install.


My advice is to wait a bit for the new LMDE to get out. 
Installing LMDE now as the current model approaches its end of 
life is not the best, since mostly sure, you'll have to do it 
again since they change the code base (from testing to stable).


 But can it run under the target linux itself? Or rather what to 
 run from the disk? Since mint4win installation is a virtual 
 disk, I'm not sure the installer will find it gracefully, 
 they're usually partition-oriented. Not sure if this eliminates 
 problem with fstab though.


Sorry, I have no direct experience with Mint directly, I 
extrapolate my understanding of other distribution to it, from 
the comments. Could not answer to those questions as they require 
first-hand experience.

Anyway, if you feel a bit adventurous, the current LMDE model is 
somewhat continued by a distribution called SolidXK (google it) 
and a new-comer on the scene is Tranglu, that I just installed in 
a VM and which looks very promising (a mix of Debian Stable, 
Testing and Unstable, release-style, but hopefully with 
undisruptive upgrades).
Oct 05 2014
parent "eles" <eles eles.com> writes:
On Sunday, 5 October 2014 at 21:53:08 UTC, eles wrote:

 On Sunday, 5 October 2014 at 21:13:01 UTC, Kagamin wrote:

 On Friday, 3 October 2014 at 11:25:59 UTC, eles wrote:





 it) and a new-comer on the scene is Tranglu, that I just


*Tanglu

http://www.tanglu.org/en/
Oct 05 2014
prev sibling parent reply "eles" <eles eles.com> writes:
On Friday, 3 October 2014 at 07:16:14 UTC, Kagamin wrote:

 On Thursday, 2 October 2014 at 12:44:08 UTC, eles wrote:

 I doubt. At least, not easily. However, installing LMDE should 
 be a one-time process (it's a rolling distribution).


 Do rolling distributions guarantee to not overwrite fstab? How 
 mint package update differs from a rolling distro package 
 update?


Mint is release-based. All packages are updated in a large group 
that is called "a release", unlike rolling distributions, where 
packages are updated package-by-package, sometimes even on daily 
basis.

The former attempt stability (because all packages are tested 
together, along with their interactions), while the latter 
attempt cutting-edge software (you update software as it gets 
produced).

No matter the distribution, security packages usually comes in in 
rolling-manner (because very important).

Unlike other release-style distribution, Mint simply does not 
support hot-upgrades, they recommend full reinstall (back-up your 
files, clean harddisk, install, restore files).

Anyway, the fact that they do not support it does not mean is not 
possible. It's just that they disclaim responsibility and they do 
not want to invest support into that.

So, it is possible, but you must be a bit of geek. And you cannot 
request their official helps/guides for that. Think of it as 
"undocumented feature" from their POV.
Oct 03 2014
next sibling parent "John Colvin" <john.loughran.colvin gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 3 October 2014 at 11:31:07 UTC, eles wrote:

 On Friday, 3 October 2014 at 07:16:14 UTC, Kagamin wrote:

 On Thursday, 2 October 2014 at 12:44:08 UTC, eles wrote:

 I doubt. At least, not easily. However, installing LMDE 
 should be a one-time process (it's a rolling distribution).


 Do rolling distributions guarantee to not overwrite fstab? How 
 mint package update differs from a rolling distro package 
 update?


 Mint is release-based. All packages are updated in a large 
 group that is called "a release", unlike rolling distributions, 
 where packages are updated package-by-package, sometimes even 
 on daily basis.

 The former attempt stability (because all packages are tested 
 together, along with their interactions), while the latter 
 attempt cutting-edge software (you update software as it gets 
 produced).

 No matter the distribution, security packages usually comes in 
 in rolling-manner (because very important).

 Unlike other release-style distribution, Mint simply does not 
 support hot-upgrades, they recommend full reinstall (back-up 
 your files, clean harddisk, install, restore files).

 Anyway, the fact that they do not support it does not mean is 
 not possible. It's just that they disclaim responsibility and 
 they do not want to invest support into that.

 So, it is possible, but you must be a bit of geek. And you 
 cannot request their official helps/guides for that. Think of 
 it as "undocumented feature" from their POV.


I recently upgraded a mint install by changing any and all 
references to repositories to the corresponding ones for the new 
release and then running apt-get dist-upgrade

It worked, but I wouldn't recommend it.

Clean reinstalls or rolling release are better approaches to the 
problem of updating an OS. Ubuntu, Windows and OS X have all 
subtlely or not-so-subtley let me down with automated upgrades at 
one point or another.
Oct 03 2014
prev sibling parent reply "Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv> writes:
On Friday, 3 October 2014 at 11:31:07 UTC, eles wrote:

 The former attempt stability (because all packages are tested 
 together, along with their interactions), while the latter 
 attempt cutting-edge software (you update software as it gets 
 produced).


This generally true but not entirely true. Rolling release model 
also implies testing of package inter-operation but any 
guarantees only apply to versions that match specific repository 
snapshot - most problems arise from trying to update some of 
packages but not all. At least this is the case for Arch.
Oct 03 2014
parent "eles" <eles215 gzk.dot> writes:
On Friday, 3 October 2014 at 11:51:08 UTC, Dicebot wrote:

 On Friday, 3 October 2014 at 11:31:07 UTC, eles wrote:

 The former attempt stability (because all packages are tested 
 together, along with their interactions), while the latter 
 attempt cutting-edge software (you update software as it gets 
 produced).


 This generally true but not entirely true. Rolling release 
 model also implies testing of package inter-operation but any 
 guarantees only apply to versions that match specific 
 repository snapshot - most problems arise from trying to update 
 some of packages but not all. At least this is the case for 
 Arch.


Yes, kinda true, however there is a compromise between the 
dailyness of the updates and the depth of tests.

Release-style distributions have one more difference: they 
guarantee support for the provided software during the lifetime 
of the distribution. They might not provide new versions, but 
will provide security patches.

Even if a software is abandoned by its own author one day after 
the release gets out, at least in theory, the release team will 
continue to provide patches to ensure that the software maintains 
the interoperability and the security level with the rest of the 
distribution.

That alone and is quite an effort, but it matters for entreprise 
customers.

Rolling distributions are more like: "well, that software is not 
developed anymore, either you maintaint yourself, either you 
stick with the old version at your own risk."
Oct 03 2014
prev sibling parent reply "eles" <eles215 gzk.dot> writes:
On Thursday, 2 October 2014 at 11:12:12 UTC, Kagamin wrote:

 On Thursday, 2 October 2014 at 07:43:54 UTC, eles wrote:

 update-manager -d

 It works.


 Does it perform package upgrade? The comments are rather scary:
 ---
 Hi, I have installed Linux mint 15 with Mint4Win as Dual boot 
 with Windows 7.
 Then upgraded it to Mint 16 and it was running fine.
 But when I upgrade to Mint 17 (Qiana), after restarting the 
 partition loop0 (or loopback0 or something like that) fails to 
 load.
 It shows an error like, Press I to ignore, S to skip or M for 
 manual recovery.


Hi,

A bit of news here, as just updated my knoledge about Linux Mint 
& Linux Mint Debian Edition.

In short, from this discussion and its comments:

http://segfault.linuxmint.com/2014/08/upcoming-lmde-2-to-be-named-betsy/

Linux Mint Debian abandons its (semi-)rolling model and will 
basically become just a kind of Ubuntu, but based on Debian 
Stable (Ubuntu, AFAIK, is based on Debian Unstable). The will 
require full-upgrades every 2 years, but the upgrades shall be 
smooth (no reinstall required). For two years, you will not need 
to do such upgrade, just the basic security upgrades and some 
updates (mainly browser and email clients).

Linux Mint, starting from version 17, marks a departure from 
previous releases (this is why you migh have encountered 
difficulties in upgrading) by keeping the same code base (Ubuntu 
14.04 LTS) for the next 5 years. So, during this time, it will 
basically be a rolling-distribution, as some software will get 
updated just as regular (security fixes etc.) happens. Probably, 
after those 5 years, they will change the code base to the next 
Ubuntu LTS, which will start a new 5-years long upgrade.

One piece of advice: Debian Testing might seem (by the name) more 
secure than Debian Unstable. The truth is that the latter is more 
up-to-date and receives security fixes first (they are entering 
the Debian Unstable first, then they are pre-validated before 
going in Debian Testing). More, Debian Unstable is not as 
unstable as its name might tell but, yes, it requires you messing 
sometimes (read: maybe once every three months) with the apt-get 
and vim. But is not such a big deal.
Oct 05 2014
parent Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On 10/05/2014 04:54 AM, eles wrote:

 On Thursday, 2 October 2014 at 11:12:12 UTC, Kagamin wrote:

 On Thursday, 2 October 2014 at 07:43:54 UTC, eles wrote:

 update-manager -d

 It works.


 Does it perform package upgrade? The comments are rather scary:
 ---
 Hi, I have installed Linux mint 15 with Mint4Win as Dual boot with
 Windows 7.
 Then upgraded it to Mint 16 and it was running fine.
 But when I upgrade to Mint 17 (Qiana), after restarting the partition
 loop0 (or loopback0 or something like that) fails to load.
 It shows an error like, Press I to ignore, S to skip or M for manual
 recovery.


 Hi,

 A bit of news here, as just updated my knoledge about Linux Mint & Linux
 Mint Debian Edition.

 In short, from this discussion and its comments:

 http://segfault.linuxmint.com/2014/08/upcoming-lmde-2-to-be-named-betsy/

 Linux Mint Debian abandons its (semi-)rolling model and will basically
 become just a kind of Ubuntu, but based on Debian Stable (Ubuntu, AFAIK,
 is based on Debian Unstable). The will require full-upgrades every 2
 years, but the upgrades shall be smooth (no reinstall required). For two
 years, you will not need to do such upgrade, just the basic security
 upgrades and some updates (mainly browser and email clients).

 Linux Mint, starting from version 17, marks a departure from previous
 releases (this is why you migh have encountered difficulties in
 upgrading) by keeping the same code base (Ubuntu 14.04 LTS) for the next
 5 years. So, during this time, it will basically be a
 rolling-distribution, as some software will get updated just as regular
 (security fixes etc.) happens. Probably, after those 5 years, they will
 change the code base to the next Ubuntu LTS, which will start a new
 5-years long upgrade.


Very interesting. This is pretty major news for Mint. Not sure how I 
feel about it, but it's certainly worth knowing. Glad you posted.


 One piece of advice: Debian Testing might seem (by the name) more secure
 than Debian Unstable. The truth is that the latter is more up-to-date
 and receives security fixes first (they are entering the Debian Unstable
 first, then they are pre-validated before going in Debian Testing).
 More, Debian Unstable is not as unstable as its name might tell but,
 yes, it requires you messing sometimes (read: maybe once every three
 months) with the apt-get and vim. But is not such a big deal.


When I got a new laptop a few weeks ago to stick linux on (yay!), and 
was deciding on distro, I did read that thing about Deb unstable getting 
security updates slightly earlier than Deb testing.

Personally, I ended up opting for Deb testing anyway because the 
"cooldown period" of a few days (for non-security releases) was very 
appealing to me. Sort of a minor little mini-guardrail between me and 
the bleeding edge. Y'know - just in case. And TBH, as big a deal as 
security is, I'm even more concerned about system instability anyway 
(not that I don't trust Deb "unstable" to still be reasonably stable, 
I'm sure it is). But that's just me.

Anyway, since Deb testing does apparently still have a "fast track" for 
major security fixes (via umm..."testing-updates" IIRC), even if it 
isn't *as* prompt as Deb unstable, that pretty much clinched the deal 
for me ;).

FWIW.

It's my first experience with rolling-release, so we'll see how it goes, 
but so far so good.

So far the biggest irritation is just simply the lack of TortoiseGit and 
*good* integration between BeyondCompare and Dolphin. But of course, 
that has nothing to do with choosing deb testing ;) A few other rough 
edges (to be expected), but man am I loving a lot of things about 
finally jumping to linux as a primary system after a full 20 *mostly* 
good years of windows. (Aside from a couple admittedly great, but minor, 
improvements - Win 8/8.1 is *HORRID*. And that's not even the one that 
finally pushed me away anyway - two years of Win7 and I was "Ok, that's 
freaking it, I NEED day-to-day linux now, fuck the new post-XP MS, can't 
take anymore of this goofy straightjacketed Apple-wannabe crap.")

Wow, sorry for the rambling, didn't really mean to venture so far with 
all that ;)

Anyway, yea. Linux distros. Lots of info about them :)
Oct 05 2014
prev sibling parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On 10/01/2014 02:42 PM, Kagamin wrote:

 A have linux mint 12 installation with mint4win (wubi), on linux mint
 forums I was told, that updating from the latest repository won't work.



I sympathize: 
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-software-2/how-to-install-enlightenment-on-mint-15-a-4175492936/

That annoyance is why (aside from servers) I've switched to 
rolling-release distros. In my case, Debian Testing (which, as I've been 
told by others here, and can personally confirm, is much more stable 
than it's unfortunately-chosen name would suggest). I picked that one 
since I'm most familiar with the general Debian family of distros 
(apt-get and all). But I've heard good things about Arch too and may 
look into it.

FWIW, I don't think all release-based distros are quite as aggressive as 
Mint with abandoning older releases. Even the super-outdated Debian 6 
apparently still has some support via its LTS repos. I suspect Mint may 
need to do things that way just as a manpower issue. Mint's a popular 
distro, but I get the impression it's development is a relatively small 
grassroots thing with much more limited resources than say Debian or 
Ubuntu. (Of course, I could be wrong.)
Oct 01 2014
parent reply "Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv> writes:
On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 at 20:45:14 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
wrote:

 I suspect Mint may need to do things that way just as a 
 manpower issue. Mint's a popular distro, but I get the 
 impression it's development is a relatively small grassroots 
 thing with much more limited resources than say Debian or 
 Ubuntu. (Of course, I could be wrong.)


This matches my observations too. It gained lot of popularity 
when Ubuntu switched to Unity as default desktop environment and 
Fedora moved with Gnome 3 - quite many users started looking for 
a distro with more conservative defaults. However its development 
/ maintenance team does not seem to match that popularity burst.
Oct 01 2014
parent Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On 10/01/2014 05:15 PM, Dicebot wrote:

 [Mint] gained lot of popularity when
 Ubuntu switched to Unity as default desktop environment and Fedora moved
 with Gnome 3 - quite many users started looking for a distro with more
 conservative defaults.


Yea, y'know, about that [entirely predictable] phenomenon: I've 
occasionally wondered whether Canonical, and the Gnome devs (the ones 
that didn't jump ship to Mate/Cinn), and heck even MS and Mozilla...if 
they've been *deliberately* trying to decrease their userbase.

I know personally that permitting optional settings is *not* as 
difficult as those organizations/devs make it out to be, *especially* 
when compared to the effort involved in completely redoing a whole damn 
UI. So it's really the only explanation I can come up with to explain 
Gnome3/Win8/FF3/FF4/FF29/Unity/etc other than just "they must've all 
gone nuts" ;)


 However [Mint's] development / maintenance team does
 not seem to match that popularity burst.


Yes, of course that isn't a complaint against Mint. Despite having left 
it, I do like Mint, FWIW. I just wanted to go rolling release (and 
really, the non-free stuff isn't all that difficult to get up and 
running on straight Debian at this point - a lot of it worked 
out-of-the-box for me, and even Flash was trivial to install after a 
one-minute web search).
Oct 03 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent "eles" <eles215 gzk.dot> writes:
On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 at 16:57:07 UTC, Kagamin wrote:

 On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 at 15:45:26 UTC, eles wrote:



 Repositories of the not latest version of the OS. Because only 
 latest version receives development. That is, if the OS doesn't 
 have rolling updates.


What is the difference wrt Microsoft phasing out a Windows 
version? Except tha upgrading from Windows to Windows is such a 
PITA that even the Brazen Bull seems to be just a nice couch.
Oct 01 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On 10/1/14 12:57 PM, Kagamin wrote:

 On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 at 15:48:58 UTC, Dicebot wrote:

 This claim is so strange I can't even understand what it is about.
 Which repositories get abandoned?


 Repositories of the not latest version of the OS. Because only latest
 version receives development. That is, if the OS doesn't have rolling
 updates.


https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LTS

-Steve
Oct 01 2014
parent reply Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d-announce writes:
On 1 October 2014 18:12, Steven Schveighoffer via
Digitalmars-d-announce <digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com> wrote:

 On 10/1/14 12:57 PM, Kagamin wrote:

 On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 at 15:48:58 UTC, Dicebot wrote:

 This claim is so strange I can't even understand what it is about.
 Which repositories get abandoned?



 Repositories of the not latest version of the OS. Because only latest
 version receives development. That is, if the OS doesn't have rolling
 updates.



 https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LTS


One nice thing about Ubuntu is that they even give you access to
future kernel versions through what they call HWE.  In short, I can
run a 14.04 LTS kernel on a 12.04 server, so that I'm able to use
modern hardware and take advantage of software that uses features of
Linux that are actively worked on (like LXC) on an older software
stack.

Iain.
Oct 01 2014
parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On 10/01/2014 01:38 PM, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:

 One nice thing about Ubuntu is that they even give you access to
 future kernel versions through what they call HWE.  In short, I can
 run a 14.04 LTS kernel on a 12.04 server, so that I'm able to use
 modern hardware and take advantage of software that uses features of
 Linux that are actively worked on (like LXC) on an older software
 stack.


Is there anything similar in Debian?
Oct 01 2014
next sibling parent Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d-announce writes:
On 1 Oct 2014 21:55, "Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d-announce" <
digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com> wrote:

 On 10/01/2014 01:38 PM, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:

 One nice thing about Ubuntu is that they even give you access to
 future kernel versions through what they call HWE.  In short, I can
 run a 14.04 LTS kernel on a 12.04 server, so that I'm able to use
 modern hardware and take advantage of software that uses features of
 Linux that are actively worked on (like LXC) on an older software
 stack.


 Is there anything similar in Debian?


I am not aware of any other distro doing this kind of support.  So I think
that it's unique to Ubuntu.

Iain
Oct 04 2014
prev sibling parent Paul O'Neil <redballoon36 gmail.com> writes:
On 10/01/2014 04:50 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 On 10/01/2014 01:38 PM, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:

 One nice thing about Ubuntu is that they even give you access to
 future kernel versions through what they call HWE.  In short, I can
 run a 14.04 LTS kernel on a 12.04 server, so that I'm able to use
 modern hardware and take advantage of software that uses features of
 Linux that are actively worked on (like LXC) on an older software
 stack.


 
 Is there anything similar in Debian?
 


Debian Backports: backports.debian.org

-- 
Paul O'Neil
Github / IRC: todayman
Oct 05 2014
prev sibling parent reply "Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv> writes:
On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 at 16:57:07 UTC, Kagamin wrote:

 On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 at 15:45:26 UTC, eles wrote:

 The first thing that I love in Linux is the centralized update.


 The downside is it's taken down centrally too, while 
 distributed windows software continues to work independently of 
 each other.

 On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 at 15:48:58 UTC, Dicebot wrote:

 This claim is so strange I can't even understand what it is 
 about. Which repositories get abandoned?


 Repositories of the not latest version of the OS. Because only 
 latest version receives development. That is, if the OS doesn't 
 have rolling updates.


This is simply telling lies, sorry. All distros that don't have 
rolling release model provide LTS versions that get all important 
updates (including security updates, of course) for years. For 
example Ubuntu LTS lasts for 4 years where one can count on fast 
updates.

And even after that period your distro does not disappear 
magically, you are simply force to install necessary updates 
manually (as opposed to 1 click / command update from repo), 
basically getting you back to Windows _default_ state of things.
Oct 01 2014
next sibling parent Brad Roberts via Digitalmars-d-announce writes:
On 10/1/2014 10:44 AM, Dicebot via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:

 On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 at 16:57:07 UTC, Kagamin wrote:

 On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 at 15:45:26 UTC, eles wrote:

 The first thing that I love in Linux is the centralized update.


 The downside is it's taken down centrally too, while distributed
 windows software continues to work independently of each other.

 On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 at 15:48:58 UTC, Dicebot wrote:

 This claim is so strange I can't even understand what it is about.
 Which repositories get abandoned?


 Repositories of the not latest version of the OS. Because only latest
 version receives development. That is, if the OS doesn't have rolling
 updates.


 This is simply telling lies, sorry. All distros that don't have rolling
 release model provide LTS versions that get all important updates
 (including security updates, of course) for years. For example Ubuntu
 LTS lasts for 4 years where one can count on fast updates.

 And even after that period your distro does not disappear magically, you
 are simply force to install necessary updates manually (as opposed to 1
 click / command update from repo), basically getting you back to Windows
 _default_ state of things.


And even if all of _that_ fails, the source is available for manual 
building.
Oct 01 2014
prev sibling parent Leandro Lucarella <luca llucax.com.ar> writes:
Dicebot, el  1 de October a las 17:44 me escribiste:

 On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 at 16:57:07 UTC, Kagamin wrote:

On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 at 15:45:26 UTC, eles wrote:

The first thing that I love in Linux is the centralized update.


The downside is it's taken down centrally too, while distributed
windows software continues to work independently of each other.

On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 at 15:48:58 UTC, Dicebot wrote:

This claim is so strange I can't even understand what it is
about. Which repositories get abandoned?


Repositories of the not latest version of the OS. Because only
latest version receives development. That is, if the OS doesn't
have rolling updates.


 
 This is simply telling lies, sorry. All distros that don't have
 rolling release model provide LTS versions that get all important
 updates (including security updates, of course) for years. For
 example Ubuntu LTS lasts for 4 years where one can count on fast
 updates.


5 years ;-)
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LTS

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca)                     http://llucax.com.ar/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No es malo que en la condición humana exista la mentira. Miente el púber
si quiere ponerla.
	-- Ricardo Vaporeso. Madrid, 1921.
Oct 04 2014