• Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    Side note: “I’mma” is a contraction of the whole phrase “I’m going to” or “I’m about to” so it’s followed immediately by the verb indicating what you’ll be doing:

    “I’mma rawdog this sucker without backups.”

    Yes, I added sucker, because it’s going to suck up all your time and data, sucka!

    • Wilzax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Op should have used “I’m finna rawdog this jawn no backup style”

      For no reason other than mixed US slang from different regions sounds funnier to my ear

  • Sundial@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    Just do a fresh install man. I’m getting anxiety just by looking at it.

  • Classy@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    Maybe I’m just screaming into the void here, but does it seem like, as a person who is still relatively out of touch with linux, I don’t necessarily have to update my Arch distribution whenever there are new updates available? I could theoretically just go on downloading new programs, uninstalling old ones, using everything as it sits until theoretically something breaks?

    • __Lost__@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      You should always run a full upgrade when installing a new package to make sure your versions are all in sync. Like if your new package is looking for version 1.1 and you have 1.0 installed, the new package won’t work. In general, everything should be installed with ‘pacman -Syu’ not just ‘pacman -S’

      If you don’t install any new packages, then no you don’t need to upgrade anything. You’re just missing out on security patches and upgraded features. It’s worth running occasional upgrades.

    • doggle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      I don’t necessarily have to update my Arch distribution whenever there are new updates available

      Clearly, op agrees

  • ozoned@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    And they were never heard from AGAIN! Oooooooo It is horror month, and that’s pretty scary! :-D

      • lud@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        How long should you wait before installing? It was midnight over 9 hours ago so am I good to go?

    • wick@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      I’d automate it but the greybeards tell me it’s a bad idea :(

      • passepartout@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        I do the same as OP with my Fedora workstation, which is wait till I have to summon all the available mirrors just to serve me several gigs of software updates every other week.

        For my servers I have an ansible script to update most of the machines. I fire that up every start of the month after the automatic backups. Seems like I’m a week late again already. In these I use apt dist-upgrade since that seems more robust, but I’m still to shy to run it in a cron job.

      • bdonvr@thelemmy.club
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        The system files aren’t writable, instead you download a new system image when you want to update. No dependency hell or weird issues because these system images are all tested. Your system also keeps one or two old ones around and if by some chance something does go wrong you just select the old one at boot.

        Downside is you’re more limited on installing software. You can force install things the traditional way but that kinda defeats the point. Instead you have to use things like FlatPak or AppImages which covers most GUI apps you could want. For command line apps you will have to use something like DistroBox.

        It’s a trade off but for casual desktop users it is super stable and pretty simple. Updates come out daily (depending on distro) and they just get all their software from the software center app with a nice GUI.

      • Samsy@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        The atomic distro would do a backup and if update goes wrong, it automatically boots back into the previous one.

      • Cyborganism@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        (correct me if I’m wrong, I’m also new at this)

        There are two partitions. One with the current system, one with the previous system. Updates are applied in a whole batch at once, once in a while.

        Current system is cloned into the old one and an update is applied to the clone.

        Once the update is complete, system reboots in the clone, and what was the current system becomes the previous one.

        If something goes bad, you can reboot into the previous system and fix the clone.

    • AItoothbrush@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      I know its a meme but nixos is actually good for this. You can be on the unstable branch, not update for 5 years and still get everything working after updating(tho i dont recommend because of security). I think nixos has some fucking AMAZING features but the problem is its paired with features that make it extremely hard to use for a casual user.

      • chirping@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Agreed! I think a part of the “problem” is that with Nix, there’s now at least 3 sides: application specific knowledge, system knowledge, and you have to use the nix language, architecture and tools to interface with it. so for a seasoned linux user, there’s maybe just a new programming language, but if you’re new to Linux, it’s quickly gonna overwhelm you. which in a way is a bit ironic because I’d argue that it’s easier to manage a NixOS system, and getting help is so much easier when your problems can be replicated by just aharing your config.

        • AItoothbrush@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          Id say its easy to share your problems with other people because its a few files unlike distros like arch where your packages can be fucked up and then you have to reinstall in most cases. But the support it self isnt too good. Arch has archwiki, ubuntu has a lot of channels of support while nixos has a badly written wiki.

      • Something Burger 🍔@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        So many Linux problems are solved by using NixOS, it’s amazing. Immutability? NixOS. Atomic upgrades? NixOS. Whole system rollbacks? NixOS. Versionned system settings? NixOS. Impermanence? NixOS. Multiple versions of the same program installed at once? NixOS. Containers? NixOS. Multiple hardware profiles on a single installation? NixOS.

        At this point, I think the only thing remaining is a Flatpak-like sandbox.

  • bdonvr@thelemmy.club
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    I’ve updated an Arch install after not being used for 2 years. I don’t think there were any issues.

    I’ve experienced far more issues upgrading to a new major release of an apt based distro though…

    • superkret@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      That apt based distro was Ubuntu, wasn’t it?
      I never successfully upgraded that from one release to the next.