[EN] Updates Yes/No ?

[michaa7]

...
Sorry, but in 2012 after 20 years developement of Linux, package management and so on I expect an upgrade mechanism which does not break anything when using a gui.
...

To me this boils down to: GUI is good, CLI is bad.

But in real computer live a GUI is kind of a window with a wall around it, a peephole. And for administrative purposes this peephole is often insufficient.
For d-u best is to get used to the CLI. We all should discipline ourselves to do so and whereever possible encourage other people to use CLI with its drawbacks and advantages.

To put it in a nutshell using your example:

Do you expect changing your wheels on your (or someones) car while you are driving around? After more than 100 years of car developement? On the 'Tour de France' they already are doing it with bikes.

[ralul]

A few years ago Debian made a service restart of dbus when upgrading. This had to crash the windowing system and therefore the DU run in runlevel 5. This is no more the case. But it is saver and more reliable to do your DU in runlevel 3.

... there is a package "debian-goodies" having checkrestart! The same what in opensuse "zypper ps"

[dibl]

Sorry, but in 2012 after 20 years developement of Linux, package management and so on I expect an upgrade mechanism which does not break anything when using a gui.

I would say that statement is true, for stable distributions.

But, here we are not using a stable distribution.  For a developmental distribution branch, where there is no developer commitment to maintain continuously functional GUI during display software transitions, going to init 3 is a reasonable requirement, IMHO.  Actually it's amazing to me that a periodic reboot is not required.

[michaa7]

I like this reasoning.

[holgerw]

Hello,

please don't me understand in a wrong way:

I do not recommend others to do a dist-upgrade in Runlevel 5.

To me this boils down to: GUI is good, CLI is bad.

Micha, an interesting interpretation of my comment, but sorry, where did I write, that cli is bad and gui is good?

Sometimes I use KDE konsole and apt-get for dist-upgrades, sometimes I do it in Runlevel 3. But what I do to avoid trouble is the following, to make a complete dist-upgrade before adding new software. To forgot this it can lead to broken dependencies, because the new package can be build against newer versions of other packages as installed.

Do you expect changing your wheels on your (or someones) car while you are driving around? After more than 100 years of car developement?

Sorry, but I wonder a little bit about this comparism. Also in Runlevel 3 a PC is running, and Linux runs a lot of daemons and other stuff also in Runlevel 3. And all this stuff can break.

We all should discipline ourselves to do so and whereever possible encourage other people to use CLI with its drawbacks and advantages.

I've no problem to accept that DU in Runlevel 3 is a little bit more secure and I repeat it again: If other people ask, I recommend Runlevel 3. But sorry, we're adults here and nobody here should forbid me telling others of my experiences with dist-upgrades.

I've no problem if somebody says to me: Holger, to make DUs in Runlevel 5 is stupid, but then I expect a technical explaination, like this comment of @ralul:

A few years ago Debian made a service restart of dbus when upgrading. This had to crash the windowing system and therefore the DU run in runlevel 5. This is no more the case. But it is saver and more reliable to do your DU in runlevel 3.

Comparisons with bikes, cars or other stuff, which have not to do with computers and operation systems, are not very helpful here.

Kind regards,
  Holger

[ralul]

Yeah, most important:

Code: [Select]

a complete dist-upgrade before adding new software

[hinto]

My rule of thumb is that I install packages (where I can see the dependencies) in synaptic.  I do dist-upgrades in init 3.  I'm potentially changing the engine out from under me.
-Hinto

[agaida]

@all:
As holgerw mentioned: Most of us are 18+ and most of us are not first time linux users. So I don't see any reasons, not to upgrade in init 5. It is not an official recommendation, but who cares We have an old saying in Germany: "Wer den Schaden hat, braucht für den Spott nicht zu sorgen".

Init 3 is the safe way to do a dist-upgrade. When you upgrade in init 5, it will in rare cicumstances break your system.  The solution is easy: If you break your system, you have to repair it yourself. This affects only yourself. Our systems will stay alive without hassle.

[bevo]

I did once DU in init 5 by carelessness and my system break  :shock:  

Think about Murphy's Law  :wink: