Posted Sep 3, 2010 4:33 UTC (Fri) by Baylink (subscriber, #755)
Parent article: Quotes of the week
I'd like to take a moment, here, to throw some liquid helium on the inexcusably silly idea that every computer on the planet should always be immediately updated to the current releases of every program running on it, notably kernels.
This fairy tale is propagated by lots of people, and it's just not so.
There are lots of very good reasons to keep running the code you are running and have tested, modulo security patches, for just as long as you possibly can.
But alas, this opinion also informs architectural design decisions (like SuSE 11.3 changing wholesale to KDE4 and Plasma with no apparent way to select KDE3.5 instead, which, y'know, works, and all my users know how to *run* it). I'm told that it's *possible* to revert to K3.5 though some manual package wrangling, but I tried it, and I couldn't get it to work. Point is: I shouldn't have *had* to. I'm running 11.0 in a couple places, and if 11.3 was going to EOL K3.5, I would expect that 11.0 should have provided K4 as an option, and I didn't see that it did. And more to the point, 11.3 should still have provided K3 as an option, and I'm pretty sure it does not.
This problem is, of course, made worse by support lifecycles.
But even when things are still in support, people's opinions of how to handle older code can be troublesome.
Certainly, the decision to run older code will always be a tradeoff.
But it seems to me that decisions to make it much harder to do so are often taken more lightly than I'd like to see.
Posted Sep 4, 2010 1:33 UTC (Sat) by drag (subscriber, #31333)
[Link]
I solved the problem with KDE a long time ago, I just stopped trying to use it. Seems to have solved problems plaguing a great many distros, too.
As far as the Linux kernel goes... usually there is actual benefit to upgrading. Better wireless, better video, better power management, better mostly everything.... If you have work that will not benefit from upgrading then I can understand why you would not want to, of course.
Quotes of the week
Posted Sep 9, 2010 12:49 UTC (Thu) by nlucas (subscriber, #33793)
[Link]
I have reached the same solution for KDE.
Waiting for Gnome Shell to go back ;-)
As for kernels, many things are better with newer versions.
If you keep the same hardware there should be no reason to stay with the older one, but that's not what really happens.
You upgrade the kernel and the new kernel driver for your wireless card doesn't work anymore (or only works with a specific WPA setup). Video works OK, but your notebook doesn't last as long when viewing it (they say the image quality is better, though), and even basic things like pressing a button to enable/disable some piece of hardware is broken.
The truth is there are a lot of hacks involved in a modern distribution, and those hacks don't like it when the kernel is changed under them...
Quotes of the week
Posted Sep 16, 2010 20:05 UTC (Thu) by jospoortvliet (subscriber, #33164)
[Link]
The result is simply that you move as wel as anyone else - except that you're a while behind the rest. Otherwise - little difference. Oh, of course you miss out on nice features and productivity improvements you could've had earlier.
On the other hand, you can pick what to move to - eg in case of the KDE 4 series, you could've waited until 4.4, when it was user-ready. Then again, maybe SUSE should've indeed done that for you...