About updating.?

[asqwerth]

For configs I'm not familiar with [ie, not the ones I know I have changed myself in the past], I choose the option to view the differences to see what was added (+) and what was removed (-) to help me make a decision.

But to be honest, if I'm not sure, usually I keep my current.

[CharlesV]

and I run slightly different as well... when I see this "accept Maintainers version" .. .I stop, go get the current config and save it to my backup area, then proceed with updating to the maintainers version - under the thought that this maintainers version is being updated ***for a reason***.

Then, after the update, and before rebooting, I check the old version against the new one and see what has changed and if I want to put my old changes in there. Most of the time I do not, and just reboot. On some rare occasions I do put my changes back into the new conf and then reboot.

To date, this process has been good for me.

[DukeComposed]

Thank you.
It is still a disturbing showstopper.
Is Debian Stable not giving the MX developers an option to suppress the questionnaires.?

In the MX Upgrader I have put a mark in the box for automatic answering 'yes' to any question during upgrade.
Now, after unexpected answering 'no' twice, I start wondering if that is too light-hearted.

I'm beginning to feel like all the effort that was made in this thread three months ago explaining why upgrades stop for user input, why it's good not to break a system, how it's an important part of keeping a machine functional, and how to go about setting Dpkg options to avoid them was all wasted.

[Jakob77]

Thank you for telling me about how you handle the trouble and doubts.

Thank you.
It is still a disturbing showstopper.
Is Debian Stable not giving the MX developers an option to suppress the questionnaires.?

In the MX Upgrader I have put a mark in the box for automatic answering 'yes' to any question during upgrade.
Now, after unexpected answering 'no' twice, I start wondering if that is too light-hearted.

I do it differently than many here. On my test machine, I always accept the upgrade and then I run it for a day. If in that 24 hour period, I experience any performance degradation or other odd behaviour I don't accept the upgrade on my daily driver. On the other hand if there are no glitches, I do accept it. I never run upgrades of this type automatically. I learned this lesson the hard way many years ago.

I do it pretty much the same way as you with all updates.
I call them all automatic because I receive them automatically. Is that a wrong term or what do you mean you don't do that.?

However can the procedure stand for a closer look.?
If you say yes to an upgrade detail on your test computer and you after testing decide that you don't want it to go any further, what do you then do with your test computer afterwards.?
Do you live with it being 'infected', do you make a complete new install to clean it up, do you do some risky timeshift work, or what do you do.? :-)

[Jakob77]

Thank you.
It is still a disturbing showstopper.
Is Debian Stable not giving the MX developers an option to suppress the questionnaires.?

In the MX Upgrader I have put a mark in the box for automatic answering 'yes' to any question during upgrade.
Now, after unexpected answering 'no' twice, I start wondering if that is too light-hearted.

I'm beginning to feel like all the effort that was made in this thread three months ago explaining why upgrades stop for user input, why it's good not to break a system, how it's an important part of keeping a machine functional, and how to go about setting Dpkg options to avoid them was all wasted.

No, not all wasted but I didn't do the homework you suggested.
I don't even know where to find the Dpkg options.
I have never needed it before to keep a Linux computer functional so why now.?
If you don't expect too much hunger after the knowledge I would still like you to tell a little more detailed about it maybe by example.? :-)

There is also a need for speed in the procedure.
The more I have to test an update before I spread it, the more delayed the security updates for my client will be.

[j2mcgreg]

@Jakob77 wrote:

However can the procedure stand for a closer look.?
If you say yes to an upgrade detail on your test computer and you after testing decide that you don't want it to go any further, what do you then do with your test computer afterwards.?
Do you live with it being 'infected', do you make a complete new install to clean it up, do you do some risky timeshift work, or what do you do.? :-)

My test laptop, the HP 17 in my sig, is as the name implies a test bed where I can try things out and if they fail in any way I just reinstall from a snapshot. It doesn't ever have any critical data on it so there's nothing lost in the reinstall.

[DukeComposed]

I didn't do the homework you suggested.

I noticed.

I don't even know where to find the Dpkg options.

"man dpkg" would be a good place to start as well as revisiting the posts in this thread from January. Is Google banned in your country, or is it that a paying customer isn't motivation enough?

I have never needed it before to keep a Linux computer functional so why now.?

There is also a need for speed in the procedure.

You had three months to get around to this. I would expect anyone in a similar situation to at the very least appreciate that basic proficiency is not expertise. I should not have to explain to you that you keep learning new things the longer you spend doing just about anything. Driving, fishing, cooking, system administration, crochet. The best way I can explain what you're up against here is the Latin phrase Ars longa, vita brevis, best written, in my opinion, by Chaucer as "The life so short, the craft so long to learn". And I'll add another proverb I've carried with me over the years: "Smooth seas never made a skilled sailor". If you keep using Linux you're going to keep hitting new things to study and learn and adapt, forever. So "why now?" Because you've been using Linux long enough to discover system configuration file drift.

I started this journey in the 1990s and I'm still learning new things, here on this forum and elsewhere. The worst thing about this thread isn't that MX Linux hasn't figured out how to read minds yet and still dares to prompt for user for input during system updates sometimes (The outrage of having to push "Enter", my goodness....!) -- the worst thing is this attitude of pervasive uncuriousness, of complacency, and obvious disdain for growing one's skills.

On a personal note, I've been doing tech support in some capacity, paid or unpaid, for literally decades and I've aired my opinions on things online many, many times. I don't see it as a healthy behavior to go whining to one of the better support forums when you're (a) in a position where you're taking on clients and (b) doing it on the only support forum that provides the software your clients are using. Canonical sells Ubuntu contracts and has a support division. They get paid to handle requests like "Why did apt-get stop thinking for me?" This, on the other hand, is a volunteer project. So looking at this long term I expect that grumbling about basic Debian behaviors will be less useful to your business than spending the time needed getting good at the thing you're being compensated to do.

Or just send your clients here and we'll help them for free.

[Jakob77]

DukeComposed

And you had 3 months time to help the developers finding better ways to entertain the updating users than with questionnaires. ;-)
I don't know what makes you think I make money on my client.
It could have been nice but I work with Linux only for idealistic reasons.
It seems to me you forget about ordinary users with limited capability. I believe MX-Linux is supposed to be for them too.
My client is my mother and she is 95 years old. Sending her to you so you can teach her details about configuring Linux update is really a funny thought.
I just want the update procedure to be as easy and safe as possible. Therefore I think a discussion about the questionnaires is relevant.
And I say thank you for your participation. :-)

My test laptop, the HP 17 in my sig, is as the name implies a test bed where I can try things out and if they fail in any way I just reinstall from a snapshot. It doesn't ever have any critical data on it so there's nothing lost in the reinstall.

I also plan to restore with a snapshot but the funny thing is that I have not really seen the need for it yet.
There could perhaps be something hidden so I ought to do it on regular basis but now it has almost turned into some kind of a sport.
On one hand for how long can I keep it still going strong. And on the other hand how much can MX-Linux survive. Can I really not do so much over creative script work and bad Terminal code testing that it will tilt... How poor.. lol
MX is really a lot stronger than I thought to begin with.
Buying and installing a test computer is one of the best things I have done for Linux and me. It gives a wonderful safe and free space for experimenting.
It is not completely bullet proof for testing updates and scripts but it helps a lot.

I don't always wait 24h before distributing updates further.
If you receive security updates today and your client has to go netbanking today also, will you then recommend your client to update before banking or wait 24h until your test is done.?

[Eadwine Rose]

Seems this thread is going in circles. "Questionnaires" will not be removed, as they are a part of life in linux, not just MX.

And MX devs are not inclined, from what I gather, to change that behavior to pick one of the options and make that the default so you don't have to click anything anymore.

[AK-47]

Live with it.

Really. This is linux, you just have to deal with questions being asked. If you don't want that, I suggest you stop updating, or going to Windows, the system will take care of it for you.

damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Linux - asks questions about how to deal with conflicts in your config versus updates (because nobody cares enough to standardise the format I suppose?). That said, you generally can't go wrong with choosing the maintainer's version but you should still review.

Windows - randomly in the middle of the blue asks not if, but when, you want an update, and gives you several choices such as "update and shut down" which won't work correctly. And it will do so while you are working on an important document which could have ended world hunger and brought eternal peace had it not been for that meddlesome modal update popup. And the update will make international news for breaking your printer. Or turns your wallpaper black. Or change your desktop layout or other settings like a poltergeist. All without asking you.

So, to quote the guy from Blade Runner, "Yes! Questions."