Windows Updates versus (massive megabyte) Ubuntu Updates - Linux

This is a discussion on Windows Updates versus (massive megabyte) Ubuntu Updates - Linux ; http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=496 I opened Ubuntu's Update Manager and clicked the Check button. There were 24 "Important security updates" on the list, plus another 172 "recommended updates" and 2 "distribution updates." All apparently released in the 51 days since I last used ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Windows Updates versus (massive megabyte) Ubuntu Updates

  1. Windows Updates versus (massive megabyte) Ubuntu Updates


    http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=496



    I opened Ubuntu's Update Manager and clicked the Check button. There were 24
    "Important security updates" on the list, plus another 172 "recommended
    updates" and 2 "distribution updates." All apparently released in the 51
    days since I last used this machine. The Update Manager dialog box indicated
    that I needed to download a total of 231.2 MB, and the whole process took
    more than 45 minutes. Remember, that was for less than two months' worth of
    updates on an operating system that was released only three months ago.

    When the update was complete, I got another "Restart Required" message. Oh,
    and each time I used the Update Manager the screen background dimmed and I
    had to provide an administrator's password in this dialog box: Looks an
    awful lot like a UAC prompt in Windows Vista, doesn't it?

    After I finished with these systems, I dusted off a VM running Fedora 9 that
    had also gone unused for 50-some days. Here's what it needed: Yowza! That's
    20% more than Ubuntu needed. The entire update process, download included,
    took roughly two hours.




    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  2. Micoshaft cubicle trolling

    Micoshaft asstroturfing fraudster pounding the sock Ezekiel wrote on behalf
    of Half Wits from Micoshaft Marketing:


    > Troll on little fellow.



    Is that what your boss forces you to do all day in your cubicle?

  3. Re: Windows Updates versus (massive megabyte) Ubuntu Updates

    On 2008-07-15, Ezekiel wrote:
    >
    > http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=496
    >


    Real world:

    50 updates available, 60G total download.

    10 security updates, 1.6M actualy download.

    >
    >
    > I opened Ubuntu's Update Manager and clicked the Check button. There were 24
    > "Important security updates" on the list, plus another 172 "recommended
    > updates" and 2 "distribution updates." All apparently released in the 51
    > days since I last used this machine. The Update Manager dialog box indicated
    > that I needed to download a total of 231.2 MB, and the whole process took


    Yes the elves have been busy.

    Where's the actual problem?

    > more than 45 minutes. Remember, that was for less than two months' worth of
    > updates on an operating system that was released only three months ago.
    >
    > When the update was complete, I got another "Restart Required" message. Oh,
    > and each time I used the Update Manager the screen background dimmed and I
    > had to provide an administrator's password in this dialog box: Looks an
    > awful lot like a UAC prompt in Windows Vista, doesn't it?


    Not really.

    >
    > After I finished with these systems, I dusted off a VM running Fedora 9 that
    > had also gone unused for 50-some days. Here's what it needed: Yowza! That's
    > 20% more than Ubuntu needed. The entire update process, download included,
    > took roughly two hours.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **



    --


    Some people have this nutty idea that in 1997 |||
    reading to a hard disk and writing to a hard disk / | \
    both at the same time was something worth patenting.


    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  4. Re: Windows Updates versus (massive megabyte) Ubuntu Updates

    On 2008-07-15, JEDIDIAH wrote:
    > On 2008-07-15, Ezekiel wrote:
    >>
    >> http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=496


    This was not an anti-Linux hatchet job BTW.

    Do you and DFS occupy adjacent padded rooms at the asylum?

    >>

    >
    > Real world:
    >
    > 50 updates available, 60G total download.
    >
    > 10 security updates, 1.6M actualy download.
    >
    >>
    >>
    >> I opened Ubuntu's Update Manager and clicked the Check button. There were 24
    >> "Important security updates" on the list, plus another 172 "recommended
    >> updates" and 2 "distribution updates." All apparently released in the 51
    >> days since I last used this machine. The Update Manager dialog box indicated
    >> that I needed to download a total of 231.2 MB, and the whole process took

    >
    > Yes the elves have been busy.
    >
    > Where's the actual problem?
    >
    >> more than 45 minutes. Remember, that was for less than two months' worth of
    >> updates on an operating system that was released only three months ago.
    >>
    >> When the update was complete, I got another "Restart Required" message. Oh,
    >> and each time I used the Update Manager the screen background dimmed and I
    >> had to provide an administrator's password in this dialog box: Looks an
    >> awful lot like a UAC prompt in Windows Vista, doesn't it?

    >
    > Not really.
    >
    >>
    >> After I finished with these systems, I dusted off a VM running Fedora 9 that
    >> had also gone unused for 50-some days. Here's what it needed: Yowza! That's
    >> 20% more than Ubuntu needed. The entire update process, download included,
    >> took roughly two hours.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

    >
    >



    --


    Some people have this nutty idea that in 1997 |||
    reading to a hard disk and writing to a hard disk / | \
    both at the same time was something worth patenting.


    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  5. Re: Windows Updates versus (massive megabyte) Ubuntu Updates

    Ezekiel wrote:
    > http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=496
    >
    >
    >
    > I opened Ubuntu's Update Manager and clicked the Check button. There were 24
    > "Important security updates" on the list, plus another 172 "recommended
    > updates" and 2 "distribution updates." All apparently released in the 51
    > days since I last used this machine. The Update Manager dialog box indicated
    > that I needed to download a total of 231.2 MB, and the whole process took
    > more than 45 minutes. Remember, that was for less than two months' worth of
    > updates on an operating system that was released only three months ago.
    >
    > When the update was complete, I got another "Restart Required" message. Oh,
    > and each time I used the Update Manager the screen background dimmed and I
    > had to provide an administrator's password in this dialog box: Looks an
    > awful lot like a UAC prompt in Windows Vista, doesn't it?
    >
    > After I finished with these systems, I dusted off a VM running Fedora 9 that
    > had also gone unused for 50-some days. Here's what it needed: Yowza! That's
    > 20% more than Ubuntu needed. The entire update process, download included,
    > took roughly two hours.
    >
    >

    >
    >
    > ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **


    Linux updates using Synaptic and the other update/package management
    systems in other distros (such as RPM) typically update ALL of the
    software on your system. So when you get updates like that, you can
    almost guarantee that there's something in there like a security update
    for GIMP, as an example, which otherwise would have gone ignored in
    Windows, which has no automated software update system for anything
    other than the operating system.

  6. Re: Windows Updates versus (massive megabyte) Ubuntu Updates


    "Ben" wrote in message
    news:g5jdbs$hcp$3@news.mixmin.net...
    > Ezekiel wrote:
    >> http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=496
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> I opened Ubuntu's Update Manager and clicked the Check button. There
    >> were 24 "Important security updates" on the list, plus another 172
    >> "recommended updates" and 2 "distribution updates." All apparently
    >> released in the 51 days since I last used this machine. The Update
    >> Manager dialog box indicated that I needed to download a total of 231.2
    >> MB, and the whole process took more than 45 minutes. Remember, that was
    >> for less than two months' worth of updates on an operating system that
    >> was released only three months ago.
    >>
    >> When the update was complete, I got another "Restart Required" message.
    >> Oh, and each time I used the Update Manager the screen background dimmed
    >> and I had to provide an administrator's password in this dialog box:
    >> Looks an awful lot like a UAC prompt in Windows Vista, doesn't it?
    >>
    >> After I finished with these systems, I dusted off a VM running Fedora 9
    >> that had also gone unused for 50-some days. Here's what it needed:
    >> Yowza! That's 20% more than Ubuntu needed. The entire update process,
    >> download included, took roughly two hours.
    >>
    >>

    >>
    >>
    >> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

    >
    > Linux updates using Synaptic and the other update/package management
    > systems in other distros (such as RPM) typically update ALL of the
    > software on your system. So when you get updates like that, you can
    > almost guarantee that there's something in there like a security update
    > for GIMP, as an example, which otherwise would have gone ignored in
    > Windows, which has no automated software update system for anything other
    > than the operating system.


    Yeah... we've all heard this before. Except that there have been "apples to
    apples" comparisons done before and linux /still/ requires more updates
    than Windows. And we're not talking about updating "extras" like Gimp, OO
    and whatever. We're talking about the core OS. Take a look at the
    screenshot in the article. All of the updates are with apps/utilities that
    are installed with the OS like bind, libdns, evolution, dnsutils, etc. No
    different at all then updating a standard Windows install with Outlook
    Express, IE, Windows Media Player, etc.



    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  7. Re: Windows Updates versus (massive megabyte) Ubuntu Updates

    Ezekiel wrote:
    > "Ben" wrote in message
    > news:g5jdbs$hcp$3@news.mixmin.net...
    >> Ezekiel wrote:
    >>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=496
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> I opened Ubuntu's Update Manager and clicked the Check button. There
    >>> were 24 "Important security updates" on the list, plus another 172
    >>> "recommended updates" and 2 "distribution updates." All apparently
    >>> released in the 51 days since I last used this machine. The Update
    >>> Manager dialog box indicated that I needed to download a total of 231.2
    >>> MB, and the whole process took more than 45 minutes. Remember, that was
    >>> for less than two months' worth of updates on an operating system that
    >>> was released only three months ago.
    >>>
    >>> When the update was complete, I got another "Restart Required" message.
    >>> Oh, and each time I used the Update Manager the screen background dimmed
    >>> and I had to provide an administrator's password in this dialog box:
    >>> Looks an awful lot like a UAC prompt in Windows Vista, doesn't it?
    >>>
    >>> After I finished with these systems, I dusted off a VM running Fedora 9
    >>> that had also gone unused for 50-some days. Here's what it needed:
    >>> Yowza! That's 20% more than Ubuntu needed. The entire update process,
    >>> download included, took roughly two hours.
    >>>
    >>>

    >>>
    >>>
    >>> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

    >> Linux updates using Synaptic and the other update/package management
    >> systems in other distros (such as RPM) typically update ALL of the
    >> software on your system. So when you get updates like that, you can
    >> almost guarantee that there's something in there like a security update
    >> for GIMP, as an example, which otherwise would have gone ignored in
    >> Windows, which has no automated software update system for anything other
    >> than the operating system.

    >
    > Yeah... we've all heard this before. Except that there have been "apples to
    > apples" comparisons done before and linux /still/ requires more updates
    > than Windows. And we're not talking about updating "extras" like Gimp, OO
    > and whatever. We're talking about the core OS. Take a look at the
    > screenshot in the article. All of the updates are with apps/utilities that
    > are installed with the OS like bind, libdns, evolution, dnsutils, etc. No
    > different at all then updating a standard Windows install with Outlook
    > Express, IE, Windows Media Player, etc.
    >
    >
    >
    > ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **


    Still has never caused me a problem, and I can get my OS updated within
    15 minutes usually, even when there are over a hundred packets to update
    sometimes. Unless you're using dialup or something, it's not *that* much
    of a biggie in my experience.

  8. Re: Windows Updates versus (massive megabyte) Ubuntu Updates

    On 2008-07-16, Ezekiel wrote:
    >
    > "Ben" wrote in message
    > news:g5jdbs$hcp$3@news.mixmin.net...
    >> Ezekiel wrote:
    >>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=496

    [deletia]
    >> Linux updates using Synaptic and the other update/package management
    >> systems in other distros (such as RPM) typically update ALL of the
    >> software on your system. So when you get updates like that, you can
    >> almost guarantee that there's something in there like a security update
    >> for GIMP, as an example, which otherwise would have gone ignored in
    >> Windows, which has no automated software update system for anything other
    >> than the operating system.

    >
    > Yeah... we've all heard this before. Except that there have been "apples to
    > apples" comparisons done before and linux /still/ requires more updates
    > than Windows. And we're not talking about updating "extras" like Gimp, OO


    Nope. No such comparison was done.

    Infact, even this comparison turned out in favor of Linux.

    You're the only one that thinks otherwise.

    This article was not an anti-Linux hatchet job like you like to portray it.

    > and whatever. We're talking about the core OS. Take a look at the
    > screenshot in the article. All of the updates are with apps/utilities that
    > are installed with the OS like bind, libdns, evolution, dnsutils, etc. No
    > different at all then updating a standard Windows install with Outlook
    > Express, IE, Windows Media Player, etc.
    >
    >
    >
    > ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **



    --
    NO! There are no CODICILES of Fight Club! |||
    / | \
    That way leads to lawyers and business megacorps and credit cards!

    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  9. Re: Windows Updates versus (massive megabyte) Ubuntu Updates

    JEDIDIAH wrote:
    > On 2008-07-16, Ezekiel wrote:
    >> "Ben" wrote in message
    >> news:g5jdbs$hcp$3@news.mixmin.net...
    >>> Ezekiel wrote:
    >>>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=496

    > [deletia]
    >>> Linux updates using Synaptic and the other update/package management
    >>> systems in other distros (such as RPM) typically update ALL of the
    >>> software on your system. So when you get updates like that, you can
    >>> almost guarantee that there's something in there like a security update
    >>> for GIMP, as an example, which otherwise would have gone ignored in
    >>> Windows, which has no automated software update system for anything other
    >>> than the operating system.

    >> Yeah... we've all heard this before. Except that there have been "apples to
    >> apples" comparisons done before and linux /still/ requires more updates
    >> than Windows. And we're not talking about updating "extras" like Gimp, OO

    >
    > Nope. No such comparison was done.
    >
    > Infact, even this comparison turned out in favor of Linux.
    >
    > You're the only one that thinks otherwise.
    >
    > This article was not an anti-Linux hatchet job like you like to portray it.
    >
    >> and whatever. We're talking about the core OS. Take a look at the
    >> screenshot in the article. All of the updates are with apps/utilities that
    >> are installed with the OS like bind, libdns, evolution, dnsutils, etc. No
    >> different at all then updating a standard Windows install with Outlook
    >> Express, IE, Windows Media Player, etc.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

    >
    >


    Yup, and I noticed that above you mentioned those annoying update
    daemons that Windows software often has, sitting in your tray looking
    for updates.

    More security exploits
    More RAM usage
    More CPU usage
    More eyesore in my tray

  10. Re: Windows Updates versus (massive megabyte) Ubuntu Updates

    On 2008-07-16, Ben wrote:
    > Ezekiel wrote:
    >> "Ben" wrote in message
    >> news:g5jdbs$hcp$3@news.mixmin.net...
    >>> Ezekiel wrote:
    >>>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=496
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> I opened Ubuntu's Update Manager and clicked the Check button. There
    >>>> were 24 "Important security updates" on the list, plus another 172
    >>>> "recommended updates" and 2 "distribution updates." All apparently
    >>>> released in the 51 days since I last used this machine. The Update
    >>>> Manager dialog box indicated that I needed to download a total of 231.2
    >>>> MB, and the whole process took more than 45 minutes. Remember, that was
    >>>> for less than two months' worth of updates on an operating system that
    >>>> was released only three months ago.
    >>>>
    >>>> When the update was complete, I got another "Restart Required" message.
    >>>> Oh, and each time I used the Update Manager the screen background dimmed
    >>>> and I had to provide an administrator's password in this dialog box:
    >>>> Looks an awful lot like a UAC prompt in Windows Vista, doesn't it?
    >>>>
    >>>> After I finished with these systems, I dusted off a VM running Fedora 9
    >>>> that had also gone unused for 50-some days. Here's what it needed:
    >>>> Yowza! That's 20% more than Ubuntu needed. The entire update process,
    >>>> download included, took roughly two hours.
    >>>>
    >>>>

    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
    >>> Linux updates using Synaptic and the other update/package management
    >>> systems in other distros (such as RPM) typically update ALL of the
    >>> software on your system. So when you get updates like that, you can
    >>> almost guarantee that there's something in there like a security update
    >>> for GIMP, as an example, which otherwise would have gone ignored in
    >>> Windows, which has no automated software update system for anything other
    >>> than the operating system.

    >>
    >> Yeah... we've all heard this before. Except that there have been "apples to
    >> apples" comparisons done before and linux /still/ requires more updates
    >> than Windows. And we're not talking about updating "extras" like Gimp, OO
    >> and whatever. We're talking about the core OS. Take a look at the
    >> screenshot in the article. All of the updates are with apps/utilities that
    >> are installed with the OS like bind, libdns, evolution, dnsutils, etc. No
    >> different at all then updating a standard Windows install with Outlook
    >> Express, IE, Windows Media Player, etc.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

    >
    > Still has never caused me a problem, and I can get my OS updated within
    > 15 minutes usually, even when there are over a hundred packets to update
    > sometimes. Unless you're using dialup or something, it's not *that* much
    > of a biggie in my experience.


    Why would it cause any problems? I use Gentoo and my machine compiles
    all updates. I can work happily with almost no slowdown at all while
    Gentoo updates my machines. No reboots required.

    The whole computer is updated without affecting productivity. I've got
    one Pentium 4 Desktop that had Gentoo installed back at the beginning of
    2005. It is perfectly stable and completely up to date (Gentoo x86
    Stable).

    Updates? What a stupid topic for the trolls to attempt to pick apart...

    --
    Regards,

    Gregory.
    Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

  11. Re: Windows Updates versus (massive megabyte) Ubuntu Updates

    On 2008-07-17, Gregory Shearman claimed:

    > Updates? What a stupid topic for the trolls to attempt to pick apart...


    They're pissed off because their updates usually download slow, contain
    patches to problems that MS tried to deny for months before creating
    the patch, stand about a 50-50 chance of breaking something during the
    patching process, only update a tiny fraction of what's on the machine,
    and usually require a reboot or two.

    --
    Windows: Because _everyone_ needs a good laugh.

+ Reply to Thread