cronned "urpmi auto-select" vs hotfix bingo?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| AnonymousCoward Jun 25, 2005 5:41 AM EDT |
Hmm. Let me think about this. Which is easier? "apt-get update install"? Oh, the pain! Three whole words! It'll never fly! Biassed? Deceptive? Misleading? Atypical? A study from Microsoft? Never! |
| chris Jun 25, 2005 6:30 AM EDT |
apt-get update install Don't tell anyone, but if you put that in cron, then admin costs of updating a machine approach zero. The only cost involved would be if somehow an upgrade failed and it required some attention. With a local apt repository, you can fine-tune what gets updated, too. |
| PaulFerris Jun 25, 2005 9:08 AM EDT |
chris: I had a good debian friend tell me never to put this in cron (it was over 3 years ago though -- has this warning expired?). --FeriCyde |
| tuxchick Jun 25, 2005 4:51 PM EDT |
Methinks there is a typo here- 'apt-get update install' is not a valid command. I put apt-get update && apt-get upgrade in a weekly cron job, spose I could do daily but meh, why bother. Also you want it configured so that dpkg --configure doesn't ask you for silly decisions like locales and time zones. If you're using only official Debian repositories any risk is tiny, in fact compared to applying winduz patches it's infinity plus one safer. Never ever ever apply a windoze patch without extensive testing, and even then there is no way to test for every possible bad thing that can happen, and believe me there are a lot of them. You may have a driver conflict, or it may overwrite some system files and bork something else, or an application might make it choke, or it comes spyware-ready, or some weirdo windunce networking protocol goes insane, or the Registry becomes possessed, or sheeesh I'm getting flashbacks just thinking about it, and they ain't the fun kind. Every linux system I've ever had control of in the last 2-3 years has been set up to download automatic updates. The worst thing that's ever happened is the occasional packaging conflict with up2date or yum. Be at peace little Tuxers- keep your systems updated and relax. It's winschmuck admins who have to lay awake at night having nervous sweats over these issues. |
| PaulFerris Jun 25, 2005 5:56 PM EDT |
Quoting:compared to applying winduz patches it's infinity plus one safer. I think that's an exageration. It's never possible to measure the risk of doing a Windows upgrade... |
| dinotrac Jun 25, 2005 6:50 PM EDT |
Paulie, Paulie, Paulie: You Open Source guys, smugly confident in your ability to assess the risks built into code that can see but rarely bother to read, persist in exaggerating the danger of Windows upgrades. Truth is, it's far SAFER to automatically upgrade Windows than it is to automatically upgrade Linux or any of the BSDs. If you talk to many Windows users for very long, you'll hear terrible horror stories of viruses and trojan horses, some merely annoying and some destroying valuable data. Given how bad off Windows users are, the risk that updates will leave them worse off is pretty minimal. It's the old nothing to lose thing... |
| PaulFerris Jun 26, 2005 1:40 AM EDT |
Dino, while you make a good point there, and I can see it, the truth is that a good hat would cover it up nicely and then you could go out in public without shame. Yes, I see the bit about "Why not risk shaking the San Andreas Fault -- can't hurt". Worse though is this quote here: Quoting:You Open Source guys, smugly confident in your ability to ass First, I think it's rude for you Windows communicating types to categorize people in with a group. When you do that, you often make all kinds of stupid assumptions about their belief system, religion, what they're wearing (etc) -- you generalize, in other words -- and you could be wrong about it. For example, I talk to Windows people all the time, so you can wipe that smug grin off of your face and take off that Microsoft-logo'd polo shirt -- it clashes with the plaid pants, after all. Second, I also think it's rude to swear. |
| tzafrir Jun 26, 2005 3:36 AM EDT |
apt-get install cron-apt for automatic updates done right. It should be useful even on unstable/testing to leave in the default "download-only" mode. In stable you can even configure it to install updates. |
| dinotrac Jun 26, 2005 3:38 AM EDT |
Quoting:Second, I also think it's rude to swear. Hmmm, Paulie. We don't often agree, but you may have a point there. I think I will take a walk down to the dam now, and assess the rash items I may have written. |
| TxtEdMacs Jun 27, 2005 7:04 AM EDT |
Are any of you real Debian sysadmins? Would you really do an apt-get install on anything other than on the stable release? In that case, one is at least assured the changes have been heavily tested and are comprised of necessary security fixes. Now I know I am ignorant, hence, I am setup under cron-apt do an "apt-get update" that downloads the package changes and summarizes the changes that will occur if an apt-get install is run. Should a non-zero "remove" be present caution would be advised. I am running a mixed version of testing plus unstable. There is too much I do not know about Debian, other than I am not going back to rpm's ever! With Fedora Core on my laptop, yum on the command line on a rapidly changing small core of packages suffices for me. |
| PaulFerris Jun 27, 2005 7:14 AM EDT |
Quoting:I think I will take a walk down to the dam now Crap! There you go again! How rude! |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!