[GTALUG] Installing Anaconda with Python 3 on 32 bit linux (Ubuntu ver 16.04 )

o1bigtenor o1bigtenor at gmail.com
Sat Apr 20 16:25:09 EDT 2019


On Sat, Apr 20, 2019 at 11:37 AM D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk
<talk at gtalug.org> wrote:
>
> | From: o1bigtenor via talk <talk at gtalug.org>
>
> | I'm
> | finding that
> | there are some elements in *nix land that are insisting that because users
> | are so very very lax at updating their systems that the distro must itself
> | not only offer the updates but that said updates MUST happen.
>
> It is perhaps reasonable that that be an option.  It feels wrong that
> it be mandatory.
>
> As a desktop user, I treat Firefox updates as urgent and mandatory.
> Firefox is my main exposure to Bad Guys.
>
> Some of the customers for my sysadmin services (i.e. my family) don't
> like updates.  They are of the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"
> school.  And it is true that sometimes I've broken things through
> updates.  But I still have faith regular updates are a net win.

Agreed - - - but I can tell you that an upgrade that causes system
problems is very stressful!
>
> There are some parallels between vaccine and updates.

Maybe more than a few? (grin!)
>
> | To whit - -
> | Canonical has moved to this system in their implementations of both
> | snapd and also lxd. It is possible to reduce the frequency of the upgrades
> | from a daily inspection and possible update/upgrade to a maximum of
> | a month long period without update/upgrade.
>
> Are you saying that updates are mandatory, but only for snapd and lxd?
> That sounds a bit odd.
>
> Is it only security updates that are mandatory?

Snapd is used to install lxd.
>
> I don't use snapd and lxd.  Abstractly, both need to bridge between an inside
> environment and an outside one.  Are the updates purely to the
> inside, to the outside, or both?  Could the updates be required to
> make this bridging correct?

Not sure - - - just know that snapd can be set for an update/upgrade once
a month. If that doesn't happen - - - well my system (Debian 9) would shut
itself down.
>
> I thought that one of the goals of snapd and of container systems was
> the decouple versioning of inside and outside.  What other purpose is
> there for snapd, for example?

My guess is that this tightly coupled behavior would make it much easier
to create a fee for such connection. This then monetizes the software.
Both of these 'technologies' development occur after Canonical was rumored
to be contemplating an IPO.
>
> | I found out the hard way that this was a MUST from the software. Myself
> | I prefer to update/upgrade periodically - - - usually checking to make sure
> | that the software isn't going to get borked because the upgrade has flaws
> | in it (even more fun when the system gets borked due to flaws in the
> | software!!). It was suggested that it would be possible to skirt around the
> | constant update/upgrade cycle by using a firewall rule to hinder the forced
> | reach out from my system to 'mother ship'. Well that joy set up a system
> | that after such an update/upgrade request was blocked - - - well the system
> | would shut itself down. It was only after the second such incident that I
> | started investigating and by the fourth I could call the trend. Now I have
> | the issue of having directories that I am unable to remove even using rm -r
> | but there is a very long and definitely not simple technique whereby maybe
> | I will be able to purge my server of said mess.
>
> Wow.
>
> It would be interesting to know what the rationale for this is.
> There's a chance that the reason is reasonable.

The rationale - - - stated is to make sure that the user never has outdated
software. (Implied is that users are the major issue causing software
problems.) Not explained is why there is a need to run software on the
bleeding edge. There just is no room left for something like Debian stable
or software that is rock solid stable - - - there were a number of interesting
bugs that showed up.
>
> It's open source.  You could rebuild it without the mandatory
> update feature.  Or you could file a bug report.  Or you could accept
> this loss of control.  Or you could walk.

I don't have the skills to remove the offending part of the software. The
forum topic where this was discussed was locked by the admins at least
a few times as the users would be less than totally amazed and enthralled
by the 'feature' and taking the dev team to task re: this gaff.
I chose the last option.
>
> | Hopefully not too much rant!
>
> Interesting to me.

Regards


More information about the talk mailing list