A Look At The Most Promising Next-Gen Linux Software Update Mechanisms

[starshipeleven]

I certainly recognised the evasion.

There was none on my part.

It still doesn't make it an answer, but it amuses me to see how you evade it.

WAT? it was liam that "evaded" now it's me?

I also never called you names.

"Double post and unapproved posts. That's so you. And of course you, too, are responding to comments like you are struggling with each sentence. " is an elaborate way of name-calling.

Can you just answer the question, please?

Hmm, looked back a bit, and the only unanswered question is "better explain why OSTree needs reboots and Swupd doesn't." right?

Don't ask things, as you might not like the the answers you get:

Swupd by itself does not need reboot because it is NOT updating live programs. It is used in swupdate which:
-either uses its own recovery partition and a reboot to perform stuff (the same as OStree does) OR it is running in an embedded system with a dual-firmware so it is updating the other image, THEN performing a reboot in the new image.
It also relies on u-boot (the bootloader) to switch boot partition so it can perform the upgrade, or to switch to the other firmware image on reboot.
sbabic.github.io/swupdate/overview.html

[starshipeleven]

In other words: the sky is falling.

[sdack]

Don't ask things, as you might not like the the answers you get:

Swupd by itself does not need reboot because it is NOT updating live programs.

Nonsense. OSTree doesn't update live programs either. Anyone can then reboot a computer. It's certainly not a new feature. It kills the software and everything else that doesn't need killing with it. It's brute force and it's dumb, which was the point of my criticism. Rebooting itself only works when everything else works along nicely including the hardware. And I have seen plenty of hardware where this randomly failed, from harddisks, to motherboards and even memory modules that failed to work after a reboot and required a cold reboot - a full power off-on cycle. So this crap is a step backwards if you like it or not. There is also nothing atomic about a reboot unless you compared it to a nuke.

And that you are struggling with some comments isn't name calling.

Anyhow, this wasn't the question I had in mind. I still would like to know why somebody believes RedHat could never be like Microsoft. Seems to me a lot of people just see Microsoft as the ultimate evil and put all their hopes and faith into RedHat to never become like them. I'm just curious why this is.

[sdack]

In other words: the sky is falling.

My sky is blue. You first need to come out of the basement before you can see yours.

[starshipeleven]

Nonsense. OSTree doesn't update live programs either.

Yes it does. Flatpack uses OSTree but does not require a reboot.
Flatpack is used to install non-critical applications, not crucial system components, so it has no real risks or issues.
As it will simply force a close/restart of the application (firefox/libreoffice/gimp or whatever), no ill effects.

Anyone can then reboot a computer. It's certainly not a new feature. It kills the software and everything else that doesn't need killing with it. It's brute force and it's dumb, which was the point of my criticism. Rebooting itself only works when everything else works along nicely including the hardware. And I have seen plenty of hardware where this randomly failed, from harddisks, to motherboards and even memory modules that failed to work after a reboot and required a cold reboot - a full power off-on cycle. So this crap is a step backwards if you like it or not. There is also nothing atomic about a reboot unless you compared it to a nuke.

Still projecting bullshit from your own imagination.
Reboot in this case is required to run the update in a clean environment without ANYTHING interfering. It is not just "reboot", it is similar to what you said some pages ago like "go in runlevel X, do the update, and then return back".

And it is required as the updater cannot know beforehand whatever shit you have installed and running and is crucial in your system and decide if it is going to screw up installation or not, so it cannot decide what to terminate and how.

While shutdown can be assumed to work properly in any case.

And that you are struggling with some comments isn't name calling.

Yes it is, as I'm not struggling with comments, it's vBullettin that blocks things.

Anyhow, this wasn't the question I had in mind. I still would like to know why somebody believes RedHat could never be like Microsoft.

Because their businness model (what dictates their actions) is wildly different.
RedHat lives off services, plain and simple, just like Google for that matter.
Microsoft is and has always been a license/patent based businness that ALSO had service contracts and other stuff.

The fun fact is that Microsoft is slowly becoming like RedHat. That is becoming a service-based company in the last 5 years.

My sky is blue. You first need to come out of the basement before you can see yours.

Ok, ok, I asked for it.

[sdack]

Yes it does.

No, it doesn't. I am still only referring to using reboots as a method for fixing problems, which you continuously evade. And you are being cute at it, too.

Your response to my question with regards to RedHat just proves my point of you putting your hopes into it. You don't actually know what will be, do you? All you know is that they are offering a dumbed down solution and that's what you need to use if you really want to talk about the future of Linux.

[starshipeleven]

No, it doesn't. I am still only referring to using reboots as a method for fixing problems, which you continuously evade. And you are being cute at it, too.

This is your own fantasy. None has ever talked of using reboot to fix problems.

Reboot is used as part of the update procedure of system components or software that can't be shut down safely in other ways.

Your response to my question with regards to RedHat just proves my point of you putting your hopes into it.

I'm actually just stating facts. I probably just missed the real question. What did you mean for "be like microsoft"?

All you know is that they are offering a dumbed down solution and that's what you need to use if you really want to talk about the future of Linux.

Strawmanning again.

[sdack]

... None has ever talked of using reboot to fix problems. ... Reboot is used as ...

I see you talking about it. Are you no one? I'm sure you are not.

[starshipeleven]

I see you talking about it. Are you no one? I'm sure you are not.

I'm not talking about reboot to fix problems.
Using reboot during some kind of upgrades avoids problems, does not "fix" anything.

[ssokolow]

Yes it does. Flatpack uses OSTree but does not require a reboot.
Flatpack is used to install non-critical applications, not crucial system components, so it has no real risks or issues.
As it will simply force a close/restart of the application (firefox/libreoffice/gimp or whatever), no ill effects.

Well, that's dangerous. I already ripped out the GTK+ update manager GUI Lubuntu uses and replaced it with my own Zenity hack after they removed the "Stop nagging once a day to reboot to update the kernel" dconf key.

Currently, I let Firefox and Chrome updates run in the background and then continue running with the old version for what may be a week or two before an extension-caused memory leak or a crash bug causes me to restart whatever it is. If the update force-kills what I'm working on, then I'll just not run it and, when the thing dies anyway, I'll be too busy (and probably forgetful) to wait for an update to run in between the crash and the restart.

...as for less "crash recovery"-enabled applications, a forced kill could actually lose me data. (eg. In GIMP, I rarely save in XCF because I spend 15 minutes playing with a PNG or JPEG, save the changed version, and never touch it again)