Before I begin my rant you should know that I'm a big fan of Linux. I use it on all my desktop and laptop computers. But I have known for a long while now that the Achilles Heel for most Linux distributions is the update process.
Always with big updates, but even with average or even small updates, one must pray to whatever God they believe in, check to make sure the stars are aligned, watch for dire omens, and simply cross their fingers hoping that the latest update will not screw up their system.
Ubuntu has not been my favorite operating system, but I have found it useful for things like automatically installing needed drivers and for being the one Linux system that usually works with printers and sdcard readers and other things out of the box. Despite some frustrations with Unity, Ubuntu has grown on me a bit, and Ubuntu can be a good go-to distribution for Linux newbies.
Ubuntu is not the only Linux distribution that has caused me grief regarding updates, just the latest. I have Ubuntu 12.04 installed on one of my laptops. I've been keeping it updated and using it regularly. This afternoon I found there were about 34 mb worth of updates, and since this is supposed to be a more stable LTS release I was not too worried about updating it, so I went to the terminal and ran: sudo apt-get update and sudo apt-get upgrade. It finished with no issues, so I restarted the computer. When it booted back up I noticed there was no wallpaper, only a black screen and Unity's icons looked wrong. So I restarted it and once again things still looked wrong. I got no results from trying to launch several apps and a window popped up telling me something was wrong with the system. I found myself fracked by yet another Linux update.
I could not get Ubuntu 12.04 to work properly, but I finally got synaptic package manager to launch and as a last ditch effort to save the install I installed Kubuntu Desktop. This saved the install and now everything is working fine under Kubuntu.
If this kind of thing happened to Ubuntu alone it would be easy to dismiss, but I have had this issue with numerous Linux distributions, you have a fine operating system that you update and then all hell breaks loose after the update. A couple examples, I had a Fedora 17 install working very well, but after a few updates it damn near burned up one of my laptops shooting the temperature up to 90c. That was the end of my interest in Fedora. I had a Debian install that was made useless by an update that broke Dolphin, causing it to crash every time I tried to launch the file manager. Those are just two recent episodes.
When I think of newcomers to Linux running into these update problems it does not surprise me that they go running back to Windows or Mac. Most people simply want a working system, something they don't have to constantly fix.
Being well aware of these sort of update issues has caused me to shun the Rolling Release Linux distributions. It has made me gravitate toward the Long Term Support (LTS) and Stable Linux release distributions, but as I mention in this article--even they are not completely immune from update breakage.
I think I'm about one screwed up Linux experience away from taking some stable Linux release, shutting down everything except security updates and a browser update, and saying to hell with the other updates. I know I'm not alone with these frustrations. Any given hour on the Ubuntu Forum shows numerous people who have simply run updates and found their operating system broke or otherwise unusable.
I think that the person who comes out with an almost update free Linux version will get much love for their distribution, for no matter how many months a distribution runs well, when Linux is made unusable by an update, that's another black eye for Linux, and another user who may be lost to the Linux community.
Yes, updates are the bane of Linux, and until a system is found that severely reduces breakage from updates, it will be difficult for Linux to become fully mainstream. Rant over...for now....
While there are a few distros I like, the only one I've found never to bork my system with an update is Linux Mint. It is most likely due to the Mint Update Manager only performing "safe" updates by default.
ReplyDeleteTom, I have also had fewer issues with Mint updates, generally Mint updates improve rather than cripple the system. I suspect the breakage in my Ubuntu install was Unity related as installing Kubuntu fixed it. Mint's MATE desktop is quite solid, and Cinnamon gets better and better.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the feedback!
kbd
This is the problem that keeps me away from Arch. It seems like a lot of people love Arch, but the one time I actually got it to install and run (with working internet), an update broke the install. I have never had Debian Stable updates or Mint updates break things, but I may just be lucky (I'm curious about the dolphin breakage, though). TBH, while I love LMDE, Debian Testing/Sid (yeah, they break a lot, but that's kind of the point), etc, my favorite installs are becoming good old Debian Stable installs, especially with Xfce or Gnome 2. I don't mind using Debian Testing/Sid, but when they break it's really nice to have a fallback.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I don't think other OSs are immune to this. There have been multiple Mac OS X 10.x.x updates that break things. I distinctly remember one messing up text on the system and making it unreadable, and Mac OS X 10.7.5 stopped some Mac Pro computers from booting. I also had Windows Vista not boot after a Service Pack update, and then it stopped being able to update once it did boot. Also, I'm currently typing using chrome because firefox for Windows broke with the update to version 18 for me, whereas iceweasel 18 pulled from Debian Experimental works fine on my Debian Sid install. I'm definitely not saying that linux updates are better than other OSs, but I think none of them are perfect. My dad still absolutely hates updates (I had to force him to stop using IE 7) because he has memories of them breaking back in earlier computing days. However, it's fair to say the linux must be better than the competition in order to become more mainstream
I keep coming back to Arch, where, on a number of articles about arch, someone will bring up that there install broke too much when using it as a production system. They sometimes detail how they "only" have to boot into a live CD and manually edit some files, but it's kind of stupid that that's required. I don't mean to harsh on Arch at all (what I wrote sounds much more negative than it was intended), and I love Arch and Arch based distros (I use Manjaro a lot). I also love rolling distros that do sometimes break (I don't love them because they break) - half of my installs are rolling.
Anyways, just my two cents.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I must admit that my experience has been the same with Debian Stable and Main Mint--no breakage from updates. Can't say the same with LMDE. I also had a Windows XP service pack update completely break my system years ago, requiring a new install. Debian Testing is where Dolphin broke on me, and some other issues with apps refusing to launch. Fedora nearly fried my computer after an update. Probably the most heartbreaking was Unity breaking on 12.04 with just regular updates, an LTS should not be receiving updates that could break the system.
DeleteHere is where I'm at now, some installs I will never update until I'm ready to replace them, the exception being browsers and security updates. Some I will only update infrequently when I know I have time to do a reinstall. Twice I had breaks at very inopportune times. Once during the National Novel Writing Month in the middle of the month on the computer I was using to write on--that seriously pissed me off. I had the novel backed up on Dropbox, but had to reinstall another system before I could write again. Needless to say I'm very cautious about updates and often forgo them now. I multiboot on my little laptop right now with: Ubuntu 12.04/Kubuntu 12.04, Debian Wheezy, Fuduntu 2013.1, Mint 13 MATE.