Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

OpenBSD won't update Firefox, advises users to switch to ESR

undeadly.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 339 posts

Re: OpenBSD won't update Firefox, advises users to switch to ESR

#311

Post by bibyte »

celticmusic wrote: post #299
GarryShawn wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not old enough to be able to run a Linux distribution for 15 years. And I also never run Debian on any of my personal computers. Thus, my anecdotes are definitely way less convincing. In other words, you can stop reading here. The only two major distributions that I used for a sufficient amount of time are Ubuntu and Arch. Arch "unstableness" is exactly what I want most of the time on my personal computer as it's…

This is the proper response, imo. Arch is rolling release and you take the good with the bad. The ones who try to defend arch as some paragon of stability miss the point that Arch's model is inherently unstable, but it comes with other benefits. I'm the one who kicked off this entire conversation pointing out that arch is unstable, and it cracks me up watching silly people scramble to try and defend Arch as being som…

Aside from patching the kernel I have done everything GP said. Just because the Arch wiki says it is unstable doesn't mean it always is. It just means Arch Linux can do breaking changes (systemd) without worrying about backwards compatibility. And FYI I wasn't defending Arch Linux. It just seems strange to me that everyone is having instability problems and I can't even reproduce it.

I also agree that you shouldn't run your production database on Arch Linux. It isn't made for workloads like that. But personally I find maintaining Arch Linux+"custom packages"(with AUR) easier then Debian+"latest packages"+"custom packages".

Re: OpenBSD won't update Firefox, advises users to switch to ESR

#312

Post by shakna »

AnonymousPlanet wrote: post #285
shakna wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The dist-upgrade is something you can plan for and set time aside for. The risky rolling mini upgrade every couple of weeks you can not. I can plan for it? You can see if you're upgrading your kernel. Nothing breaks if you decide not to run an upgrade.

And then I sit with a hopelessly old system I dare not to touch because I dread the day I have to do that kernel update or that one update that pulls in a new libc, leading to an upgrade orgy. I have seen that plenty of times. This nonsense is why stable and LTS releases were introduced in the first place. If I'm faced with a major upgrade of an LTS system, I usually choose to reinstall from scratch, shedding package…

> If I'm faced with a major upgrade of an LTS system, I usually choose to reinstall from scratch, shedding packages I haven't needed for a long time with it. But that happens every couple years or so.

This goes back to my original point, which we've drifted a little from.

Ubuntu has more unexpected behaving when upgrading than Debian.

A working dist-upgrade should not be something that your OS struggles to provide. Asking people to reinstall their OS isn't an acceptable answer.

Upgrading should not be a lottery.

Re: OpenBSD won't update Firefox, advises users to switch to ESR

#313

Post by xg15 »

bscphil wrote: post #308
enriquto wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> From my point of view having a centralized repository with a (usually) single (usually) latest version of a library is an awesome thing This reasoning assumes that future versions of software are always better. This is certainly not the case. I would like that a working program does not spontaneusly break because a third party "upgrades", thus introducing a new bug. I am willing to give up anything else to be assur…

I suppose I should clarify by "latest" that I mean a version of a piece of software that is actively supported and has all the security patches. Like it or not, the ecosystem is currently built around the assumption that you do want to have this , that nobody should still be running e.g. Firefox 34. The question is what the best way of shipping it is. The conversation in the two posts you replied to isn't about wheth…

But didn't the OP show exactly a situation where this system broke down?

There is a new version of the Rust library. In theory, either anything that supports it should be updated selectively (i.e. Firefox) or all consumers should be updated in lockstep. Yet in practice the maintener decided that neither option was feasible so nothing was updated at all. What went wrong here?

Re: OpenBSD won't update Firefox, advises users to switch to ESR

#314

Post by jcelerier »

celticmusic wrote: post #299
GarryShawn wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not old enough to be able to run a Linux distribution for 15 years. And I also never run Debian on any of my personal computers. Thus, my anecdotes are definitely way less convincing. In other words, you can stop reading here. The only two major distributions that I used for a sufficient amount of time are Ubuntu and Arch. Arch "unstableness" is exactly what I want most of the time on my personal computer as it's…

This is the proper response, imo. Arch is rolling release and you take the good with the bad. The ones who try to defend arch as some paragon of stability miss the point that Arch's model is inherently unstable, but it comes with other benefits. I'm the one who kicked off this entire conversation pointing out that arch is unstable, and it cracks me up watching silly people scramble to try and defend Arch as being som…

That is only if you use the debian-specific definition of "stable" which is "does not change". The rest of the world thinks of "less bugs" when they think of stable software.

Re: OpenBSD won't update Firefox, advises users to switch to ESR

#315

Post by celticmusic »

jcelerier wrote: post #314
celticmusic wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the proper response, imo. Arch is rolling release and you take the good with the bad. The ones who try to defend arch as some paragon of stability miss the point that Arch's model is inherently unstable, but it comes with other benefits. I'm the one who kicked off this entire conversation pointing out that arch is unstable, and it cracks me up watching silly people scramble to try and defend Arch as being som…

That is only if you use the debian-specific definition of "stable" which is "does not change". The rest of the world thinks of "less bugs" when they think of stable software.

yes, because randomly declaring the other person as using a different definition somehow adds to the conversation and changes their point.

Back here in reality, rolling release is less stable because more bugs in the software get through. And this is a reasonable expectation and not some magical fairyland where bugs never get written so being right up against the dev branch is as stable as being on the stable branch.

Re: OpenBSD won't update Firefox, advises users to switch to ESR

#316

Post by celticmusic »

shakna wrote: post #312
AnonymousPlanet wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then I sit with a hopelessly old system I dare not to touch because I dread the day I have to do that kernel update or that one update that pulls in a new libc, leading to an upgrade orgy. I have seen that plenty of times. This nonsense is why stable and LTS releases were introduced in the first place. If I'm faced with a major upgrade of an LTS system, I usually choose to reinstall from scratch, shedding package…

> If I'm faced with a major upgrade of an LTS system, I usually choose to reinstall from scratch, shedding packages I haven't needed for a long time with it. But that happens every couple years or so. This goes back to my original point, which we've drifted a little from. Ubuntu has more unexpected behaving when upgrading than Debian. A working dist-upgrade should not be something that your OS struggles to provide. A…

it's called LTS for a reason. Just don't dist-upgrade, problem solved.

This argument that you MUST dist-upgrade as soon as the next version is available, and completely ignore the entire idea around LTS, is silly.

Re: OpenBSD won't update Firefox, advises users to switch to ESR

#317

Post by jcelerier »

celticmusic wrote: post #315
jcelerier wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is only if you use the debian-specific definition of "stable" which is "does not change". The rest of the world thinks of "less bugs" when they think of stable software.

yes, because randomly declaring the other person as using a different definition somehow adds to the conversation and changes their point. Back here in reality, rolling release is less stable because more bugs in the software get through. And this is a reasonable expectation and not some magical fairyland where bugs never get written so being right up against the dev branch is as stable as being on the stable branch.

> Back here in reality, rolling release is less stable because more bugs in the software get through.

We really live in two different software worlds. Every software I'm using has its number of bugs a purely decreasing function of time, especially in the "main" paths and use cases.

Re: OpenBSD won't update Firefox, advises users to switch to ESR

#318

Post by celticmusic »

jcelerier wrote: post #317
celticmusic wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes, because randomly declaring the other person as using a different definition somehow adds to the conversation and changes their point. Back here in reality, rolling release is less stable because more bugs in the software get through. And this is a reasonable expectation and not some magical fairyland where bugs never get written so being right up against the dev branch is as stable as being on the stable branch.

> Back here in reality, rolling release is less stable because more bugs in the software get through. We really live in two different software worlds. Every software I'm using has its number of bugs a purely decreasing function of time, especially in the "main" paths and use cases.

Your statement is a logical paradox.

If it were true, it means there wouldn't be bugs in the first place because they wouldn't have gotten written. The very fact that the bugs got written implies new bugs can, and will, be introduced.

Re: OpenBSD won't update Firefox, advises users to switch to ESR

#319

Post by dzsekijo »

chousuke wrote: post #157
jolmg wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see, when you said "break", I thought you meant because of a bug or other error, but now I guess the fact that it needs configuration and learning how to do that configuration is what you're calling broken. Certainly, Arch is definitely not a "it just works" OS. It's a tinkerer's OS. Different distros favor different types of users. By what you said, probably something like Ubuntu or Mint is better, something that…

Arch is not an easy distro to use even if you know what you're doing. Every Arch user essentially creates their own distribution which can break at any point depending on their particular environment. You need to take care of all the little things yourself. Personally I didn't experience all that much breakage, but eventually got frustrated by kernel updates breaking hotplug kernel module loading until reboot because…

Once you understand this, it seems to me to be a very simple step to align your kernel upgrades with reboots. I fail to see this as an usability issue.

Re: OpenBSD won't update Firefox, advises users to switch to ESR

#320

Post by diffeomorphism »

blackhaz wrote: post #14

I am arguing about this on FreeBSD forums - from an end user perspective. I think the benefits of saving disk space by sharing libraries do not justify the inconveniences we, desktop BSD and Linux users, obtain from being forced to disrupt and upgrade hundreds of installed software packages, just because one single desired upgrade requires to pull its dependencies. The whole ecosystem falls down like a card house - o…

As an end user I view it the exact opposite way. On windows I have dozens of auto updaters running in the background that may or may not fix security issues in any reasonable amount of time. I also have lots of different versions of .net, libraries etc. installed, some with security support some without. Also, an issue in a central library will require hundreds of updates, some of which may never come.

In contrast on linux I have exactly one updater and can be certain my software uses the fixed version. I don't care about disk space saving or RAM savings (though those are nice), I care that stuff gets fixed and is secure. If you don't enforce that you trade convenience (for the developers, not the user) for security.

Post reply on HN