DW: Musing on distros after prolonged use

Message
Author
User avatar
KBD
Posts: 959
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 7:52 pm

Re: DW: Musing on distros after prolonged use

#21 Post by KBD »

I have broke things using Backports in Debian Stable and they are very conservative. I don't recommend Backports unless your computer won't run, or you can't get your work done without something from Backports.
MX is unlikely to break on you using default settings and using the recommended dist-upgrade path.
The big thing you would have to worry about is if MX was doing full upgrades to the entire new release including kernel and driver updates. These come with a new MX release, but I don't think they are touched with an existing MX system. Guys correct me if I'm wrong.

User avatar
seaken64
Posts: 819
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2019 2:43 pm

Re: DW: Musing on distros after prolonged use

#22 Post by seaken64 »

Adrian wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 4:34 pm
But to this day I still don't feel comfortable with "upgrades" and I still don't quite understand why it is better to do a "dist-upgrade" than an "upgrade".
The difference is simple to understand, let me try to explain "upgrade" will never install another package while "dist-upgrade" will pull new packages if required. So for example we develop an app let's call it MX Cleanup, we add it as a dependency to mx-apps metapackage, what that means is that when mx-apps updates is going to pull MX Cleanup with it, hurray! But wait, that works only if you use "dist-upgrade" since "upgrade" never installs new package so actually if you use "upgrade" you'll never be able to update "mx-apps" and you'll never get new goodies like MX Cleanup. Sometimes we split packages for example mx-repo-manager uses now the list of repos from mx-repo-list but to get mx-repo-list since is a new package you need again to use "dist-upgrade" if you don't use dist-upgrade you'll never get the newer version of mx-repo-manager and you'll never get mx-repo-list (unless you install that manually, but you'd need to know about it to install it).
And I don't get it when I do dist-upgrade and I now have a "new" version, say from MX-17 to MX-18. One day I just have MX-18.
That's easy to misunderstand, it's just a change in the label that applies to a collection of software, basically it just says that you have MX-17 fully updated, since we release MX-18 based on those packages. MX-17 fully updated = MX-18. I a way it has little to do with "dist-upgrade"...dist-upgrade is just an option to tell apt-get how to upgrade see my previous explanation, that label might have change if you did a "upgrade" in stead of "dist-upgrade", again it's just a label, you could have upgrade everything and still think that you run "MX-17" but that would be pretty much the same as "MX-18" so then we'd have the questions "how can you upgrade from MX-17 to MX-18?" The answer is, if you have MX-17 fully updated you basically have MX-18 so that's why we changed the label to reflect the state of facts.
I am learning that I can change repositories and use backports,
Don't. I mean don't do it if you don't understand what you are doing, use the tools we offer like MX PackgeInstaller to install stuff from backports (but that comes with a warning, pay attention to what it says).
I don't think MX should automatically update.
It doesn't, you have to set it up to update automatically, that being said I highly recommend keeping MX up to date, otherwise you don't get new features or bug fixes.
Thanks Adrian, that was very helpful. I do understand those basics. But I am still struggling with whether or not I should shut off the updates when I am on an old computer and am happy with the current results. I'm not sure if upgrades will render the system unusable or not. I experimented with an install of antiX14 and ran the dist-upgrade. I essentially ended up with a hybrid of antiX-17 and a lot of stuff would not work. But I also ran a dist-upgrade on MX-15 and ended up with a pleasant result of MX-16, and this was after I failed to get MX-16 working directly from a USB install. On that system I ended up getting where I wanted to be by doing the dist-upgrade.

When I was on Vector/Slackware I could update with their package manager but many newer versions were not offered. If I wanted a new version of a package I would wait for the next version of the distro and then re-install. It worked fine and in some ways was easier to understand than this MX model of updating. But eventually I ran into some programs that I really wanted to use and I couldn't figure out how to install them on Slackware. So I jumped ship. Now I am trying to learn the new paradigm. I am trying to figure out where to draw the line for dist-upgrade. For now, until I understand this better I have turned off dist-upgrade on my newly installed MX-15/16 machine that I just put into service. I want to keep it at MX-16 and do not want MX-17 stuff to take over.

Thanks again,
Seaken64
MX21-64 XFCE & W11 on Lenovo 330S LT. MX21-KDE & MX21-XFCE on Live USB.
MX18-64 & W7, Fedora on HP Core2 DT
MX21-32 XFCE w/ MX-Fluxbox on P4HT DT w/ antiX21, SUSE Tumbleweed, Q4OS, WXP
antiX21 on Compaq PIII 1 Ghz DT, w/ Debian, MX18FB, W2K

User avatar
Adrian
Developer
Posts: 8250
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:42 am

Re: DW: Musing on distros after prolonged use

#23 Post by Adrian »

MX-15/16 will never upgrade to MX-17, they were based on Jessie, MX-17/18 are based on Stretch. You should still do updates, we build most of mx apps for MX15/16 too, otherwise you'd not get bug fixes or new features.

User avatar
anticapitalista
Developer
Posts: 4160
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 10:40 am

Re: DW: Musing on distros after prolonged use

#24 Post by anticapitalista »

seaken64 wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 5:31 pm...I experimented with an install of antiX14 and ran the dist-upgrade. I essentially ended up with a hybrid of antiX-17 and a lot of stuff would not work....
Thanks again,
Seaken64
There was no antiX-14 release. We had antiX-13 and antiX-15 (both jessie based) and antiX-17 is stretch based.
A dist-upgrade would not have taken antiX-13 or antiX-15 to antiX-17 (unless you changed the repos).
anticapitalista
Reg. linux user #395339.

Philosophers have interpreted the world in many ways; the point is to change it.

antiX with runit - lean and mean.
https://antixlinux.com

User avatar
Stevo
Developer
Posts: 12776
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:07 pm

Re: DW: Musing on distros after prolonged use

#25 Post by Stevo »

KBD wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 5:17 pm I have broke things using Backports in Debian Stable and they are very conservative. I don't recommend Backports unless your computer won't run, or you can't get your work done without something from Backports.
MX is unlikely to break on you using default settings and using the recommended dist-upgrade path.
The big thing you would have to worry about is if MX was doing full upgrades to the entire new release including kernel and driver updates. These come with a new MX release, but I don't think they are touched with an existing MX system. Guys correct me if I'm wrong.
You're wrong and you're welcome. :p

MX 17 will upgrade to the new free video driver stack (Mesa, libva, xorg drivers, etc), as well as Nvidia drivers, if you apply the normal updates. The newer GIMP 2.10.8 also pulls in some newer libraries that might affect font rendering, mostly for the better, IMO.

User avatar
seaken64
Posts: 819
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2019 2:43 pm

Re: DW: Musing on distros after prolonged use

#26 Post by seaken64 »

anticapitalista wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 5:46 pm
seaken64 wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 5:31 pm...I experimented with an install of antiX14 and ran the dist-upgrade. I essentially ended up with a hybrid of antiX-17 and a lot of stuff would not work....
Thanks again,
Seaken64
There was no antiX-14 release. We had antiX-13 and antiX-15 (both jessie based) and antiX-17 is stretch based.
A dist-upgrade would not have taken antiX-13 or antiX-15 to antiX-17 (unless you changed the repos).
I'll double-check myself when I get home. Sometimes I mis-remember!

And yes, I figured out a few days ago that what I had was a release candidate of Killah P which is antiX-15. But I thought it was antiX-14 up until recently. It had a distro title of antiX-14-a4-RV. And maybe it wasn't 17, but 16. But I also may have played with the repos on that one. I'll find out tonight.

Seaken64
MX21-64 XFCE & W11 on Lenovo 330S LT. MX21-KDE & MX21-XFCE on Live USB.
MX18-64 & W7, Fedora on HP Core2 DT
MX21-32 XFCE w/ MX-Fluxbox on P4HT DT w/ antiX21, SUSE Tumbleweed, Q4OS, WXP
antiX21 on Compaq PIII 1 Ghz DT, w/ Debian, MX18FB, W2K

User avatar
seaken64
Posts: 819
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2019 2:43 pm

Re: DW: Musing on distros after prolonged use

#27 Post by seaken64 »

Adrian wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 5:37 pm MX-15/16 will never upgrade to MX-17, they were based on Jessie, MX-17/18 are based on Stretch. You should still do updates, we build most of mx apps for MX15/16 too, otherwise you'd not get bug fixes or new features.
Okay, that makes sense. I'm still not sure it makes a difference that upgrades stay within the proper generation or not. I could be wrong but I think even upgrades within the same generation can cause trouble. But you guys are pointing things out that are unknown to me and I have a lot to learn. That's why I ask these questions because I am trying to learn the relationships between distro versions, upgrades, repos, kernels, Xorg, etc. There is a lot to take in. But this is good stuff. If I can get this all in my head and make sense of it maybe I can contribute to the wiki for others who do similar work with old computers. Or maybe there is already a nice write-up and I just haven't found it yet?

Seaken64
MX21-64 XFCE & W11 on Lenovo 330S LT. MX21-KDE & MX21-XFCE on Live USB.
MX18-64 & W7, Fedora on HP Core2 DT
MX21-32 XFCE w/ MX-Fluxbox on P4HT DT w/ antiX21, SUSE Tumbleweed, Q4OS, WXP
antiX21 on Compaq PIII 1 Ghz DT, w/ Debian, MX18FB, W2K

skidoo
Posts: 753
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2015 6:56 pm

Re: DW: Musing on distros after prolonged use

#28 Post by skidoo »

But to this day I still don't feel comfortable with "upgrades" and I still don't quite understand why it is better to do a "dist-upgrade" than an "upgrade".
The difference is simple to understand, let me try to explain "upgrade" will never install another package while "dist-upgrade" will pull new packages if required. So for example we develop an app let's call it MX Cleanup, we add it as a dependency to mx-apps metapackage, what that means is that when mx-apps updates is going to pull MX Cleanup with it, hurray! But wait, that works only if you use "dist-upgrade" since "upgrade" never installs new package so actually if you use "upgrade" you'll never be able to update "mx-apps" and you'll never get new goodies like MX Cleanup. Sometimes we split packages for example mx-repo-manager uses now the list of repos from mx-repo-list but to get mx-repo-list since is a new package you need again to use "dist-upgrade" if you don't use dist-upgrade you'll never get the newer version of mx-repo-manager and you'll never get mx-repo-list (unless you install that manually, but you'd need to know about it to install it).
And I don't get it when I do dist-upgrade and I now have a "new" version, say from MX-17 to MX-18. One day I just have MX-18.
That's easy to misunderstand, it's just a change in the label that applies to a collection of software, basically it just says that you have MX-17 fully updated, since we release MX-18 based on those packages. MX-17 fully updated = MX-18. I a way it has little to do with "dist-upgrade"...dist-upgrade is just an option to tell apt-get how to upgrade see my previous explanation, that label might have change if you did a "upgrade" in stead of "dist-upgrade", again it's just a label, you could have upgrade everything and still think that you run "MX-17" but that would be pretty much the same as "MX-18" so then we'd have the questions "how can you upgrade from MX-17 to MX-18?" The answer is, if you have MX-17 fully updated you basically have MX-18 so that's why we changed the label to reflect the state of facts.
I am learning that I can change repositories and use backports,
Don't. I mean don't do it if you don't understand what you are doing, use the tools we offer like MX PackgeInstaller to install stuff from backports (but that comes with a warning, pay attention to what it says).
I don't think MX should automatically update.
It doesn't, you have to set it up to update automatically, that being said I highly recommend keeping MX up to date, otherwise you don't get new features or bug fixes.
I can't recall the last time (or if I have ever) "quoted back an entire post".
Please consider preserving the above gem, perhaps along with other select snippets from this topic, within a wiki page.

User avatar
seaken64
Posts: 819
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2019 2:43 pm

Re: DW: Musing on distros after prolonged use

#29 Post by seaken64 »

Stevo wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 6:14 pm
KBD wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 5:17 pm I have broke things using Backports in Debian Stable and they are very conservative. I don't recommend Backports unless your computer won't run, or you can't get your work done without something from Backports.
MX is unlikely to break on you using default settings and using the recommended dist-upgrade path.
The big thing you would have to worry about is if MX was doing full upgrades to the entire new release including kernel and driver updates. These come with a new MX release, but I don't think they are touched with an existing MX system. Guys correct me if I'm wrong.
You're wrong and you're welcome. :p

MX 17 will upgrade to the new free video driver stack (Mesa, libva, xorg drivers, etc), as well as Nvidia drivers, if you apply the normal updates. The newer GIMP 2.10.8 also pulls in some newer libraries that might affect font rendering, mostly for the better, IMO.
Terms like "video driver stack" and "libraries" are still cloudy for me. I get the concept of drivers and libraries but I don't know how to sort out how they affect my ability to play a YouTube video with one version of the distro but not another. I'm working thru it and you guys are a big help. And I did look at backports but I don't think I implemented anything from that repo yet. I think I was learning that my nvidia card was supported by Wheezy. Heck I don't even know if I got the word right. Maybe it was forward port. But I abandoned that idea and decided to learn more about nouveau.

Seaken64
MX21-64 XFCE & W11 on Lenovo 330S LT. MX21-KDE & MX21-XFCE on Live USB.
MX18-64 & W7, Fedora on HP Core2 DT
MX21-32 XFCE w/ MX-Fluxbox on P4HT DT w/ antiX21, SUSE Tumbleweed, Q4OS, WXP
antiX21 on Compaq PIII 1 Ghz DT, w/ Debian, MX18FB, W2K

User avatar
seaken64
Posts: 819
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2019 2:43 pm

Re: DW: Musing on distros after prolonged use

#30 Post by seaken64 »

skidoo wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 6:44 pm
I can't recall the last time (or if I have ever) "quoted back an entire post".
Please consider preserving the above gem, perhaps along with other select snippets from this topic, within a wiki page.
Sorry, I'm still figuring out the forum. I suppose it wasn't necessary but I wasn't really paying attention. I did cut this one though.

Also, I tend to be wordy, if you haven't noticed already, Ha!

Seaken64

Oh, wait that was you quoting the entire post. I get it now. Like I said, not paying attention!
MX21-64 XFCE & W11 on Lenovo 330S LT. MX21-KDE & MX21-XFCE on Live USB.
MX18-64 & W7, Fedora on HP Core2 DT
MX21-32 XFCE w/ MX-Fluxbox on P4HT DT w/ antiX21, SUSE Tumbleweed, Q4OS, WXP
antiX21 on Compaq PIII 1 Ghz DT, w/ Debian, MX18FB, W2K

Post Reply

Return to “General”