Update manager

[Handsome Jack]

Is there any way of guessing just how useful or important the updates
offered by Update Manager are to the average user? Most of them are
completely unintelligible to me and some are quite substantial in terms of
size.

"Python 3.10 ... interactive high level object-oriented language ...
version includes an extensive class library with lots of goodies ....". If
I never write Python programs, is this update any good to me?

"amd64 microcode ... This package contains microcode patches for all AMD
AMD64 processors. AMD releases microcode patches to correct processor
behaviour as documented in the respective processor revision guides." My
CPU seems to have worked OK up until now, so is changing the microcode
really likely to be helpful? Or is it best just to leave it alone?

[Heinz Schmitz]

Post by Handsome Jack
Is there any way of guessing just how useful or important the updates
offered by Update Manager are to the average user? Most of them are
completely unintelligible to me and some are quite substantial in terms of
size.
"Python 3.10 ... interactive high level object-oriented language ...
version includes an extensive class library with lots of goodies ....". If
I never write Python programs, is this update any good to me?
"amd64 microcode ... This package contains microcode patches for all AMD
AMD64 processors. AMD releases microcode patches to correct processor
behaviour as documented in the respective processor revision guides." My
CPU seems to have worked OK up until now, so is changing the microcode
really likely to be helpful? Or is it best just to leave it alone?

I'm thrilled to see the answers to this posting. More so as a high
frequency of updates is for many people a proof of the manufacturers
devotion to his product and customers.
I rather see my installation like furniture: As long as everything
stands upright it is ok. The chances of somebody sneaking in and
begin to drill holes into it are negligible. This is a serious
difference to software connected to the web.
Moreover, the quality of software is like the quality of a book: You
can only judge it after having read it. But most often you have to pay
beforehand.

Regards,
H.

[Paul]

Post by Handsome Jack
Is there any way of guessing just how useful or important the updates
offered by Update Manager are to the average user? Most of them are
completely unintelligible to me and some are quite substantial in terms of
size.
"Python 3.10 ... interactive high level object-oriented language ...
version includes an extensive class library with lots of goodies ....". If
I never write Python programs, is this update any good to me?
"amd64 microcode ... This package contains microcode patches for all AMD
AMD64 processors. AMD releases microcode patches to correct processor
behaviour as documented in the respective processor revision guides." My
CPU seems to have worked OK up until now, so is changing the microcode
really likely to be helpful? Or is it best just to leave it alone?

"Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons
for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup."

The person who runs your distro operation, *programs* in Python,
and that's all you need to know :-) If they programmed in ALGOL
or COBOL, then you'd end up with an ALGOL or COBOL package :-)

There is a package called "build-essential" in the tree, and that
contains the GNU compiler collective. That's an example of
"programmer level support", necessary for some maintenance operations
on the OS. This means that your OS already contains "baggage",
which is not Python.

*******

Microcode patches include fixes for security issues, as well as
fixes for CPU errata.

Some users will reject microcode patches, from the perspective
it "slows down my game too much".

But generally, as a user, you accept them.

The microcode patching system, was never designed for how it is
used today. There is no capability to have "variants" or "subsets".
It's an all or nothing thing.

When a CPU is designed, they all have mistakes in them. The "errata sheet"
covers the bugs for your CPU model.

Paul

[Mike Easter]

Post by Handsome Jack
Is there any way of guessing just how useful or important the updates
offered by Update Manager are to the average user? Most of them are
completely unintelligible to me and some are quite substantial in terms of
size.

This isn't an answer to the qx, but LM 'tries' to be helpful by
'labeling' the updates as *ONE* of security, system, or software, but I
think the labeling could be a more helpful by handling the condition
that an update can be MORE than one of those.

'Mint says' we should all update, but many don't agree w/ that idea.
The more info that the label provides the better IMO, such as 'security
& system' or such.

[Alan K.]

Post by Handsome Jack
Is there any way of guessing just how useful or important the updates
offered by Update Manager are to the average user? Most of them are
completely unintelligible to me and some are quite substantial in terms of
size.

This isn't an answer to the qx, but LM 'tries' to be helpful by 'labeling' the updates as *ONE* of
security, system, or software, but I think the labeling could be a more helpful by handling the
condition that an update can be MORE than one of those.
'Mint says' we should all update, but many don't agree w/ that idea. The more info that the label
provides the better IMO, such as 'security & system' or such.

You can right click an update and see some information about the program, packages, and sometimes a
change log. The info can be a bit generic but does provide something.

[Gordon]

Post by Handsome Jack
Is there any way of guessing just how useful or important the updates
offered by Update Manager are to the average user? Most of them are
completely unintelligible to me and some are quite substantial in terms of
size.
"Python 3.10 ... interactive high level object-oriented language ...
version includes an extensive class library with lots of goodies ....". If
I never write Python programs, is this update any good to me?

Maybe. Python maybe required in one of the programmes you use. This fact is
"hidden" until it appears in an error message.

Post by Handsome Jack
"amd64 microcode ... This package contains microcode patches for all AMD
AMD64 processors. AMD releases microcode patches to correct processor
behaviour as documented in the respective processor revision guides." My
CPU seems to have worked OK up until now, so is changing the microcode
really likely to be helpful? Or is it best just to leave it alone?

You could update when it fails.

You need to decide ones policy on updates. Certainly security based ones are
important. The rest can be done when they "fit" in.

If you have no data restrictions and a fast internet connection then save
some thinking and just update everything. Worked for me for many moons.

[Alan K.]

Post by Gordon

Post by Handsome Jack
Is there any way of guessing just how useful or important the updates
offered by Update Manager are to the average user? Most of them are
completely unintelligible to me and some are quite substantial in terms of
size.
"Python 3.10 ... interactive high level object-oriented language ...
version includes an extensive class library with lots of goodies ....". If
I never write Python programs, is this update any good to me?

Maybe. Python maybe required in one of the programmes you use. This fact is
"hidden" until it appears in an error message.

Post by Handsome Jack
"amd64 microcode ... This package contains microcode patches for all AMD
AMD64 processors. AMD releases microcode patches to correct processor
behaviour as documented in the respective processor revision guides." My
CPU seems to have worked OK up until now, so is changing the microcode
really likely to be helpful? Or is it best just to leave it alone?

You could update when it fails.
You need to decide ones policy on updates. Certainly security based ones are
important. The rest can be done when they "fit" in.
If you have no data restrictions and a fast internet connection then save
some thinking and just update everything. Worked for me for many moons.

I normally just update all. The only exception is maybe Thunderbird, Firefox, or Kernel updates.
I monitor news groups for Thunderbird and when enough people scream, I free the updates.

[Handsome Jack]

Post by Gordon

Post by Handsome Jack
Is there any way of guessing just how useful or important the updates
offered by Update Manager are to the average user? Most of them are
completely unintelligible to me and some are quite substantial in terms
of size.
"Python 3.10 ... interactive high level object-oriented language ...
version includes an extensive class library with lots of goodies ....".
If I never write Python programs, is this update any good to me?

Maybe. Python maybe required in one of the programmes you use. This fact
is "hidden" until it appears in an error message.

Post by Handsome Jack
"amd64 microcode ... This package contains microcode patches for all
AMD AMD64 processors. AMD releases microcode patches to correct
processor behaviour as documented in the respective processor revision
guides." My CPU seems to have worked OK up until now, so is changing
the microcode really likely to be helpful? Or is it best just to leave
it alone?

You could update when it fails.

There are at least two objections to that policy. First, when it fails,
you may not know what failed and why. You might just get the equivalent of
Microsoft's BSD - perhaps a failure to boot - and have no idea what to do
to fix it.

Secondly, even if you know what it is that has failed (perhaps an obvious
bug in Thunderbird), you may not know how to update it at the point.
Whereas when Update Manager offers you an update, you know what to do.

Post by Gordon
You need to decide ones policy on updates. Certainly security based ones
are important. The rest can be done when they "fit" in.
If you have no data restrictions and a fast internet connection then
save some thinking and just update everything.

The objection to that policy is that updating everything all the time may
well *cause* failures that wouldn't have happened otherwise. I can't count
the number of times I've seen in Linux support groups that the latest
kernel update broke somebody's machine, apparently irreparably. If that
happened to me ... well, I don't want it to happen to me.

On a more trivial level, you also see posts from people saying that
they've just upgraded Thunderbird and now it doesn't work properly. Ah,
say the replies from Linux fans, you just roll back to the previous
version ... except of course if you have Tbird 99.9167 in which case
rolling back doesn't work and you have to reinstall DCIM or
something ... ...

Post by Gordon
Worked for me for many
moons.

Until the day it didn't?

[Mike Easter]

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Gordon

Post by Handsome Jack
Is there any way of guessing just how useful or important the updates
offered by Update Manager are to the average user? Most of them are
completely unintelligible to me and some are quite substantial in terms
of size.
"Python 3.10 ... interactive high level object-oriented language ...
version includes an extensive class library with lots of goodies ....".
If I never write Python programs, is this update any good to me?

Maybe. Python maybe required in one of the programmes you use. This fact
is "hidden" until it appears in an error message.

Post by Handsome Jack
"amd64 microcode ... This package contains microcode patches for all
AMD AMD64 processors. AMD releases microcode patches to correct
processor behaviour as documented in the respective processor revision
guides." My CPU seems to have worked OK up until now, so is changing
the microcode really likely to be helpful? Or is it best just to leave
it alone?

You could update when it fails.

There are at least two objections to that policy. First, when it fails,
you may not know what failed and why. You might just get the equivalent of
Microsoft's BSD - perhaps a failure to boot - and have no idea what to do
to fix it.
Secondly, even if you know what it is that has failed (perhaps an obvious
bug in Thunderbird), you may not know how to update it at the point.
Whereas when Update Manager offers you an update, you know what to do.

Post by Gordon
You need to decide ones policy on updates. Certainly security based ones
are important. The rest can be done when they "fit" in.
If you have no data restrictions and a fast internet connection then
save some thinking and just update everything.

The objection to that policy is that updating everything all the time may
well *cause* failures that wouldn't have happened otherwise. I can't count
the number of times I've seen in Linux support groups that the latest
kernel update broke somebody's machine, apparently irreparably. If that
happened to me ... well, I don't want it to happen to me.
On a more trivial level, you also see posts from people saying that
they've just upgraded Thunderbird and now it doesn't work properly. Ah,
say the replies from Linux fans, you just roll back to the previous
version ... except of course if you have Tbird 99.9167 in which case
rolling back doesn't work and you have to reinstall DCIM or
something ... ...

Post by Gordon
Worked for me for many
moons.

Until the day it didn't?

A pragmatic answer might be, "Don't be in a /hurry/ to update."

One could set themselves some kind of 'guide' about how long an update
should be around/available before we 'get around to' doing it.

Hopefully 'bad updates' might be remedied/updated by the time we get
around to it.

Presumably 'system' updates or 'security' updates might be vetted
harder/better than 'software' updates, so the clock might run differently.

[Alan K.]

Post by Mike Easter

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Gordon

Post by Handsome Jack
Is there any way of guessing just how useful or important the updates
offered by Update Manager are to the average user? Most of them are
completely unintelligible to me and some are quite substantial in terms
of size.
"Python 3.10 ... interactive high level object-oriented language ...
version includes an extensive class library with lots of goodies ....".
If I never write Python programs, is this update any good to me?

Maybe. Python maybe required in one of the programmes you use. This fact
is "hidden" until it appears in an error message.

Post by Handsome Jack
"amd64 microcode ... This package contains microcode patches for all
AMD AMD64 processors.  AMD releases microcode patches to correct
processor behaviour as documented in the respective processor revision
guides." My CPU seems to have worked OK up until now, so is changing
the microcode really likely to be helpful? Or is it best just to leave
it alone?

You could update when it fails.

There are at least two objections to that policy. First, when it fails,
you may not know what failed and why. You might just get the equivalent of
Microsoft's BSD - perhaps a failure to boot - and have no idea what to do
to fix it.
Secondly, even if you know what it is that has failed (perhaps an obvious
bug in Thunderbird), you may not know how to update it at the point.
Whereas when Update Manager offers you an update, you know what to do.

Post by Gordon
You need to decide ones policy on updates. Certainly security based ones
are important. The rest can be done when they "fit" in.
If you have no data restrictions and a fast internet connection then
save some thinking and just update everything.

The objection to that policy is that updating everything all the time may
well *cause* failures that wouldn't have happened otherwise. I can't count
the number of times I've seen in Linux support groups that the latest
kernel update broke somebody's machine, apparently irreparably. If that
happened to me ... well, I don't want it to happen to me.
On a more trivial level, you also see posts from people saying that
they've just upgraded Thunderbird and now it doesn't work properly. Ah,
say the replies from Linux fans, you just roll back to the previous
version ... except of course if you have Tbird 99.9167 in which case
rolling back doesn't work and you have to reinstall DCIM or
something ... ...

Post by Gordon
Worked for me for many
moons.

Until the day it didn't?

A pragmatic answer might be, "Don't be in a /hurry/ to update."
One could set themselves some kind of 'guide' about how long an update should be around/available
before we 'get around to' doing it.
Hopefully 'bad updates' might be remedied/updated by the time we get around to it.
Presumably 'system' updates or 'security' updates might be vetted harder/better than 'software'
updates, so the clock might run differently.

There are two settings in Update Manager to notify when updates have not be applied for more than XX
days. So one could maybe use that to notify you when it's been 2 weeks or so maybe. Then just
don't do anything till you notified.

[Paul]

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Gordon

Post by Handsome Jack
Is there any way of guessing just how useful or important the updates
offered by Update Manager are to the average user? Most of them are
completely unintelligible to me and some are quite substantial in terms
of size.
"Python 3.10 ... interactive high level object-oriented language ...
version includes an extensive class library with lots of goodies ....".
If I never write Python programs, is this update any good to me?

Maybe. Python maybe required in one of the programmes you use. This fact
is "hidden" until it appears in an error message.

Post by Handsome Jack
"amd64 microcode ... This package contains microcode patches for all
AMD AMD64 processors. AMD releases microcode patches to correct
processor behaviour as documented in the respective processor revision
guides." My CPU seems to have worked OK up until now, so is changing
the microcode really likely to be helpful? Or is it best just to leave
it alone?

You could update when it fails.

There are at least two objections to that policy. First, when it fails,
you may not know what failed and why. You might just get the equivalent of
Microsoft's BSD - perhaps a failure to boot - and have no idea what to do
to fix it.
Secondly, even if you know what it is that has failed (perhaps an obvious
bug in Thunderbird), you may not know how to update it at the point.
Whereas when Update Manager offers you an update, you know what to do.

Post by Gordon
You need to decide ones policy on updates. Certainly security based ones
are important. The rest can be done when they "fit" in.
If you have no data restrictions and a fast internet connection then
save some thinking and just update everything.

The objection to that policy is that updating everything all the time may
well *cause* failures that wouldn't have happened otherwise. I can't count
the number of times I've seen in Linux support groups that the latest
kernel update broke somebody's machine, apparently irreparably. If that
happened to me ... well, I don't want it to happen to me.
On a more trivial level, you also see posts from people saying that
they've just upgraded Thunderbird and now it doesn't work properly. Ah,
say the replies from Linux fans, you just roll back to the previous
version ... except of course if you have Tbird 99.9167 in which case
rolling back doesn't work and you have to reinstall DCIM or
something ... ...

Post by Gordon
Worked for me for many
moons.

Until the day it didn't?

People use adhoc analysis and hand tuning, to decide
how to handle each aspect of their computer operation.

You keep track of your own results, how many meltdowns
have I had, how many quirks, and so on.

How you handle Thunderbird, differs by the functions
you expect of it. The Daily Driver instance, has different
handling than other instances.

As far as OSes go, I recommend turning on the GRUB menu,
so you can see it on each boot. Remove the "quiet splash".
Keep your old kernels when new kernels come in. The old
kernels are kept in the boot menu, as boot alternatives.
In some cases, when there is a failure pattern, it's because
your equipment has aged out, and only the first kernel is
old enough to have the working driver for the graphics.

You also want to check "dmesg" output, for evidence of problems.
For example, if you see the boot process sniffing for ZFS or
MD RAID or such, that's a sign your SWAP is not being used because
the UUID changed on it. And the /etc/fstab names exactly
what SWAP it wants. Fixing that could shave 15-20 seconds
off the boot time.

Paul

[Alan K.]

Post by Paul
As far as OSes go, I recommend turning on the GRUB menu,
so you can see it on each boot. Remove the "quiet splash".

I have quiet splash in my boot but it still shows a menu and a 3 sec timeout. Maybe other settings.
I would therefore ask, what is the purpose of the "quiet splash".

[Mike Easter]

Post by Alan K.
what is the purpose of the "quiet splash".

For some people, the verbose 'grosses them out' and is 'icky'. :-)

... whereas the splash is cute.

[Paul]

Post by Paul
As far as OSes go, I recommend turning on the GRUB menu,
so you can see it on each boot. Remove the "quiet splash".

I have quiet splash in my boot but it still shows a menu and a 3 sec timeout.  Maybe other settings.
I would therefore ask, what is the purpose of the "quiet splash".

I like to view the output during boot.

For example, on Ubuntu, you should see a selection of failed SYSTEMD
activity.

You can shoot video of your screen, if need be. (Dim the room lights
and use the screen illumination for recording.) You do this, because
the info on screen *may not match* dmesg.

At one time, it was pretty well guaranteed, that the screen boot
matched dmesg. Sometimes you see something that bothers you, on the
raw screen output (with "quiet splash" removed) and later in dmesg
you can't find the clause.

You want the grub menu to always be visible, so you are "more familiar"
with the contents. Your first exposure to a grub menu, should
not be under "emergency" conditions. Using that menu should be
second nature to you. For example, make sure you actually *have*
old kernels. Do a boot cycle right now, assume you've had a kernel
failure, and you want to find the previous kernel in a menu.
You should be familiar with how this works.

I tell people the same thing, when they install RAID on home computers.
Simulate a failure. Own five drives. Pretend one drive has failed.
Replace the drive. Do a rebuild. These are bare minimum practice
activities for a RAID owner. You do not want to be facing the
interface components for the first time, on a degrade or fail.
For example, on RAID 10, it's pretty important for the failed disk
to be identifiable. The "spare drive" used in the example for a rebuild,
that's your "spare drive" for an emergency!

Paul

[stepore]

Post by Handsome Jack
Is there any way of guessing just how useful or important the updates
offered by Update Manager are to the average user?

System updates are important. You'll have to do them all eventually.
Otherwise live with important security holes/vulnerabilities/bugs. Patch
everything.

If you want to be safe, a conservative approach would be to patch
everything quarterly. 4 times per year is a general rule of thumb for
even enterprise-level systems.

[RonB]

Post by stepore

Post by Handsome Jack
Is there any way of guessing just how useful or important the updates
offered by Update Manager are to the average user?

System updates are important. You'll have to do them all eventually.
Otherwise live with important security holes/vulnerabilities/bugs. Patch
everything.
If you want to be safe, a conservative approach would be to patch
everything quarterly. 4 times per year is a general rule of thumb for
even enterprise-level systems.

I found that, when you take flatpaks away from the Update application, you
get a lot fewer update requests. I just update flatpaks directly from the
terminal now and I like that a lot better.