51–60 of 288 posts
There will be a major update in xx.xx.20xx date, it will break many things, so plan accordingly. And there won't be any more security updates one month after that.
Meanwhile, security updates are pushed in realtime.
I'm not sure if this is a joke or not.
It is not a joke, just a very frustrated (clickbaity) hyperbole rant. "My premise is that updates are a massive waste of time, most of the time. Obviously, someone will jump out and say that "Hey, if you don't update, your Windows XP installation will get added to a botnet in less than a week," and they'll also be right at the same time. " So my understanding is, when compared to a academical, idealistic point of vie…
> Docker Desktop doesn't let you decide whether you want updates or not, unless you pay them This made me uninstall Docker Desktop.
They actually just reverted this change within the last week (of course with accompanying “we love listening to your feedback!!!1!” eyeroll inducing messaging).
If they are the kind of people who would try something, then they are still the same people and that problem did not go away.
They will try something else again, and may in fact already be failing to work to my advantage right now in ways I just can't see.
Once you know that, I prefer to just live without whatever the awesome thing is, somehow I will survive.
I'm not sure if this is a joke or not.
In a more serious note: it is a rant
Better yet, if you don't want updated software, then why are you installing it? Just use a versioned Linux distro be done with it.
I upgraded my Ubuntu distribution last week and my old Xerox Phaser laser printer stopped working over the network. Something like this should never happen. I hate spending my weekends troubleshooting the Samba configuration. Maybe I will connect the printer to a Windows VM.
This is why I badly want all updates and rollbacks to be as declarative and simple as Git commands. "Be on this version. Now."
I've got some sympathy for this perspective. It's frustrating when you update in order to get the latest security updates - and you get forced to do a bunch of pointless busywork because some asshole has made some arbitrary change like deciding that 'which' is deprecated now.
I kind of hate that this is going to live on as some example when the actual event was somebody proposing it, it failing in some builds on testing, and then a vote deciding against it. It was an example of good project governing preventing breakage, but for some reason it's already being remembered as the opposite.
I tend to agree with the premise that in general updates aren't something to race out and apply. Security updates, yes. Updates that are required because of API changes, yes. Other ones are often more trouble then they are worth.
Like the author mentions in the backporting section, if you don't update you'll fall behind maintained version and then you don't get security updates and upgrading is a huge chunk of work that has to be tackled as a giant step. Depends on your priorities and timeline, not updating is the most straightforward example of creating technical debt.
What about trying "planned obsolescence"? Hopefully every 5 years for production, and once a year for consumer. With this in mind, it is possible to plan ahead and allocate resources. There will be a major update in xx.xx.20xx date, it will break many things, so plan accordingly. And there won't be any more security updates one month after that. Meanwhile, security updates are pushed in realtime.
> Docker Desktop doesn't let you decide whether you want updates or not, unless you pay them This made me uninstall Docker Desktop.
They actually just reverted this change within the last week (of course with accompanying “we love listening to your feedback!!!1!” eyeroll inducing messaging).