With Dell comes great responsibility: Perfect Apt

[cptnapalm]

Like most people here, I'm very happy to see that Dell picked Ubuntu for its Linux offering. With a hardware vendor, the glitches due to drivers should not be a problem as it will, presumably, be pre-tested in order ensure compatibility. Ubuntu's usability as a desktop needs no introduction to the people on this forum. The one thing which I do have a concern about, though, is upgrading Ubuntu releases.

My first Ubuntu was 5.10. Upgrading to 6.06 hosed the install. 6.06 to 6.10 worked for the most part; the part that didn't work was X which is not an insignificant thing. A second computer was upgraded from 6.06 to 7.04 and was completely hosed; not only did X not start, there was no console login available either.

Windows only has major new versions every few years. Consequently, most people stick with the version of Windows they have until the system dies or gets sold or given away. Windows upgrades frequently have problems. Apple has only a small set of systems, comparatively speaking, to support with their upgrades thus minimizing the possible trouble spots for new OS X versions which appear every couple of years.

Ubuntu has two big releases a year on systems from the delightfully anarchic PC world. The installer is as sweet as I could ever want; playing tetris and reading Slashdot while installing an operating system at a coffee shop is just awesome.

As I see it, part of the problem is with apt itself. Apt works 95% of the time. Of the non-working chunk, 3% are not too bad. The other 2% are system destroying. Distribution upgrades disproportionately fall in that 2%. Apt, during that 95%, is one of the best things that has ever been put into an operating system. But apt gone wrong is a total disaster.

To a certain extent, Canonical seems to focus on one thing above all else for each release. The installer got massive attention and is now fantastic. The shift from the Sys V init to Upstart, while not particularly noticable for most users, was a damn good thing.

As Dell is to offer Ubuntu Linux pre-installed, I think that the best bet is for Canonical to focus on ways of ensuring that the upgrade process becomes rock solid. There should be one way to do the distribution upgrade which absolutely works instead of the several ways there are now which frequently do not. A solution which does not necessitate upgrading to each of the intervening releases.

In short, I believe that with the influx of people which is sure to occur with Dell's new offering, the focus of the next version of Ubuntu should go into apt-get dist-upgrade. It has taken so much work by so many people over so many years for Ubuntu to be the Linux which makes it onto the desktop for the top first tier PC maker. Ensuring that those people who take the chance on a new operating system are rewarded with a smooth bi-annual transition to the newest, latest release ought to be the top priority. The goal should be to perfect apt.

[PriceChild]

Apt doesn't break break distribution upgrades, users do.

There is a LOT of testing that goes into the upgrade paths, even with the universe repository enabled. The problem comes when users change their configurations in ways the developers can't expect/plan for. If you _ONLY_ used software from the main/restricted/universe/multiverse repositories and didn't make changes that you didn't understand to your system's configuration then distribution upgrades would (99.999% of the time) still work.

[cptnapalm]

Iz uh so-a sory dat i izza so dumm. U izza jus sooa smarrt.

[lapsey]

Yeah. Upgrading will work perfectly providing you havent installed foreign stuff or tweaked it or done whatever nonstandard thing with your system.

Iz uh so-a sory dat i izza so dumm. U izza jus sooa smarrt.

I don't quite understand what this means.

[WinterWeaver]

rofl !!

I'm trying to figure out if he's actually mocking Pricey, being sarcastic, or if he's being serious in a very obscure way?

rofl!
Almost worthy of a Sig-Quote

[H.E. Pennypacker]

Apt doesn't break break distribution upgrades, users do.

There is a LOT of testing that goes into the upgrade paths, even with the universe repository enabled. The problem comes when users change their configurations in ways the developers can't expect/plan for. If you _ONLY_ used software from the main/restricted/universe/multiverse repositories and didn't make changes that you didn't understand to your system's configuration then distribution upgrades would (99.999% of the time) still work.

I can understand where developers are coming from, but one must also understand the other side. Users like myself have to do some serious tweaking in order to get certain things working. That means the configuration files are altered.

This should not throw developers off, though. There are so many Broadcom wireless card users, it is fair to assume these people will be changing certain configuration files. Now, don't get me wrong. I'd rather not alter anything, but this is how it works.

Developers could take into account the number of people like me, and prepare for the configurations that we change. The same goes for others (e.g. Nvidia people, but I don't know much about Nvidia to say much).

My problem is not APT so much. I have a bigger problem with upgrades erasing or changing all the hard work that I've put into an installation. A backup is a great way of dealing with this, but you can't possibly know everything an upgrade is going to change (I've backed up everything the upgrade tool told me it was going to replace, but this did not help). Backing up everything is not an option either.

My opinion: make upgrades more smooth.

[cptnapalm]

So installing Listen, Compiz and XGL is a massive change which will completely destroy an upgrade? That is ALL that was done and the system was completely borked. No X. No command line login.

Did you miss the little X problem from last year?

Did you miss all the reports of problems upgrading from Dapper to Edgy?

Adding programs should NEVER destroy an OS upgrade. Never.

[davahmet]

Apt, alonog with Synaptic, is an awesome package manager, usually. As you say, for the most part, everything works well and life is grand. However, on those infrequent occasions that things go wrong, it can go very, very, horribly wrong. This is the type of going wrong that causes massive discharges of brain-goo in a fit of frustration. When we are now suddenly exposed to a much broader market because of Dell's decision, it is also the type of wrong that is frankly disasterous.

Normally in release management, there is a back out plan to roll back changes when things go wrong. Now of course we can also do this with Apt and Synaptic, but the process for doing so can be a bit cryptic and certainly intimidating for someone newly introduced to Ubuntu. The worst thing would be for someone who has suddenly lost their graphics capability because of either a kernel or Xorg update to reach for an installation CD, any installation CD. Only slightly less damaging is for them to feel they need to call Dell tech support. Putting the novice user in this position is a betrayal of trust in that the implication has been that Ubuntu on Dell "just works". With our package manager, we need to provide an easy-to-use rollback.

By this, I mean that the user needs to have a one-click option to say, "No, that update borked everything. Please undo it and report the problem." To keep the well-earned trust of novice users, this realy is a huge deal. For us more exerienced users, it may seem trivial, but through the fresh eyes of the newly initiated, this is an absolute must.

[PriceChild]

I can understand where developers are coming from, but one must also understand the other side. Users like myself have to do some serious tweaking in order to get certain things working. That means the configuration files are altered.

Then do tweaking the "right" way and don't break things?

This should not throw developers off, though. There are so many Broadcom wireless card users, it is fair to assume these people will be changing certain configuration files. Now, don't get me wrong. I'd rather not alter anything, but this is how it works.

Developers could take into account the number of people like me, and prepare for the configurations that we change. The same goes for others (e.g. Nvidia people, but I don't know much about Nvidia to say much).

Nvidia drivers are supported by Ubuntu in Main. 7184, 9631 AND 9755. These "could" "break" an upgrade if someone installed it manually for some strange reason. However its a very quick fix which you should know if you installed it manually. I don't see how installing broadcom drivers manually could ever break the rest of ubuntu on upgrades?

My problem is not APT so much. I have a bigger problem with upgrades erasing or changing all the hard work that I've put into an installation. A backup is a great way of dealing with this, but you can't possibly know everything an upgrade is going to change (I've backed up everything the upgrade tool told me it was going to replace, but this did not help). Backing up everything is not an option either.

My opinion: make upgrades more smooth.

Package upgrades do not replace user altered configuration files without asking.

[dca]

Howza' bout I senz you a copy 'o Windows ME???