To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I've yet to see a simple, easy-to-use, universal solution to upgrading apps on Linux.
I'm talking about not having to upgrade your whole distro just to use the latest release of your favorite music player, etc...
This happens all the time.
"For example, if Ubuntu ships with OpenOffice.org 2.0.x, it will remain at OpenOffice.org 2.0.x for the entire 6-month release cycle, even if a later version gets released during this time. The Ubuntu team may apply important security fixes to 2.0.x, but any new features or non-security bugfixes will not be made available."
Sure there are "backports" but lots of apps never get this treatment.
This is not normally an issue on Windows or Mac OS X.
Oh but you *can* always have the latest releases, or even pre-releases, with either rolling-release distros like Arch, "testing" repositories, or downloading and installing a .deb/.rpm of the update.
I prefer not to do so when I don't need to, because I prefer the increased stability of a stable installed base. But you can do that. As an example, my old Ubuntu box had repositories for GIMP betas and Emesene nightlies. Others have one for Opera.
Just imagine one second, knowing the famous quality of Nvidia and ATI drivers on all platforms, that they were always updated to the latest release on Windows. Your computer would effectively be broken quite often.
Edited 2010-06-19 05:30 UTC
There is no so such animal for *ANY* OS
I'm talking about not having to upgrade your whole distro just to use the latest release of your favorite music player, etc...
This happens all the time.
"For example, if Ubuntu ships with OpenOffice.org 2.0.x, it will remain at OpenOffice.org 2.0.x for the entire 6-month release cycle, even if a later version gets released during this time. The Ubuntu team may apply important security fixes to 2.0.x, but any new features or non-security bugfixes will not be made available."
Bullshit. Under Fedora for instance just run "yum install blah" as root using su from a terminal.
If you don't have what the program needs, yum will download and install it for you.
Sure there are "backports" but lots of apps never get this treatment.
This is not normally an issue on Windows or Mac OS X.
That's because Windows or Mac OS X will require you to run out and spend $$$$ on the latest version of the OS, or buy a freaking new computer.
Don't agree? Try running the latest versions of either VLC or Firefox on Windows 98se for instance. There's quite frankly no reason that I can see for either of these programs to *NOT* run under Win98se except for the fact the the developers wanted to force people to upgrade for no real reason.





Member since:
2010-03-08
Oo How ? In my experience, the central repository system of Linux, to the contrary, made updates a much easier and smoother experience than on Windows and OSX...
Except, of course, if you're referring to some distros which just introduce buggy updates right away, instead of heavily testing them before moving them in repositories at the expense of not having newly released upstream updates available right away. But it's not the case on all. I've yet to see an update breaking the system on Debian stable (or even Testing) ^^
/begin ad
More seriously, for people who don't like the make-your-own approach of Debian, my distro of choice, Pardus, never broke with an update, pretty much anything worked out of the box and continued to do so ever since. Even when upgrading to the newest 2009.2 release, which I did with extreme caution and backups because of my past experience with upgrading Windows and Linux to a new release, everything just worked perfectly fine. Its packages are of acceptable freshness when having the excellent stability in mind.
/end ad
My advice in that area is to use a rock-solid distribution and then put bleeding-edge repositories for some softwares only if you need it.
Edited 2010-06-19 04:58 UTC