To the debate about stability after updating the system

Published on October 26, 2009

To the debate about stability after updating the system

    Today I had to start and not end the debate with a classmate about whether Linux distributions are more stable operating systems in relation to the same beloved Windows after the update procedures . The opponent’s argument in favor of Windows was simple: when updating windows, programs will not break, but on a linux system everything is possible, well, I’ll try to give an expanded opinion on this issue.

    So, what is stability for a desktop environment? Yes, everything is quite simple: they installed it , we update it from time to time and after the updates nothing breaks . Consider the real situation in the two operating systems under consideration.

    So, Windows.


    Here we put Windows , out of the box we got solitaire with a sapper and ... and besides jokes - we got the system without any third-party software: everything is at a minimum, if you want more, put it. Actually, in the current realities, the latter is not a problem: installing codecs, installing an office, and other purchased (or blatantly crap) software have all become accustomed to and can do it in 30 minutes, simultaneously laying out solitaire.
    Windows, like any operating system, has flaws and errors, holes appearing from time to time. Actually " update"Windows essentially means closing security holes and possibly installing some thread of very new and needed software, such as a new MSN or a firewall (sorry, behind the times, because I’m talking from memory about what I had to deal with in Windows XP ). In fact, we get updates to the system kernel and the software included in it, and all updates are the work of the same vendor , Microsoft.

    Updating programs in Windows is a completely different song that has nothing to do with the system update function: here every software developer comes up with something that only a mountain alright , but with a single click of the mouse, alas, you can’t update everything or say “update me these 10 programs, but don’t touch this one.” You can’t do this.a way to install programs on Windows ... which essentially does not exist - there are tools, such as more or less standardized places where to put applications [Program Files, aha] and places to write temporary (or characteristic only for installation on this machine) information [Registry, aha ]. " Vinduzyatnikam " it seems very convenient and standardized system (about which I will say a little below) for them seem to be very complicated and unnecessary things. The " linuxoids " are slowly and surely hated by the glamorous installers and spit on the screen if some program does not allow you to put yourself through the package system, but offers only a beautiful GUI.

    And so, Linux.


    But after installing Linux , we may have before our eyes both a command line and an empty hard drive, as well as glamorous sneakers on the screen and a screw screwed to failure by very important applications. But we have already agreed that we will consider desktop distributions that are made, so to speak, “for people”, for ordinary people. That's right: Ubuntu, Fedora, Mandriva, [Open] SUSE, AltLinux ... Since I recently worked with Ubuntu (installed and configured it on a netbook that appeared in my family), I will talk about it.
    After standard (blunt clicking a mouse button "further") Fitting obtain desktop Gnome, set of software "by a single application by the function": from office applications to the same solitaire. In fact, everything already works, you don’t need to search for codecs yourself - they opened some kind of mp3’s, answered that we want to install the necessary software, waited ... and now Babkina is already singing from small netbook stereo speakers.
    And after a while, we (absolutely by accident) wanted to update. Moreover, we turn on the system update and carefully look at the packages installed for updates: here it is ... The kernel is of the same branch, only with a couple of new patches . Applications are updated and do not break .
    Pretty, huh? One of the arguments of my interlocutor was that the application can pull a lot of dependencies and one of them will definitely break something. No matter how:caring maintainers are not going to put only the released software in the repository - they try to build a stable package , patch the software so that the program works as it should and nothing breaks out of its competence.

    Well, we’ll push them in a hard comparison


    So, we have two evils :
    1) Windows , which can only update itself without breaking much, and
    2) Linux , desktop “User-friendly” distributions that will be happy to update itself and the software and most likely will not break anything .

    Of course, there is a reasonable indignation regarding Linux : and if I do not want to update the software, I just want to make the system have fewer security holes and make the kernel better (read " I want it like in Windows "), then here are two moves for you Actions:
    1) when updating, leave only the necessary packages
    2) leave only security in the repository lists andcore repositories.

    So Conclusion


    Both systems from the point of view of stability after the upgrade are the same : everything will either be better or will remain as it was. The only thing that distinguishes Linux is that by default it offers a centralized update of all software. But the way to update programs on Windows clearly has its fans. In general, the latter is about “taste and color,” and I have already given the answer to the question posed to me in the dispute.