[ale] AARG! Manual software updates, Sun Java, LibreOffice, help

Mon Nov 7 13:03:13 EST 2011

Keep in mind the time lag between upstream app moves to new version and
distro can package app into appropriate format.
Also,  not all upstream changes will work on distro current without MASSIVE
changes. Thus distro bacports security patches.

In short, if you want to run bleeding edge stuff, your cost is your time.
If you want less effort then a notch back from bleeding edge is what you
get.
On Nov 7, 2011 11:03 AM, "Ron Frazier" <atllinuxenthinfo at c3energy.com>
wrote:

> On 11/6/2011 11:02 PM, David Tomaschik wrote:
> > On 11/05/2011 09:02 AM, Ron Frazier wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> I've been going through my routine pc maintenance procedures, updating
> >> everything which connects to the internet for every login on every
> >> computer, checking security settings, doing backups and such.  One of
> >> the things I'm trying to get away from by using Linux is the Windows
> >> pattern of having to update everything in the system manually, which is
> >> very time consuming.  I'm running Ubuntu 10.04, and, for the most part,
> >> the Apt / Synaptic package manager system handles the updates.  I have
> >> two anomalies that are really bugging me.
> >>
> >>
> > <snip>
> >
> >> Sincerely,
> >>
> >> Ron
> >>
> >>
> > Ron,
> >
> > For every choice you make in life, there is a price to be paid.  You
> > choose to run LTS editions of Ubuntu, and you've explained your
> > reasoning before on the mailing list.  Unfortunately, one of the prices
> > of running an LTS edition is that you may not have the most current
> > versions of software.
> >
> > At work, we do run 10.04 LTS on servers, and there are times where I
> > have to roll new packages to get newer versions of software than is
> > available in the repos -- though I try not to, if at all possible.
> > Sometimes we just decide to live without a feature or two.  Again, it's
> > a tradeoff.
> >
> >
> Hi David,
>
> I understand what you're saying.  However, if I may indulge in a bit of
> comparative analysis, let's look at the alternatives on the Windows side
> of the fence, when I dual boot.  I'm running a couple of computers with
> Vista and one with Windows 7.  My Son's and Dad's machines run Vista as
> well.  So, 4 of the 5 are running the prior generation of MS software.
> Before I retired it, I had an old laptop running XP.  All those OS's are
> still "supported" by MS.  I think XP support expires in 2013, so I might
> have to update that beast once more before the OS reaches end of life.
> In any case, I'm still getting security patches and bug fixes for the OS
> from the manufacturer for all the old systems, similar to Ubuntu's LTS
> system.  Now, on an application level, almost all the vendors that
> support Windows still support the older systems, even XP in most cases.
> So, when I go to www.java.com and check my Java version, it says (in
> effect) "Oh, you have 6.26 and you need 6.29.  Let me fix that for you.
> Click here."  So, I click there, and if everything works, even my oldest
> systems get updated to 6.29, etc.  Now, as I've said before, I don't
> like the fact that I have to update each thing on Windows separately.
> However, it is undeniably true that, should I wish to spend the time, I
> can have everything in my systems, even on a 10 year old machine,
> running the current OS bug fixes and security patches, and the apps
> running their current versions, and the system fully capable of being
> used in 2011.
>
> So, right now, if I want to have my Linux machine running the most
> current LibreOffice 3.4.3 (I think) and the most current Oracle Java
> 6.29, like some of my Windows machines already are, I have to go through
> procedures for those two applications to update them which are
> substantially more difficult than those on Windows.  I had a similar
> problem with Firefox in Linux.  I was stuck on the 3.26 (or something)
> version sequence, and Synaptic refused to even show anything of the
> version 7.x sequence, which is what Firefox is on now.  I solved that
> problem by adding the Mozilla PPA.  So now, just like my Windows
> machine, my Linux machine always has the most current stable version of
> Firefox.  Now I'll admit to not being knowledgeable about all the inner
> workings of Linux.  However, given the availability of the Apt /
> Synaptic package manager system in Ubuntu, or similar ones in other
> distributions, I don't see why I cannot have the best of both worlds, a
> continuously updated and patched OS AND continuously updated and patched
> applications which are always updated to their current rev level, AND,
> done so automatically.  I do understand that there are 200 or so
> distributions.  However, I'm running one of the top 5, so I would think
> the vendors could support those in the way I'm describing.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Ron
>
> --
>
> (PS - If you email me and don't get a quick response, you might want to
> call on the phone.  I get about 300 emails per day from alternate energy
> mailing lists and such.  I don't always see new messages very quickly.)
>
> Ron Frazier
>
> 770-205-9422 (O)   Leave a message.
> linuxdude AT c3energy.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.ale.org/pipermail/ale/attachments/20111107/496c6c4f/attachment.html 