• Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works
    74·
    2 days ago

    Side note: “I’mma” is a contraction of the whole phrase “I’m going to” or “I’m about to” so it’s followed immediately by the verb indicating what you’ll be doing:

    “I’mma rawdog this sucker without backups.”

    Yes, I added sucker, because it’s going to suck up all your time and data, sucka!

    • wick@lemm.ee
      4·
      2 days ago

      I’d automate it but the greybeards tell me it’s a bad idea :(

      • passepartout@feddit.org
        1·
        2 days ago

        I do the same as OP with my Fedora workstation, which is wait till I have to summon all the available mirrors just to serve me several gigs of software updates every other week.

        For my servers I have an ansible script to update most of the machines. I fire that up every start of the month after the automatic backups. Seems like I’m a week late again already. In these I use apt dist-upgrade since that seems more robust, but I’m still to shy to run it in a cron job.

  • Classy@sh.itjust.works
    23·
    2 days ago

    Maybe I’m just screaming into the void here, but does it seem like, as a person who is still relatively out of touch with linux, I don’t necessarily have to update my Arch distribution whenever there are new updates available? I could theoretically just go on downloading new programs, uninstalling old ones, using everything as it sits until theoretically something breaks?

    • doggle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      19·
      2 days ago

      I don’t necessarily have to update my Arch distribution whenever there are new updates available

      Clearly, op agrees

    • __Lost__@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      91·
      2 days ago

      You should always run a full upgrade when installing a new package to make sure your versions are all in sync. Like if your new package is looking for version 1.1 and you have 1.0 installed, the new package won’t work. In general, everything should be installed with ‘pacman -Syu’ not just ‘pacman -S’

      If you don’t install any new packages, then no you don’t need to upgrade anything. You’re just missing out on security patches and upgraded features. It’s worth running occasional upgrades.

      • voxel@sopuli.xyz
        1·
        1 day ago

        pacman -S without update is safe and will just install a version that was in the repos at the time you last dis an update. stuff gets removed from repos after like a month though…

    • azvasKvklenko@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      6·
      2 days ago

      Iirc, the Arch wiki says you should synchronize all packages while adding new ones, and it’s technically unsupported. It might work in some cases, but personally I didn’t have to do much to not be able to launch something because symbols missing in libraries or no such file altogether. To avoid problems it’s better to sync packages fully at least once in a while.

  • ozoned@lemmy.world
    21·
    2 days ago

    And they were never heard from AGAIN! Oooooooo It is horror month, and that’s pretty scary! :-D

  • Sundial@lemm.ee
    55·
    2 days ago

    Just do a fresh install man. I’m getting anxiety just by looking at it.

      • bdonvr@thelemmy.club
        27·
        2 days ago

        The system files aren’t writable, instead you download a new system image when you want to update. No dependency hell or weird issues because these system images are all tested. Your system also keeps one or two old ones around and if by some chance something does go wrong you just select the old one at boot.

        Downside is you’re more limited on installing software. You can force install things the traditional way but that kinda defeats the point. Instead you have to use things like FlatPak or AppImages which covers most GUI apps you could want. For command line apps you will have to use something like DistroBox.

        It’s a trade off but for casual desktop users it is super stable and pretty simple. Updates come out daily (depending on distro) and they just get all their software from the software center app with a nice GUI.

        • Botzo@lemmy.world
          8·
          2 days ago

          You can do gui apps too! I used distrobox to run WebEx on an Ubuntu image for an interview. Just had to get to the actual binary to launch and it worked seamlessly.

          • Jess@lemmy.world
            2·
            2 days ago

            I have to ask, do you use X11 or Wayland? I’m struggling to get Webex working for calls (video or otherwise) under Wayland.

            • Botzo@lemmy.world
              2·
              2 days ago

              IIRC that was X11. It has admittedly been a minute. And by a minute, I mean a year.

      • Cyborganism@lemmy.ca
        8·
        2 days ago

        (correct me if I’m wrong, I’m also new at this)

        There are two partitions. One with the current system, one with the previous system. Updates are applied in a whole batch at once, once in a while.

        Current system is cloned into the old one and an update is applied to the clone.

        Once the update is complete, system reboots in the clone, and what was the current system becomes the previous one.

        If something goes bad, you can reboot into the previous system and fix the clone.

        • chirping@infosec.pubEnglish
          2·
          2 days ago

          that is one way to do it, and it’s a very common one - it’s robust and simple. So I can’t correct you, but thought I would add to it. In NixOS, they’ve improved it by making sure all your apps are symlinked, and when updating, these symlinks are updated. That way you can start using your newly updated system straight away, without a reboot. When rebooting, you are prompted to which generation you want to boot into, (defaulting to “latest” after a few seconds of no input) making rollbacks a breeze.

          • ProjectPatatoe@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            2 days ago

            I believe this is how android has been for as long as i have used it. At least A6 or A7. Could be earlier but I haven’t used those enough

          • Cyborganism@lemmy.ca
            2·
            2 days ago

            Yes, it uses an immutable atomic distro. I don’t know about Android phones, but I wouldn’t be surprised.

      • Samsy@lemmy.ml
        4·
        2 days ago

        The atomic distro would do a backup and if update goes wrong, it automatically boots back into the previous one.

    • AItoothbrush@lemmy.zipEnglish
      7·
      2 days ago

      I know its a meme but nixos is actually good for this. You can be on the unstable branch, not update for 5 years and still get everything working after updating(tho i dont recommend because of security). I think nixos has some fucking AMAZING features but the problem is its paired with features that make it extremely hard to use for a casual user.

      • Something Burger 🍔@jlai.lu
        3·
        2 days ago

        So many Linux problems are solved by using NixOS, it’s amazing. Immutability? NixOS. Atomic upgrades? NixOS. Whole system rollbacks? NixOS. Versionned system settings? NixOS. Impermanence? NixOS. Multiple versions of the same program installed at once? NixOS. Containers? NixOS. Multiple hardware profiles on a single installation? NixOS.

        At this point, I think the only thing remaining is a Flatpak-like sandbox.

        • AItoothbrush@lemmy.zipEnglish
          1·
          1 day ago

          If im right theres a utility for nixos that wraps flatpacks in an environment so they work nice with nix. I dont really use flatpacks so i dont know what the name is tho.

      • chirping@infosec.pubEnglish
        3·
        2 days ago

        Agreed! I think a part of the “problem” is that with Nix, there’s now at least 3 sides: application specific knowledge, system knowledge, and you have to use the nix language, architecture and tools to interface with it. so for a seasoned linux user, there’s maybe just a new programming language, but if you’re new to Linux, it’s quickly gonna overwhelm you. which in a way is a bit ironic because I’d argue that it’s easier to manage a NixOS system, and getting help is so much easier when your problems can be replicated by just aharing your config.

        • AItoothbrush@lemmy.zipEnglish
          1·
          2 days ago

          Id say its easy to share your problems with other people because its a few files unlike distros like arch where your packages can be fucked up and then you have to reinstall in most cases. But the support it self isnt too good. Arch has archwiki, ubuntu has a lot of channels of support while nixos has a badly written wiki.

  • 1984@lemmy.today
    31·
    2 days ago

    It’s my experience that Ubuntu and Fedora break if you don’t upgrade often (and then suddenly do after a year), while arch doesn’t… Which is interesting, since it’s supposed to be the other way around…

    I think it’s because Fedora and Ubuntu add a lot of new things, while arch just updates it’s packages.

    • bitwolf@lemmy.one
      3·
      2 days ago

      Fedora upgrades are very reliable. I’ve never had one fail, 24 upgrades and counting.

      • whats_all_this_then@lemmy.world
        1·
        2 days ago

        Was gonna say this. As long as you run dnf update before you upgrade and make sure there aren’t any left (you know, like their upgrade dpcs explicitly tell you to), you’re chilling.

        Only issues I’ve had with fedora upgrades so far are plasma incompatibilities (not a fedora issue) and nvidia bullshit (not a fedora issue).

    • Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      4·
      2 days ago

      More please. Getting ready to switch from Windows to Linux, been making sure I can install all the -arr I want and get games running, but in Mint.

      Now I’m hitting the brakes hard. It’s Arch if that means I don’t have this headache. I’ll need to start over learning, but it’ll be worth it.

      • Something Burger 🍔@jlai.lu
        2·
        2 days ago

        I recently updated an old laptop from Ubuntu 16 to 24 with no issues whatsoever. Do not start with Arch if you don’t have any Linux experience yet.

      • DesolateMood@lemm.ee
        5·
        2 days ago

        As long as you update frequently (I do it whenever I think about it, usually once every few days to a week) you shouldn’t run into any issues

      • areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
        1·
        2 days ago

        Honestly if you are that worried about updates breaking stuff, you might be better off using an immutable distro. These work using images and/or snapshots so it’s easy to rollback if something goes wrong. It’s also just less likely to go wrong as you aren’t upgrading individual packages as much, but rather the base system as a whole. Both Fedora and Open Suse have atomic/immutable variants with derivatives like Universal Blue providing ready to go setups for specific use cases like gaming and workstation use.

        Alternatively the likes of Debian rarely break because of updates as everything is thoroughly tested before deployment. Gentoo and void are the same deal but in rolling release format so they are at least somewhat up to date while still being quite well tested.

        • Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          1·
          1 day ago

          Well people were on here saying they do a clean reinstall, backing up their computer and doing a reinstall whenever there’s an update. Certainly don’t want to go through that hassle.

          The idea of an immutable distro sounds pretty good, but I’m willing to do updates pretty often so I’m probably going to end up taking the risk quote unquote of Linux Mint.

          • areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
            1·
            1 day ago

            I don’t think you have interpreted that correctly. People tend to reinstall when changing versions, for example from Ubuntu 22.04 to 24.04. That isn’t the same as doing updates.

      • punkfungus@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        2·
        2 days ago

        I’ve had two different arch based distros have issues when trying to update after long periods. I also had an Ubuntu server fail completely when doing a major version upgrade and had to restore it from backup. But then again I’ve also had no trouble updating an Ubuntu machine that was a couple years behind.

        I’m on Fedora now for my desktop and it’s been great so far, but I also do updates at least weekly. My advice would be if you expect to go months between updates your best choice is probably Debian.

    • timbuck2themoon@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      2·
      2 days ago

      Eh, I leave fedora for a while and come back and it’s fine. Never had it break and I’ve been using it consistently since like 27.

  • bdonvr@thelemmy.club
    341·
    2 days ago

    I’ve updated an Arch install after not being used for 2 years. I don’t think there were any issues.

    I’ve experienced far more issues upgrading to a new major release of an apt based distro though…

    • fallingcats@discuss.tchncs.de
      1·
      1 day ago

      Then you were definitely lucky with the timeframe. Arch specifically sometimes has updates you need a recent version of pacman to even apply, which means you’ll be left behind if you wait for too long. Last time was the switch to .zstd compressed packages: if you didn’t have a pacman that supported them you had to manually go and find a pacman from the correct time frame plus all it’s deps.

    • superkret@feddit.org
      8·
      2 days ago

      That apt based distro was Ubuntu, wasn’t it?
      I never successfully upgraded that from one release to the next.

      • llii@discuss.tchncs.de
        2·
        2 days ago

        I had success in upgrading a core ubuntu server with only apache and PHP installed … But I don’t think there is a less complicated ununtu install possible.