The Rise Of Auto Updating Package Managers

There was a time where it was considered heresy to have auto updating packages but nowadays you probably have at least something on your system that has the capability, but is it a good thing.
==========Support The Channel==========
► $100 Linode Credit: brodierobertso...
► Patreon: brodierobertso...
► Paypal: brodierobertso...
► Liberapay: brodierobertso...
► Amazon USA: brodierobertso...
=========Video Platforms==========
🎥 Odysee: brodierobertso...
🎥 Podcast: techovertea.xy...
🎮 Gaming: brodierobertso...
==========Social Media==========
🎤 Discord: brodierobertso...
🎤 Matrix Space: brodierobertso...
🐦 Twitter: brodierobertso...
🌐 Mastodon: brodierobertso...
🖥️ GitHub: brodierobertso...
==========Credits==========
🎨 Channel Art:
Profile Picture:
/ supercozman_draws
🎵 Ending music
Track: Debris & Jonth - Game Time [NCS Release]
Music provided by NoCopyrightSounds.
Watch: • Debris & Jonth - Game ...
Free Download / Stream: ncs.io/GameTime
#Linux #PackageManager #OpenSource #FOSS
DISCLOSURE: Wherever possible I use referral links, which means if you click one of the links in this video or description and make a purchase I may receive a small commission or other compensation.

[@human__________]

never update. just fresh install every christmas 👍

[@BrodieRobertson]

That's the way

[@juanmacias5922]

This is the way.

[@RandomGeometryDashStuff]

netinst iso?

[@terrydaktyllus1320]

@@acidbong204 I use Gentoo across many systems (and for 20 years now) and I still find time to go out and celebrate on New Year's Eve. I am not sure what point you are making here, other than Gentoo is difficult before you overcome a steep learning curve - which I absolutely agree with it. That's why you need patience and to stick with it, wherein you work out the best shortcuts and best ways to manage and use Gentoo on a daily basis. That's when the rewards come.

[@qwoolrat]

​@@acidbong204i spent 22-23 making a pi400 into a laptop

[@MechMK1]

Automatic upgrades are one step forward towards mass adoption. Normal people don't care about package updates - they just want their system to work

[@terrydaktyllus1320]

Who cares about mass adoption of Linux? What, do you only ever use stuff that's popular? 2% or 92% desktop Linux share would, for me, change nothing about how I use it. I don't run a computer system just to impress someone who might be looking over my shoulder or just so I can brag on social media about it to my peers.

[@20quid]

@@terrydaktyllus1320 I would much rather live in a world where spyware wasn't the global default OS. So yeah, I care about the mass adoption of Linux.

[@terrydaktyllus1320]

@@20quid I simply treat everyone else as a peer and allow then to be victims of their own laziness and stupidity if that is what they want to do. It's not my job to be a Linux zealot, I started down that path years ago and it just ends up p*ssing people off - so I stopped doing it. (Gentoo) Linux has worked fine for me for 20 years now but if my friends and family want to abandon their data privacy and use Microsoft or Apple rubbish, that's on them. If they (or anyone else) wants to come and ask me for Linux advice, I will happily help them - but I won't force it on them.

[@rigierish3807]

@@terrydaktyllus1320 It would change something for me. What do you have particularly against Linux mass adoption? For me, it would attract more company to develop on Linux so that Linux wouldn't be anymore the OS the least supported by the companies and therefore, the hardest to use if you have to use some proprietary software from company who don't care about this OS.

[@terrydaktyllus1320]

@@rigierish3807 "What do you have particularly against Linux mass adoption?" My day job has been working in cybersecurity on Red Hat Enterprise Linux servers where Linux has already "won" and been "mass adopted". That pays my mortgage, I therefore have no issue with that. On the desktop, I am neither for or against it. I am not a (modern AAA) gamer, I have no interest in "games as a service" and endless DLC, therefore I could care less about gaming on Linux - I do play older and indie games, Linux plays those fine for me. Those that want mass adoption of the Linux desktop generally fall into two categories: 1. Gamers - for them mass adoption means more native Linux games. 2. Adobe freaks - those who believe Adobe would ever port their products to Linux, which they will never do. I am not in either category, I therefore could care less about mass desktop adoption of Linux - it works for me, that's good enough. "For me, it would attract more company to develop on Linux so that Linux wouldn't be anymore the OS the least supported by the companies and therefore, the hardest to use if you have to use some proprietary software from company who don't care about this OS." So what else needs to be developed on Linux that doesn't fall into the games or Adobe categories that I have already covered?

[@LaughingOrange]

Automatic updates are great for those who can't be bothered to update manually. I like doing them manually, because then I have some idea why my system is broken. For someone like my grandpa I would enable automatic updates, because otherwise the system would only get updated when I am at his house and remember to do so.

[@rigierish3807]

They are but they shouldn't be imposed on the user, or at least give its user enough resistance for it to be not easy to disable. One of the example I have is Windows, of course, but even on Linux, it's starting to exist with snap on Ubuntu. And that's a problem.

[@FAYZER0]

Same here, I can't set up Linux for people who will never update it

[@ForeverZer0]

SSH is your friend for remotely helping parents/grandparents, though not very helpful if something like network management gets broken...

[@Beryesa.]

Compare the consequences of unattended updates on Debian and Arch, and now it's a romance vs thriller film :')

[@billeterk]

I had a Red Hat update fail in the late 90s. Debian managed to upgrade over the change in executable formats from a.out to elf though, which was super impressive!

[@Redmage913]

I have no idea what you said but it sounds compelling :) can you expand on that?

[@AdroSlice]

It's really not that bad. The worst thing that ever really goes wrong for me is when the kernel GPLs some symbols thaz archzfs uses and i have to boot lts instead. It's fine.

[@billeterk]

@@Redmage913 not sure if YT will eat links but en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.out ancient history :-)

[@davidturcotte831]

I have my NixOS set up to automatically update. Quite frankly, I forgot it was doing that until one day Firefox looked different. For some distros, it's so much of a non-issue you can forget that updates even exist. It's not a thriller. It's not a romance. It's that book you bought for a class but then got sick and missed a bunch of classes and couldn't read the book, so you just pretend you read it and got a great grade then put it in your shelf saying, "I'll read it later," but that was 20 years ago and you still haven't read it and frankly don't see the need anymore.

[@hyperspeed1313]

I genuinely love Fedora’s automatic update system. I don’t ever have to worry about manually updating, and it waits until I’m already shutting down the system to actually apply the updates.

[@vilian9185]

how to enable it on fedora?

[@ashtaka]

@@vilian9185 Enabled by default on the Workstation edition using Gnome software.

[@Mathias-bz2kr]

@@vilian9185I do not know, it was enabled by defult when I installed the system, "Software manament" maybe has a setting

[@Blueeeeeee]

@@vilian9185 It's on by default on Fedora Gnome. Flatpaks everyday, DNF once a week on shutdown.

[@computerfan1079]

​@@vilian9185it's an option in DNF, just google DNF automatic update. If you want full automatic updates you would also need to use automatic updates with Flatpak and/or snaps (although I would just not use snaps)

[@fedora]

The one thing we can all agree on is: manually or automatically, update your system once in a while, folks

[@eyevou]

I rebuild my system and ISO every month or so.

[@daimarstein]

​@@eyevouI fear for the durability of your SSD or HDD

[@eyevou]

@@daimarstein It's fine. My m.2 are rated for 1,700,000 hours / 1,800 TB writes. I also have backup drives... if my main explodes. 🙂

[@ees4.]

This is literally the official fedora account and no one noticed.

[@fedora]

​@@ees4. We're glad you did

[@framegrace1]

Linux has suffered a lot its origins on data labs and bussiness/enterprise. This "only update manually" lema is only meant to be for entreprise or production systems. Somehow it got translated to desktop linux without questioning. On Desktop, automatic security updates is a must and should be forced by default. Normal updates are more questionable... appearing disappearing features all of a sudden is not something users like. Another related myth we all felt is the "never reboot", and being proud of not having rebooted the system in years. That's a complete security disaster, and any relevant machine must be restared after any update, unless you know all the dependecies, and reboot them manually..... which no one really knows. (Or no one is really sure they know :) )

[@BrodieRobertson]

I hadn't really thought about that but I guess that makes sense

[@rougenaxela]

The main reason I wouldn't consider auto-update of system packages on my Arch Linux laptop, aside from lack of easy rollback (which is a deal-killer), is because some updates require a desktop environment restart, or else there's a significant risk of things breaking in weird ways. Now... one case where I do like auto-update of system packages on Linux, is Debian's unattended-upgrades package, configured to only apply security updates automatically.

[@GSBarlev]

Have you considered Timeshift? Makes rollbacks a cinch. When I had a catastrophic upgrade, I grabbed my rescue ISO, chrooted into my system to grab the pacman log (to see what I installed last), then once I found the culprit, I restored my last backup and then excluded the bad package from my yay -Syu.

[@rainmannoodles]

I always prefer to see release notes and changelogs before approving the updates. That said, I would definitely lean towards more automation for anything that’s exposed to the public Internet and not closely managed and monitored. Effectively, auto update by default and let the user decide if it’s worth disabling it.

[@BrodieRobertson]

If you read the changelogs manual updates will always be the best option for you, there's no getting around that. But I can't imagine most people even look at the changelog

[@Kiloristy]

If only the changelog was available. Most packages on Arch have an empty changelog when I check on the terminal. Or how do you check the changelog usually?

[@ceilidhDwy]

The problem with manual updates is that the longer you put them off the worse it will be. Every update something small may change or brake, but after 3 years without updates (as those mint users), you are in a world of pain if you decide to update. A person in that position might be better off reinstalling the whole OS instead of updating tbh

[@GSBarlev]

Kind of a feature not a bug, IMO, as I'm of the belief that wipe-and-reloads are good for the soul. They also breed good practices like putting your OS files in a separate partition from your user configs, which should go in a separate partition from your actual data. Learned the hard way that borked upgrades happen, and they should never prevent you from getting access to your data.

[@dingokidneys]

In the early 2000's, keeping my kids Windows systems patched against the latest vulnerabilities was a constant manual effort. They left home before MS started automatically updating the OS and by that time I was using Linux exclusively. A few years ago, I found the Debian 'unattended-upgrades' package and set that up. It's great. It keeps me patched against security vulnerabilities while still letting me control when I upgrade to the latest "Feature updates" or even the latest OS version. I have it running on every Debian or derivative box I have. I just check from time to time what else is available to upgrade and when I feel they've got to critical mass or there's something I think would be a benefit, I upgrade it.

[@romancvijanovic7130]

"but I don't do it, because I'm stupid" that got me.

[@rougenaxela]

Hot take: Package managers should start flagging which packages (for the case of a Desktop user) are: a) safe to update at any time no matter what (things validated to be safe) b) only safe to update when the no executable from the package is running (some applications, maybe the default) c) only safe to update when the user is willing to restart the desktop environment (desktop environment stuff, or certain libraries and services) d) are safe at any time but won't take effect until a restart (kernel, etc) This metadata would be very helpful not just for auto-updating, but making system pacakge updates more user-friendly generally.

[@nani8ot]

It would be great. But there is already much work for individual distro and package maintainers, so flagging would need more time that's not available.

[@dand337]

This look like A Lot of work and I can't see how you'd go about this reliably.

[@GSBarlev]

Isn't this why the needrestart package exists?

[@bigpod]

ok so a programmer needs to add this flagging into their software then they need to update every package there is. Just use containers

[@GSBarlev]

@@bigpod You realize they already do, by and large, right? A package's installer isn't going to just call `sudo service sshd restart` because what if the system manages daemons directly using systemctl? Instead, there's going to be a section of the package manifest that says: "Post install, flag these services for restart: [list]"

[@Lampe2020]

I like the way Ubuntu Unity does it, where it's not actually installing the updates on its own (in case I need the computer's full processing power) but pops up an actual window telling me which updates were found, so it's obvious I need to update. But to not distract me too much, if there is another window open the update window pops up behind that. On Linux Mint it's less obvious, as there you (by default) only see the little shield icon in the taskbar suddenly only being half filled-in and having a red dot next to it, but it's not easy to notice if you're not looking for it.

[@jwmcq]

Everyone hates automatic updates until their grandparents ask them for tech support.

[@CMDRSweeper]

Automatic updates is a PITA, ever since I have experienced the looping updates of Windows 10 I abandoned all automation. With that bug that occurred a few times, it would start an update, reboot, fail, undo the update, boot normally, detect there is an update, start updating, reboot and fail. This cycle kept repeating ad nauseam until I caught it coming home from work, that was really frustrating and made me disable it in Windows 10. For Linux I cull updates that breaks when using them, like Firefox (Wants a browser restart) until I am doing a reboot anyway for a kernel update.

[@AndersHass]

3:25 that video game screenshot, lol

[@scheimong]

3:24 that screenshot though 💀👌

[@AndersHass]

If updates can be specific like just security/bug fixes then it makes sense to push that out by default for “normal users”. Then bigger updates can be held back from automatic updates after some time so there hopefully will be no issues with it. The important thing is control for updates, so one can choose to install manually or wait a bit with an update to be done automatically instead of it has to be done immediately.

[@that_leaflet]

I think automatic updates are a good thing. Immutable distros like Silverblue and Aeon handle them very well. Just as your using your computer, they will download updates, process them, and you'll be able to seamlessly boot into the new version the next time you restart your system. There's no downtime waiting for updates to apply like in regular Fedora when doing an offline upgrade.

[@terrydaktyllus1320]

Immutable distros are for people who can't trust themselves or their own ignorance of Linux. It's solved by putting time and effort into learning Linux, and making contingency plans when you work on a system to that you can back out easily if there's a problem. Immutable distros come from the Steam gaming community that just care about games and don't want to ever spend any time away from their games to understand better how Linux works. They should stick with Windows on their PCs, and suckle hungrily at the milky teats of Microsoft.

[@Fesiug]

​@@terrydaktyllus1320??? Log off wtf is wrong with you

[@terrydaktyllus1320]

@@AS-wp3hb "It sounds like you hate the idea of immutable distros. Is that right?" Only incredibly childish people hate software or suggest that software hatred is a thing. I am not one of those people. "And why?" Like I said, I don't hate immutable distros, that's you being childish. But I think there are too many poseurs and fashionistas coming into the Linux community who are not prepared to put in the time and effort to learn it properly, and therefore expect developers to put in "safety valves" to protect them from their own idiocy. "I can think of situations where it's useful and I don't see how their existence affects you. Other options will continue to exist." Thanks for stating the perfectly obvious. You're right, it doesn't affect me - neither do people that ride horses or create custom cars, given I have no interest in either of them. But I also don't hang around equestrian or car channels on YT because I have no interest or expertise in either. Such is not the case for Linux which I have been using since 1996, both as my main computing environment and at work. And I don't have to have an invitation extended to me to contribute to Linux discussions, especially given my knowledge and experience in Linux up to this point.

[@terrydaktyllus1320]

@@AS-wp3hb "Okay, so you don't hate the software, but you think that anyone using it is a moron?" Once again, you're putting words into my mouth and then arguing against them - and continuing to look silly. Accusing someone of "idiocy" is not the same as calling them a "moron". Last chance - try to keep up and stay on topic, I am not play word games with you.

[@groos3449]

Automatic updates on NixOS is wonderful. I have never updated my system manually since installing it

[@supperEisMan]

The part about btrfs really made me chuckle. But for real give it a try. It's insanely useful, especially for ppl who enjoy tinkering. BTRFS is basically the reason I am on linux, being able to snapshot and mess around is like having a --dry-run option for even the most destructive operations.

[@grokitall]

there are a number of use cases where some form of automatic update is an anti feature. the classic example is the medical specialist remote working, who opened up his laptop to review a diagnostic image which needed immediate feedback, only to have windows trigger an immediate automatic update blocking use of the system for over half an hour. having systems where downloads are slow or expensive also need the option to defer downloading until you have a better connection. then you have laptops, where you might have to defer installation until you can plug it in to prevent partial updates from breaking things. finally, you need the update system to be pull based, as push based update systems add a whole extra set of problems if the push did not work. and all of that assumes that the update itself is not broken.

[@krispee5842]

Imo there should be a toggle for this where the user should toggle automatic updates on, preferably at OS install. I don't like it on by default because I believe every person who knowingly chooses Linux should learn to verify their updates. This is especially important on rolling-release distros like Arch Linux, where the next update isn't necessarily stable and packages can often break for short periods due to mismatched dependencies. Other than the toggle, it would definitely be nice to have an OS update notification, especially on distros with a more stable release. When I used to use Ubuntu and Mint, I often just straight up forgot to update my system because I didn't need to update regularly. Now I run the Arch and flatpak update scripts almost every day.

[@__christopher__]

I think the best would be auto-update with suspend functionality ("don't update from now until the end of the week"), blacklist option ("for this specific package, don't apply automatic updates") and situational rules ("don't update when data goes through my phone, identified by this SSID"). And maybe a preferred update time ("if possible, install updates at night"). The more control you have over the automatic update process, the fewer reasons you have to disable it completely.

[@roboticbrain2027]

As a developer; I love automatic updates because every install automatically gets the newest features and bugfixes. As a user; I hate automatic updates because every update breaks at least one part of my system! Whether it's some stupid UI redesign or problems during the update process. Something always needs manual intervention anyways. So personally i preffer automatic update notifications and then i'll update manually on my own.

[@7rich79]

I'd be quite happy to do more automatic updates if there was something like an automatic "package snapshot" taken first. Since the system knows already which packages I have and which are the new ones, it would be nice to just be able to do e.g: apt upgrade --revert --latest

[@rashkae1]

As someone who personally hates Auto Update, I absolutely agree they should be the default. Systems that try to prevent you from disabling it, however, (looking at Snap)... that's malware.

[@logicalfundy]

I definitely would like automatic updates - as an option. As long as there's a robust system to roll things back when there's a problem. A reminder that it's time to reboot is fine, but definitely, *definitely* do not do the Windows thing where it forces a reboot.

[@Blueeeeeee]

I've been using Fedora with auto updates for some time and it's quite a nice experience not having to think about these. Sure, I may occasionally run into some problems, but this distribution is pretty darn stable.

[@lpnonamegame6468]

I am using a daily update script for nixos unstable and if something is going wrong i can just go back to the last known working generation

[@billeterk]

I have this feeling Brodie deliberately doesn’t mention NixOS just to get comments :-)

[@BrodieRobertson]

I'll use NixOS after I use FreeBSD

[@mskiptr]

@@BrodieRobertson If you just want to try it out, better start with GNU Guix. While much smaller, it's way cleaner, better documented and just easier to wrap your head around it.

[@mskiptr]

Oh great, shadowhammered again

[@armanigoabek1709]

I have several SBCs. It would be time consuming to update them manually, or install systems. I use auto update script. Once a week packages are installed when I am asleep. Debian derivatives updated never have let me down. It all works.

[@artur-rdc]

The key is user choice, though I totally see the value in automating it. I'm actually one of these people that prefers a more stable system. I just switched to Mint looking for an easy, no fuss OS that wouldn't get in the way and, wouldn't you know it, it broke on me on day 1. Apparently my laptop is too old, so the intel wireless drivers kinda suck. No errors, no weird logs. I went through a million solutions until I just randomly tried disabling ipv6 and that fixed it for some reason. Sometimes debugging is just a pain like that, and some people don't want to deal with it. If this had happened at any other time I would have been in trouble getting assignments done at uni.

[@raul0ca]

I love it when I update and it breaks things. No better feeling!

[@GSBarlev]

I have no problem with things breaking when I update-I *chose* to use Arch over Ubuntu-but things breaking because _the system decided to update without asking me first_ is an entirely different matter, and it's one of the big reasons I haven't dailied Windows in 17 years.

[@TheEclecticDyslexic]

"Just use btrfs, and you are probably right, but i don't do it because I'm stupid." I felt that. I had the opportunity to swap when i built a new computer this year. Swapped a friend over, and used it on their system... and yep, I was stupid... should have done it.

[@Wurstbrot03]

I'm on Debian stable and just use auto update weekly for months now without any problem. The vast majority of my software are Flatpaks (+ 2 - 3 Apps in a Distrobox container). Updates breaking your system is mostly a problem with bleeding edge rolling releases combined with the insan... traditional way of dependency hell.

[@alpacamale2909]

Windows pushed a bios update on one of my buddies' hp laptop and it bricked the hell out of it because it turned it off before completion. Good stuff.

[@terrydaktyllus1320]

Not that I use Windows at all these days but why would Microsoft push a BIOS update to a PC? They've never done that, to my knowledge.

[@mskiptr]

@@terrydaktyllus1320 Vendors can push driver and firmware updates via Windows update sadly.

[@DelticEngine]

One of the main reasons I started using Linux was because I hated the (forced) automatic updating (or automatic screwing-up) in the first place. When I first started using Linux, automatic updates did not exist. I use Fedora and the 'Software Store' would automatically check for updates, which is how I updated the system until I taught myself how to do it from the command line. Then automated updates started on Linux and, frankly, it annoys the hell out of me. My favourite desktop is the MATE desktop and I managed to permanently disable the auto updating feature. I'm currently trying KDE because of its full Wayland support and MATE isn't quite there yet. I haven't yet figured out how to fully disable automatic updates, which is a bit frustrating. I much prefer to update manually from the command line where I have the option whether on not to proceed with the updates listed. I once didn't update for a while which gave the benefit of missing out on a bad update. By the time I next check for updates, this issue had been resolved and updating did not present a problem. If I had been using automatic updates I would likely have suffered data loss.

[@archlinuxsys]

agreed. idk why linux is favoring the new user. the user needs to learn the system before doing anything at all. i use linux because I don't like things forced down my throat.

[@DejitaruJin]

My own Mint box - quite thoroughly customized, as a personal PC is apt to be - is pretty much _only_ going to break from updates, with the amount of experience I now have. And when it does - which it has - it is *critical* to know what happened to cause it, so that I immediately know where to begin investigating. (CUDA driver mismatch, whee!) Even the Mint media PC I set up for my friend - virtually no customization, no fancy drivers, we just use FireFox - has broken once from the bog-standard updates I install each Sunday.

[@setaindustries]

I like doing manual updates because I can mentally prepare for the potential possibility for something to break. Basically if pipewire breaks for example and I've updated it in the current session I don't have to scramble for a solution, a restart probably fixes it.

[@FengLengshun]

Yeah, I like automatic update. Most of the stuff in my host are just boring packages like virt-manager that I need for work anyways. For everything else, it's on home-manager, Conty, and flatpak which are much less risky in terms of disruption and easier to rollback. Update... really isn't a big deal for me, and I'm glad because last year on Arch-based it was super annoying. So annoying I sought out immutable distro on purpose.

[@lpanebr]

"i know. But I u don't do it because I'm stupid" 😂😂😂 my team!

[@AndrewErwin73]

+1 for btrfs... I have a script that updates automatically whenever updates are sensed. And snapshot backs up my system on every update. Arch hasn't really had an issues with updates in a while.

[@timidgoldfish]

Automatic updates are cool if they respect your time, and can be opt-out/configured

[@orbatos]

Regular distributions with regular repos can (and often do) do this. What they lack is an update structure that forces the issue. Forced automatic updates are always going to bite you eventually, hand that process off to packages that are less vetted is *not* a good idea. End users are not going to roll back these things, they're just dead in the water what things break. My argument is for the end user to be safe and as up to date as possible, this needs notification and promotion of non-automatic updates alongside automatic security updates.

[@UKprl]

Just noticed this the Debian manual, quote: 9.5. Can I automatically update the system? Yes. You can use cron-apt; this tool updates the system at regular intervals using a cron job. By default it just updates the package list and downloads new packages, but without installing them. Note: Automatic upgrade of packages is NOT recommended in _testing_ or _unstable_ systems as this might bring unexpected behaviour and remove packages without notice. ~~~ Is this how people are breaking their install by not running with the _stable_ release, and just assuming that they all work the same way with regards to the update/upgrade for packages?

[@terryforsythe8083]

Timeshift with schedule set for automatic snapshots - it has saved my @ss a number of times.

[@billeterk]

Timeshift works. A fun option for the btrfs side would be to lock snapshots and fire off a btrfs send for managing backups too.

[@Pyro-Moloch]

If you have a slow internet connection, automatic updates are not an option. I do manual updates about once a month.

[@Dratchev241]

i use arch btw! I manually do the update once a week normally on sunday and so far after a couple years now with arch I have yet to have arch go cactus.

[@user-ow4mb5ni8b]

I use automatic updates for the stable versions of major Linux distros such as Debian and Fedora, but not for the testing or unstable versions. I run the testing or unstable versions because once a major upgrade to the next stable version broke a feature that is important to me, and it took me a while to figure out how to fix it so I could upgrade to the next stable release. Now, I test the testing or unstable versions periodically so I can find workarounds for the changes that might come into the next stable version so I won't be stuck not being able to upgrade.

[@spagettech]

My internet is pretty bad so auto updates would be very annoying for me as I can pretty much only download 1 thing at a time. Auto updates make sense but imo there needs to be a way to disable them.

[@alexstone691]

Debian is pretty nice with auto updates

[@snap_oversteer]

Yep, on servers it works great. On desktop I don't bother with auto updates, mainly because firefox needs restart after update.

[@rhekman]

I've been using Arch on my laptops for the better part of a decade now. Once a week manual updates have become the norm for me, since I guess I'm one of those hobbyist's whose personality is "linux". However since I also use Gnome with extensions, my system tends to not go updated for a month or two after new Gnome releases to give extension devs time to catch up. I'm really dreading extension api breakage in Gnome 45 -- will Arch package maintainers hold off on the release? Do I wait longer than usual? Do I give up on some of the extensions I run which are/will probably be orphaned? Do I just bite the bullet and switch to some other desktop for the first time in a decade?

[@benign4823]

Guess you haven't been paying much attention, but from around Gnome 40 and later Arch was always very late in releasing the latest major version, like weeks to months late. The chance of anyone getting the latest Gnome on Arch fast enough to break all extensions is 0, unless they specifically use the testing repos. Even if it wasn't the case there's a very easy way to make sure extensions don't break stuff. Step 1: Disable them all. Step 2: Update. Step 3: Enable them, extensions will not let you enable them if they weren't updated for the latest version.

[@rhekman]

@@benign4823 I do pay attention. Yes, the situation is a little better lately. However "fast enough to break all extensions is 0" is an incredibly low bar. I've continued to wait weeks to update when a fresh Gnome hits the repos, and I still routinely have to troubleshoot extensions that I use daily. And with each release it's not the same ones - cpufreq, Screenshot Tool, Sound Percentage, Freon, Clipboard History.

[@uuu12343]

Automatic updates are fantastic for desktop Automatic updates for servers though, in those cases, I think creating a repository/project with the autoupdater available for the server-side users would be nice

[@Funny0facer]

I would enable automatic updates on debian based systems, but not on arch... debian typically takes care about new styles of config files as far as I know... arch just creates a pacnew file and you have to deal with it

[@shgysk8zer0]

I keep everything updated but tend to wait a long time for updating major versions of the distro. Major version updates are much more likely to break things and take a long time. My computer is a work tool... I can't have it broken or unusable for hours. IDK if things have fully improved, but I remember in the past that, when it came to updating to a new major version of Ubuntu (now on Fedora, but still...) I may as well just save the time and jump to doing a clean install. The update is gonna break something and I'm gonna have to do a clean install anyways. And it takes quite a while to reinstall everything and get my system back to a fully working state.

[@Mallchad]

People don't have a problem with updates, they have a problem with their system breaking and their workflow being interupted. Most updating systems will at some point do one of those things. ie, it's totally completely to update a whole system without ever reliquishing control from the user.

[@IamTheHolypumpkin]

May be counter productive. On a stable releases/LTS releases I do Update manually although I may enable (weekly/monthly) pop up notifications that updates are available. On a Semi-Rolling Release I do automatic updates in the background with live patching. Even weekly updates are to much to download at once on my connection. Having this done in the background is convenient. Live patching so I don’t have to wait a minute or two on boot. Never used a full rolling releases, so I can’t say what I would do there.

[@RockyPixel]

This reminded me that I haven't updated my $50 Chromebook running Arch in multiple months and now I'm scared to turn it on and update it.

[@kmemz]

I wouldn't mind if my package manager did partial auto updates based on if packages had a flag that said they need a reboot or are otherwise a fairly important core package that risks breaking things. Or maybe not a flag, but a "system level" integer value; 0 for reboot required/kernel level, 1 for low level and can break things, 2 for user level and unlikely to cause problems, and I can configure auto updates in a mconf file by setting it to update level 0, 1, or 2, with 3 being disabled. It would be a much more interesting and pro-choice way to handle system updates. If such an option were available, I'd personally set update level 1 on my main machine, and level 2 on any machine I intend to do more serious work on; that way my system can only break on MY time.

[@autohmae]

Their is definitely a place for automatic updates. People are even doing automatic updates for things like Wordpress and Wordpress plugins. As a Debian user on most systems, the updates are pretty much always boring anyway.

[@GSBarlev]

I have a Hugo-based blog that gets rebuilt through a GitHub Action. It always uses the latest versions of everything, and that's very much by choice. It's also nice, though, that a failed build will keep the content stale instead of taking down the site completely.

[@etdr]

"but I don't do it, because I'm stupid" oh gosh it me

[@EmanueleC_BR]

I think auto updates come from how software is now delivered. Not That long ago, you'd update your apps with the OS. But more and more software has followed the Chrome update methodology. Smalls updates and Very often. You Have to live on the bleeding edge of chrome to be protected. Indeed, few versions off and you're defacto unsupported. Other software has followed this pattern. No longer are patches backported, the latest patch is on the latest version. When the answer is always "update to the latest version" there is very little doing it manually and always saying "yes" gets you.

[@senorbinario2855]

I like the feeling of updating manually. It's like taking care for my system

[@xzaratulx]

I feel that it's a better approach if programs are shipped with all external dependencies in their respective installation/program folder. Only to rely on system libs for drivers, DE and such. Yes, at one point in the past we made everything interdependent but I guess we have the diskspace now. Also make a 6 month release cycle for stable and a weekly for unstable. Oh, and put that in a packages system like flatpak to streamline update and keep every system on the same level. It's 2023 .. Let's get rid of that distribution depending packaging masochism.

[@AzarelHoward]

Running OBS Studio with a Blackmagic capture card in production on two workstations with both Ubuntu 22.04 and Pop_OS. Auto updates, especially to the kernel and OBS itself, have been the number one cause of issues. The fact that you can't even revert packages to the prior installed version on APT systems is... Frankly maddening. I should have to roll my own package server to be able to do it. And don't even get me started on what happens when package conflicts happen and can be auto resolved by a couple of basic commands but apparently the package manager, which can detect the issue, can't automatically run those fixes... Why?!

[@INeedAttentionEXE]

Manual updates for gentoo are the better idea. Or at least checking the log everyday. Libinput 1.23 broke my desktop mouse movement, so I needed to mask 1.23 so it never auto updated past 1.22.1

[@terrydaktyllus1320]

As a fellow Gentoo user, I am 100% in agreement. You update manually according to what your threat model is.

[@lucas7061]

Yeah, I'd argue automatic updates are not a great idea if you are using rolling releases. I prefer to know what's being updated before allowing an update.

[@tuurblaffe]

sometimes when i am bored i do yay -Syu tab for auto completion and spend hours jyst looking at packages

[@stderr64]

I don't prefer automatic updates because i don't want to find out that suddenly something has broken after updates i didn't choose to do on that specific day and maybe have to spend long time fixing things when there would be other things that i need to get done

[@RarioTrarioWario]

I just got recommended this when gnome software automatically updated my debian install and broke gnome

[@DavidEsotica]

I like this for super stable distros. I actually install it for my parents and techno illiterate friends since they live in the browser and i don't have to worry about sketchy exe files.

[@bluephreakr]

utomatic updtes would hd sucked for me a couple of months ago when I was having trouble with opengl-driver as part of mesa in EndeavourOS / Arch. But those problems are long gone for me at this point, it still doesn't take the sting out of having mesa in ignored packages until stuffstarted breaking and upgrading mesa fixed _everything._

[@scheimong]

I'm on EndeavourOS (essentially Arch) and I only update manually. I do it *very* regularly (more than once everyday), but still, manually. Several good reasons for doing so: 1. I want to know what's the update is changing on my computer. If something suddenly breaks all of a sudden, at least I have a little bit of clue what might be at fault. 2. This avoids the problem of "it's updating exactly when I don't want it to". Maybe I'm in the middle of presenting my software - I don't want the performance to be garbage just because a stupid update was triggered. Or maybe I'm trying to connect to a VPN - if a kernel update happens now, all old kernel modules are removed so I won't be able to create a `tun` interface until a reboot. 3. Perhaps most importantly, the last thing I want is to interrupt an update unknowingly. God knows what will happen if I close my laptop lid when `kernel-install` is running. At the end of the day it's just one single command for me to type, so I don't consider it worth automating anyways.

[@gimpyo3354]

Noob here, using opensuse, and every kernel update breaks my wireless drivers, and I'm too much a noob to even understand what I should be doing to make it "just work". Snapper is a lifesaver, and auto updates would screw me. However this is more a hardware issue than software (i think). I'll probably try out an immutable auto updating system on my laptop eventually since it works flawlessly through all the fedora updates i've thrown at it. Anyhow I recall you mentioning in a video somewhat recently about building/choosing your hardware specifically for linux if you can, and it would seem to apply doubly so if you wanted to run auto updating.

[@DominikZogg]

I prefer to have manual update with indications there are updates and an easy way todo so. Auto updates are fine on flatpak or immutable system

[@colemichae]

I should be able to decide and easily, if it is auto for default, then make it easy to stop it. I have used some obscure packages from other sources which could cause problems later on, let me decide.

[@Beryesa.]

To update or not to update...

[@Beryesa.]

Or "upgrade" if yours decide to call so xD

[@OldieBugger]

In my opinion, Linux Mint does it right. There's automatic updates available, as an opt-in choice. Very practical for my old mother, but I don't use it myself. Well, I naturally tested it for some months before using it in her computer.

[@zvoidzy]

but running pacman -Syyu is every arch user's favorite activity

[@zvoidzy]

jokes aside: I, personally, never had a upgrade that broke stuff, even after not using my computer for a week or so. And as a btrfs user, btrfs isn't magical and (even though it's really good and saved me time a lot) it has its problems

[@GSBarlev]

​@@zvoidzyI have. But it led to me posting a bug report on the package's GitHub and getting some cool peeks behind the curtain at their development process, so I'm not complaining. It was also happy days when I got the notification that the bug was resolved and could celebrate by immediately -Syu'ing with no exclusions.

[@paladingeorge6098]

I don't have any issue whatsoever with rolling releases, but I am not sure they are my thing. One day Ill venture down the arch way (outside SteamOS Holo) but for the time being I quite enjoy the stability of LTS distros.

[@braelinmichelus]

I've been running Arch for 3 years, and besides minor bugs, I haven't had a single bad update. Updating packages twice a month, and kernel every other month, it's been perfectly smooth sailing for me. Then again... I do a fresh install every year to keeps things clean. But still, I don't understand all the fear mongering around Arch's instability. Sure, you don't get the guarantee of LTS, but you trade that for more recent packages that get patched and debugged quicker. Not to mention never having no release upgrades.

[@prizrak420]

I been using Linux since ‘98 and the first thing I do on my home servers is set up auto update. We do same thing for production systems at work, though there we limit to security updates

[@terrydaktyllus1320]

I don't think you've told the whole story here, otherwise your work is setting itself up for failure of its systems. If you are going to deploy automatic updates to production systems then the only way that minimises risk of failure is if those updates have first been MANUALLY installed, tested, approved and signed off on pre-production systems. That's how all responsible businesses should work. But comparing that to private users that would very rarely have concepts of "pre-production" and "production" in their home environments doesn't work because they are completely different.

[@matthewmoore757]

I have unattended upgrades configured on my Mom's computer. I put Debian stable on her machine so i'm not worried about it. I do all updates manually on my own system.

[@Shadoww-lv5bj]

Can't have something breaking and not knowing what broke.

[@obake6290]

The real problem with automatic updates on that other OS is the forced reboots. Not that you shouldn't reboot on Linux, but at least you can do it on your own time. None of this "Your system will restart in 5 minutes. In the middle of a project? Tough shit!" Automatic updates are perfectly reasonable on systems meant to be easy to use with strong vetting of packages before they make it out into the wild. Would never want that on Arch, but for a lot of distros it makes sense.

[@DelticEngine]

Personally, I disagree with automatic updates. It may be less of a problem with Linux, but on Windows one of the first things I do after installation is disable updates in the registry because it has always been a known mechanism for malware to get into the system. I prefer to check for updates manually, see what the updates are and then decide if I want to apply them there and then. I kind of agree with automatic updates and inexperienced or less-technnical users who are maybe a bit paranoid about security or just want to make sure they have the latest whatever. In my experience, it tends to be the former I come across. The reality is that it generally doesn't matter whether or not a system has the latest updates, particularly with Linux because, in a nutshell, the security actually works...unlike a certain other OS. On the other hand, with problems being fixed in a (very) short time with Linux then relatively frequent checking of updates can be a good thing. One thing I will NEVER agree with is compulsory, forced, automatic updates with NO option to disable this 'feature'. As an OPTION, I have no problem with it as it gives users more choice and control over the OS. I would even go so far as to say it's okay to have such functionality enabled by default, BUT there must also be a clear option or information provided on how to disable any such automation and update on a purely manual basis.

[@CorneliusCornbread]

One of the pain points of Linux was when I learned I couldn't easily automate updates, if I really wanted to I could make my own service, but it's not just like... a toggle in a menu? I get leaving automatic updates off for the kinds of users Linux users are but like... I'd like to just have everything up to date and not worry about it.

[@defnlife1683]

I have a script that just runs pacman every five seconds. It simulates a normal arch user.

[@kdcadet]

Haha, i was going to say "use btrfs".

[@korakys]

I manually update, about once a day. I like to see what is being updated. I use Fedora btw.

[@zeckma]

I just manually install whatever package I want at the version I want, which works cuz I don't really need to worry about versions of libs as that stuff is decided at compile time. So far, no issues! I still use glibc-2.37 and I think gcc-12.something, so mostly packages over 6 months ago, mixed with some newer packages which just works like a charm. I dunno if it's possible on Gentoo, but I believe certainly not on most, if not all, distros.

[@juanmacias5922]

I personally wouldn't mind LTS updates. Keep the system updated while I run some more updated programs.

[@CharlesGriswold]

I like the idea of automatic updates on my system. Sure, I _could_ do all of the "technical user" stuff; I've been using Linux since 1997. But, honestly, I'm a lazy asshole and I can't be bothered. I just want my system to "just work."

[@frankhaugen]

OMG 😳, you are a Pepsi Max drinker!!! Just jumped a few points on my mental KZbinr ranking 😂

[@BrodieRobertson]

I generally avoid soft drinks but if I'm getting KFC I get a Pepsi Max

[@spinkey4842]

unless i said to do it, i don't want any of my things doing anything on their own

[@darukutsu]

So you telling me i don't have to scream *yay* before update?

[@schemage2210]

Automatic Upgrades are great, I don't use them but I should, AS LONG AS you don't have a system like Arch or Windows which is prone to borking itself with every other update destroying your entire digital life!!!

[@gimcrack555]

Never had my system auto update, to do it automatically. I have it set up to let me know when they are updates. But I get to choose to install them or not. Click to see what are the updates and allow it, if I want to. Did that on day one.

[@MichaelWilliams-lr4mb]

Well OpenSUSE MicroOS updates and reboots by default, but that can be changed.

[@baguettedad]

B- but Linux is my personality Mr. Brodie-san