Updating your OS

How often do you /prog/rammers update your operating system? If you use Windows or Mac OS X, fuck off you aren't a programmer.

I use Anonix. I update it every day.

Everyday. I'm a Hurd hacker.

I pacman -Syu about once per day.

sage

Whenever Apple releases an update.

>>4
Ahh, an archer, how do you like it?

How do I shot update-notifier?
This is a solved problem.

I do a clean install whenever Patrick does a release, every year or so.

I portupgrade about once a month on all my systems. Running the RELENG_7 branch and only do kernel updates when they bump the revision number (7.1 is due out in a couple months -- hopefully everything will go smoothly).

Been thinking about trying out Arch on my desktop, but then I'd have no i386 machine to test my patches on :(

I prefer to launch /System/Library/CoreServices/Software Update.app manually.

>>10
Have you ever had problems using the binary packages on ftp.FreeBSD.org?

Updating them seems to be a bitch, and I'm too fucking impatient to fucking compile Xorg and Firefox from ports.

>>12
As scary as it sounds, I've never even considered using binary packages. It took me a day or so to get everything compiled and working, and (excepting problems which some times crop up in UPDATING) just rebuild shit overnight with portupgrade --batch -arR.

What kinds of problems are the binary packages giving you?

>>6
>>11
This thread is only for freeware OS

>>11
lrn2/usr/sbin/softwareupdate

>>14
Freeware is a 90's term to describe non-free software that was distributed at zero cost. Do you mean free software, as in software that has and gives freedom?

>>16,10
FreeBSD is a 90's term to describe non-free software that was distributed at zero cost. Do you mean GNU/GPL software, as in software that has and gives freedom?

>>13
Well, there are a couple things. I installed 7.0-RELEASE and then set an environment variable so that pkg_add -r would get the latest packages, rather than the ones built for 7.0-RELEASE. I dunno if that's a problem, I don't see why it would be, but some of that packages that I installed had older versions installed from the initial setup (I chose to include Xorg and some other things in sysinstall. Anyway, I tried installing Firefox 3.0, and threw a huge amount of errors and reinstalled a newer version of Xorg I think, and basically everything got fucked up.

Are the upgrades easier with ports?

>>17
GPL is non-free.
BSD or MIT is free.

>>13
I once installed Gentoo from sources. Worst fucking waste of time ever.

>>7
It's only the best Linux distro I've ever used.

>>11
man softwareupdate

>>9
It's nice to meet a fellow Slackware user. I reckon you're either old or have use a computer older than this board.

>>19
The GPL is more free because it ensures that all users of derived works will have freedom.

apt-get update is run od -vAn -N2 -tu4 < /dev/urandom seconds after midnight and changelogs are mailed to me.

>>24
The part about enforcing freedom shouldn't be explained beforehand. What really matters is that GPL is for free software, while BSD is for Open-source. Whenever Apple or Microsoft talks about free software, they call it "Open-source" and "Linux" (instead of the proper term). That's what this struggle is really about and we shouldn't be hypocrites about it.

>>26
Free software has nothing to do with Free Software™®.
Anything you can download for free is free software.
Your ``proper term'' is cultist bullshit.

I use the MS Windows Update feature.

>>27
Then Windows is free software

>>7
I like it just fine. For me, packages are the most important part of a Linux distro: the ones you get by default, how you manage them and how good the repos are. I think Arch does these all great.

You just get a small set of core packages by default (no X etc). pacman does a good job at managing binary packages; my only problem with it was that it's slightly cryptic. ABS makes it piss easy to build binary packages from source.

There are a lot of ABS build scripts both in the official repos and the arch user repository. Binaries for x86 and x86-64 are maintained pretty well: software is usually updated within a few weeks from the official release. Flagging things out of date really seems to work; last week I flagged ed out of date because 1.0 was released about 5 days ago, and 1 day later it was updated.

>>8,25
Compare the ed situation above with the situation in Debian: the stable package has been out of date 1.5 year, the testing and unstable packages for 1 year. ( http://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=ed&exact=1 )

>>30
the stable package has been out of date 1.5 year, the testing and unstable packages for 1 year
Security-critical updates are pushed out more quickly than updates to '70s abandonware.

>>30
pacman does a good job at managing binary packages; my only problem with it was that it's slightly cryptic.

Compared to what?

>>1
or Mac OS X
What's the matter? Too [u][b]UNIX[/b][/u] for you?

>>33
Damn, it figures that I go ahead and make my first BBCode failure in months in a crucial moment.

>>30.31
I actually just got a security update to ed earlier in the week (Debian testing).

ghetto boyz

>>36
WHY DON'T THEY JUST FUCKING UPDATE THEIR PACKAGE TO 1.0
Do they still think they are smarter than upstream?

>>32
I never compared it to anything.

>>38
Because GNU ed v1.0 only came out August 21st and isn't a high priority package. Testing takes time, and other packages take priority.

I have run all but dry of understanding for programmers that willfully pick anything else than OS X as their platform of choice. I know a few that are still stuck in the rut for various reasons -- none of them desire.
Apple will continue to trounce everyone else for the preferred geek platform. The stigma of not being able to use Textmate will increase (watch the Rails screencasts).