Ubuntu Updates Annoyance - Ubuntu

This is a discussion on Ubuntu Updates Annoyance - Ubuntu ; I don't want to install the latest Ubuntu update called xserver-xorg- video-intel. First of all, I don't know what it does. I have a feeling it has something to do with the display as it says its a display driver. ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 74

Thread: Ubuntu Updates Annoyance

  1. Ubuntu Updates Annoyance

    I don't want to install the latest Ubuntu update called xserver-xorg-
    video-intel.

    First of all, I don't know what it does. I have a feeling it has
    something to do with the display as it says its a display driver. My
    display works just fine, so why do I need it? I've seen posts here before
    where people complain about things going wrong with their systems after
    they have installed the updates. How do I permanently cancel that
    download?

    In addition, my computer now runs slower now that I have updated from my
    original download of the 7.04 version. Is that supposed to be good?

    Al

  2. Re: Ubuntu Updates Annoyance

    On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 15:17:38 +0000, Al wrote:

    > I don't want to install the latest Ubuntu update called xserver-xorg-
    > video-intel.
    >
    > First of all, I don't know what it does. I have a feeling it has
    > something to do with the display as it says its a display driver. My
    > display works just fine, so why do I need it? I've seen posts here before
    > where people complain about things going wrong with their systems after
    > they have installed the updates. How do I permanently cancel that
    > download?


    Go to Synaptic (System -> Administration -> Synaptic Package Manager),
    highlight the package in there, from the package menu select "lock version".

    > In addition, my computer now runs slower now that I have updated from my
    > original download of the 7.04 version. Is that supposed to be good?


    Not sure what you mean by this, do you mean you install 7.04 and then
    upgraded to 7.10? Or is it just some package that you've updated from the
    original install?


    --
    Some say that Pamela Anderson wouldn't be anybody without her tits.
    That's simply not true, she'd be Paris Hilton
    - Sarah Silverman


  3. Re: Ubuntu Updates Annoyance

    On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 15:43:31 +0000, Trevor Best wrote:

    > On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 15:17:38 +0000, Al wrote:
    >




    >
    > Not sure what you mean by this, do you mean you install 7.04 and then
    > upgraded to 7.10? Or is it just some package that you've updated from
    > the original install?


    Yes, I did the original install with 7.04 and then did the upgrade to
    7.10.

    Al

  4. Re: Ubuntu Updates Annoyance

    On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 18:28:55 +0000, Al wrote:

    > On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 15:43:31 +0000, Trevor Best wrote:
    >
    >> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 15:17:38 +0000, Al wrote:
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    >
    >> Not sure what you mean by this, do you mean you install 7.04 and then
    >> upgraded to 7.10? Or is it just some package that you've updated from
    >> the original install?

    >
    > Yes, I did the original install with 7.04 and then did the upgrade to
    > 7.10.
    >
    > Al


    I just installed 7.10 from scratch on a system with an ATI graphics
    card and got the same Intel update notice. Installed it and nothing
    bad happened. I'm guessing it's just part of the default xorg driver
    set.

  5. Re: Ubuntu Updates Annoyance

    lazy me wrote:
    > On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 18:28:55 +0000, Al wrote:
    >
    >> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 15:43:31 +0000, Trevor Best wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 15:17:38 +0000, Al wrote:
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> Not sure what you mean by this, do you mean you install 7.04 and then
    >>> upgraded to 7.10? Or is it just some package that you've updated from
    >>> the original install?

    >> Yes, I did the original install with 7.04 and then did the upgrade to
    >> 7.10.
    >>
    >> Al

    >
    > I just installed 7.10 from scratch on a system with an ATI graphics
    > card and got the same Intel update notice. Installed it and nothing
    > bad happened. I'm guessing it's just part of the default xorg driver
    > set.


    I got it and I'm running nVidia on Ubuntu 7.10. No problems because of it.

    Alias

  6. Re: Ubuntu Updates Annoyance

    * Al wrote in alt.os.linux.ubuntu:

    > I don't want to install the latest Ubuntu update called xserver-xorg-
    > video-intel.
    >
    > First of all, I don't know what it does.


    [...]


    Check the details tab in synaptic.

    --
    David

  7. Re: Ubuntu Updates Annoyance

    On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 17:32:18 +0000, SINNER wrote:

    > * Al wrote in alt.os.linux.ubuntu:
    >
    >> I don't want to install the latest Ubuntu update called xserver-xorg-
    >> video-intel.
    >>
    >> First of all, I don't know what it does.

    >
    > [...]
    >
    >
    > Check the details tab in synaptic.


    OK guys, thanks for all the palaver. I just bit the bullet and let it
    install. Nothingbad happened. So, OK this time.

    My son, who is a computer engineer, was visiting this weekend. I asked
    him why updates are being made to computers for hardware they don't have
    or that don't really need them. I found I had a ton of drivers for all
    kinds of driver boards on my system that I don't have. He said that you
    might replace one of your driver boards, and you would be stuck if the
    only driver software you had was for the one that was removed.

    Good point!

    But then I asked, why do I get all of these updates for my laptop. It is
    VERY unlikely that I will replace the hardware in one of those. It
    stumped him for a moment and replied. Hmmm, how does the system know
    whether or not you have a laptop or a desktop that can be modified
    easily? At least with the Apple system, you had a gestalt which would
    tell you what you had. Even that doesn't tell you all. Even if you use
    system profiler.

    Since the "bad" guys seem to be able to figure out what you are using,
    why can't the "good" guys?

    It seems to me, that if a desktop, that has the driver card changed that
    is not supported by the driver software, should be able to fall back to a
    low resolution screen display, ala Windoz. Am I missing something here?

    Al

  8. Re: Ubuntu Updates Annoyance

    Al wrote:

    > On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 17:32:18 +0000, SINNER wrote:
    >
    >> * Al wrote in alt.os.linux.ubuntu:
    >>
    >>> I don't want to install the latest Ubuntu update called xserver-xorg-
    >>> video-intel.
    >>>
    >>> First of all, I don't know what it does.

    >>
    >> [...]
    >>
    >>
    >> Check the details tab in synaptic.

    >
    > OK guys, thanks for all the palaver. I just bit the bullet and let it
    > install. Nothingbad happened. So, OK this time.
    >
    > My son, who is a computer engineer, was visiting this weekend. I asked
    > him why updates are being made to computers for hardware they don't have
    > or that don't really need them. I found I had a ton of drivers for all
    > kinds of driver boards on my system that I don't have. He said that you
    > might replace one of your driver boards, and you would be stuck if the
    > only driver software you had was for the one that was removed.
    >
    > Good point!
    >
    > But then I asked, why do I get all of these updates for my laptop. It is
    > VERY unlikely that I will replace the hardware in one of those. It
    > stumped him for a moment and replied. Hmmm, how does the system know
    > whether or not you have a laptop or a desktop that can be modified
    > easily? At least with the Apple system, you had a gestalt which would
    > tell you what you had. Even that doesn't tell you all. Even if you use
    > system profiler.
    >
    > Since the "bad" guys seem to be able to figure out what you are using,
    > why can't the "good" guys?
    >
    > It seems to me, that if a desktop, that has the driver card changed that
    > is not supported by the driver software, should be able to fall back to a
    > low resolution screen display, ala Windoz. Am I missing something here?
    >
    > Al


    Yes. You're over analyzing the whole thing. Why should it be such a big
    issue that a particular package upgrate becomes available in the upgrate
    manager? It's not uncommon for some motherboards to have an intel video
    chipset and also have an add-on graphics card installed. If there's a
    potential security problem with the intel drivers, sending out an update
    isn't something that should be of such great concern.

    Cheers.

    --
    The world can't afford the rich.

    My Killfile List: Frank, dennis@home ... Sorry, won't be able to read your
    BS any longer.

  9. Re: Ubuntu Updates Annoyance

    As a Complete Noobie to the whole linux thing and fighting my urge to give
    up and go back to Windows (Eeeyh) but finally been rewared with a working
    install of gusty gibbon (or whatever its called) using Nvidia drivers on a
    toshiba SP2100 installed with ENVY and then hacking the xorg.conf file to
    force it to use a custom EDID file, am now happily exploring the many
    application that came with it.

    However that not really relavent to this post so here goes. i suspect that
    all these updates that are for hardware that are not present in your system
    are possibly detected because we are using a generic kernel, which should
    work on most common hardware configurations, i'm guessing that if one was to
    build a custom kernel you would only get relavent upadates listed.

    Might Be Completely wrong, But hey i'm still trying.

    Regard Andy.

    "NoStop" wrote in message
    news:fpcqub01j1o@news4.newsguy.com...
    > Al wrote:
    >
    >> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 17:32:18 +0000, SINNER wrote:
    >>
    >>> * Al wrote in alt.os.linux.ubuntu:
    >>>
    >>>> I don't want to install the latest Ubuntu update called xserver-xorg-
    >>>> video-intel.
    >>>>
    >>>> First of all, I don't know what it does.
    >>>
    >>> [...]
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Check the details tab in synaptic.

    >>
    >> OK guys, thanks for all the palaver. I just bit the bullet and let it
    >> install. Nothingbad happened. So, OK this time.
    >>
    >> My son, who is a computer engineer, was visiting this weekend. I asked
    >> him why updates are being made to computers for hardware they don't have
    >> or that don't really need them. I found I had a ton of drivers for all
    >> kinds of driver boards on my system that I don't have. He said that you
    >> might replace one of your driver boards, and you would be stuck if the
    >> only driver software you had was for the one that was removed.
    >>
    >> Good point!
    >>
    >> But then I asked, why do I get all of these updates for my laptop. It is
    >> VERY unlikely that I will replace the hardware in one of those. It
    >> stumped him for a moment and replied. Hmmm, how does the system know
    >> whether or not you have a laptop or a desktop that can be modified
    >> easily? At least with the Apple system, you had a gestalt which would
    >> tell you what you had. Even that doesn't tell you all. Even if you use
    >> system profiler.
    >>
    >> Since the "bad" guys seem to be able to figure out what you are using,
    >> why can't the "good" guys?
    >>
    >> It seems to me, that if a desktop, that has the driver card changed that
    >> is not supported by the driver software, should be able to fall back to a
    >> low resolution screen display, ala Windoz. Am I missing something here?
    >>
    >> Al

    >
    > Yes. You're over analyzing the whole thing. Why should it be such a big
    > issue that a particular package upgrate becomes available in the upgrate
    > manager? It's not uncommon for some motherboards to have an intel video
    > chipset and also have an add-on graphics card installed. If there's a
    > potential security problem with the intel drivers, sending out an update
    > isn't something that should be of such great concern.
    >
    > Cheers.
    >
    > --
    > The world can't afford the rich.
    >
    > My Killfile List: Frank, dennis@home ... Sorry, won't be able to read your
    > BS any longer.




  10. Re: Ubuntu Updates Annoyance

    NoStop wrote:


    ....absolutely nothing of any importance...nothing!
    Frank

  11. Re: Ubuntu Updates Annoyance

    On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 12:48:57 -0800, NoStop wrote:

    > Al wrote:
    >
    >> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 17:32:18 +0000, SINNER wrote:


    < big snip>


    Al
    >
    > Yes. You're over analyzing the whole thing. Why should it be such a big
    > issue that a particular package upgrate becomes available in the upgrate
    > manager? It's not uncommon for some motherboards to have an intel video
    > chipset and also have an add-on graphics card installed. If there's a
    > potential security problem with the intel drivers, sending out an update
    > isn't something that should be of such great concern.
    >
    > Cheers.


    Why send updates to systems that won't use them? Save some bandwidth and
    computer processing time.

    Why does that matter? If 10 milliwatts of power is wasted for one
    unnecessary download, the billions of milliwatts saved each year mean one
    less powerplant on the planet.

    On the last Ubuntu box I built using a 7.10 disk downloaded in Nov of 07,
    I had hundreds of updates before I was finished. Were all of them
    necessary? I bet not!

    Oh, and I use a power strip when I turn my computer (and all gadgets
    attached to it) off when it is not in use. Power is off. Period!

    Al

    Al

  12. Re: Ubuntu Updates Annoyance

    On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 22:17:59 GMT, Al
    wrote:
    >Why send updates to systems that won't use them? Save some bandwidth and
    >computer processing time.



    >
    >Al
    >
    >Al


    Why give your name twice? That wasted at least six bytes of
    bandwidth... if everyone did that where would we all be?
    Tut-tut (and similar noises of fake concern).

    Incidentally neither was a valid usenet sig in any case :-(

    --
    John Bean

  13. Re: Ubuntu Updates Annoyance

    Al wrote:
    > On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 17:32:18 +0000, SINNER wrote:
    >
    >> * Al wrote in alt.os.linux.ubuntu:
    >>
    >>> I don't want to install the latest Ubuntu update called xserver-xorg-
    >>> video-intel.
    >>>
    >>> First of all, I don't know what it does.

    >> [...]
    >>
    >>
    >> Check the details tab in synaptic.

    >
    > OK guys, thanks for all the palaver. I just bit the bullet and let it
    > install. Nothingbad happened. So, OK this time.
    >
    > My son, who is a computer engineer, was visiting this weekend. I asked
    > him why updates are being made to computers for hardware they don't have
    > or that don't really need them. I found I had a ton of drivers for all
    > kinds of driver boards on my system that I don't have. He said that you
    > might replace one of your driver boards, and you would be stuck if the
    > only driver software you had was for the one that was removed.
    >
    > Good point!
    >
    > But then I asked, why do I get all of these updates for my laptop. It is
    > VERY unlikely that I will replace the hardware in one of those. It
    > stumped him for a moment and replied. Hmmm, how does the system know
    > whether or not you have a laptop or a desktop that can be modified
    > easily? At least with the Apple system, you had a gestalt which would
    > tell you what you had. Even that doesn't tell you all. Even if you use
    > system profiler.
    >


    Not every update is hardware related. 99% of the time they are
    security/bug fixes. Just like Windows. And just like Windows, you don't
    have to perform the upgrade if you don't want to. The whole point of
    having all those extra bits is to try to make the install/upgrade go as
    smooth as possible. Why add to the confusion and try to have a desktop
    install and a laptop install? Laptops come in just as many flavors as
    desktops. Hard drive space is big enough lately that it's just easy to
    keep the same install system and dump everything onto the drive. You
    could always go in and delete what you don't feel you need but why
    bother. You'd spend more energy doing that then just letting the system
    upgrade normally. And you can always lock things out from upgrading if
    you so choose.



    > Since the "bad" guys seem to be able to figure out what you are using,
    > why can't the "good" guys?
    >


    What?


    > It seems to me, that if a desktop, that has the driver card changed that
    > is not supported by the driver software, should be able to fall back to a
    > low resolution screen display, ala Windoz. Am I missing something here?
    >
    > Al


    Actually it does... it's called the vga/vesa driver and xorg defaults to
    it when possible.



    --
    Norman
    Registered Linux user #461062

  14. Re: Ubuntu Updates Annoyance

    On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 22:34:00 +0000, John Bean wrote:

    > Why give your name twice? That wasted at least six bytes of
    > bandwidth... if everyone did that where would we all be?
    > Tut-tut (and similar noises of fake concern).
    >
    > Incidentally neither was a valid usenet sig in any case :-(


    A proper sig would have added 3 (or 5) bytes to the post, another power
    station would have to be built and Mr Burns will be richer and still not
    give Smithers the love that he craves.

    --
    Some say that Pamela Anderson wouldn't be anybody without her tits.
    That's simply not true, she'd be Paris Hilton
    - Sarah Silverman


  15. Re: Ubuntu Updates Annoyance

    On 2008-02-18, Al wrote:

    > On the last Ubuntu box I built using a 7.10 disk downloaded in Nov of 07,
    > I had hundreds of updates before I was finished. Were all of them
    > necessary? I bet not!


    But this is the way a distro runs that uses a central repository with
    automatic updates (although this default behaviour can be changed). To
    a certain extent if you wish to run Ubuntu you place your computer in
    the hands of somebody else who you hope has had a good day :-)

    There are other distros that do not have this way of thinking, the
    best known being Slackware where /you/ decide what gets downloaded and
    installed and if you chose only 'security' updates you will only
    download a dozen updates a year, if that.

    This is not to disparage Ubuntu, I dual boot Slackware 12 and Hardy
    Heron and I am speaking from personal experience and a huge sense of
    satisfaction from both distros.

    Andrew

    --
    http://www.andrews-corner.org

  16. Re: Ubuntu Updates Annoyance

    On 2008-02-18, Al hit the keyboard and wrote:


    > Why does that matter? If 10 milliwatts of power is wasted
    > for one unnecessary download, the billions of milliwatts
    > saved each year mean one less powerplant on the planet.


    Are you a tree-hugger? Do you by any chance smoke? If you
    do, are you aware that every six seconds a person on this
    planet dies, because of smoking? Here in my country a
    small country BTW, 3 persons per day die because of
    "PASSIVE-SMOKING". This means people who have been exposed to
    it for years have to suffer greatly. As for me *THAT* would
    be a much greater "environment-issue" then if a distribution
    that tries to be available to many hardware will provide
    options to download additional software/update.

    But wait there is help for you: LFS. "LINUX FROM SCRATCH"
    You have to read up a lot, but then you can build your own
    OS with all the option you want/need and nobody except you
    yourself will "mess/screw" with the PC you use. You download
    the tools you need, you compile the Software, and when it's
    finished you leave it alone, no more tinkering with it.

    Dragomir Kollaric
    --
    This signature is licensed under the GPL and may be
    freely distributed as long as a copy of the GPL is included... :-)


  17. Re: Ubuntu Updates Annoyance

    Dragomir Kollaric illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
    > On 2008-02-18, Al hit the keyboard and wrote:
    >
    >
    >> Why does that matter? If 10 milliwatts of power is wasted
    >> for one unnecessary download, the billions of milliwatts
    >> saved each year mean one less powerplant on the planet.

    >
    > Are you a tree-hugger? Do you by any chance smoke? If you
    > do, are you aware that every six seconds a person on this
    > planet dies, because of smoking? Here in my country a
    > small country BTW, 3 persons per day die because of
    > "PASSIVE-SMOKING". This means people who have been exposed to
    > it for years have to suffer greatly. As for me *THAT* would
    > be a much greater "environment-issue" then if a distribution
    > that tries to be available to many hardware will provide
    > options to download additional software/update.


    Actually. If smoking indeed does kill people prematurely it could be
    said to have a beneficial effect on the environment.

    The human race consume the planets resources. They give little back.

    If there are less human beings on the planet due to smoking and
    passive smoking then the environment will unquestionably benefit.

    In other words. Spark up that Ciggy. You know it makes sense. ;-)

    --
    Moog

    "If this is gonna be that kinda party I'm gonna stick my dick in the
    mashed potatoes"

  18. Re: Ubuntu Updates Annoyance

    Moog wrote:
    > Actually. If smoking indeed does kill people prematurely it could be
    > said to have a beneficial effect on the environment.
    >
    > The human race consume the planets resources. They give little back.
    >
    > If there are less human beings on the planet due to smoking and
    > passive smoking then the environment will unquestionably benefit.
    >
    > In other words. Spark up that Ciggy. You know it makes sense. ;-)
    >

    That may be OT but it does make sense.
    Anyway, I get an update just about every other day and it is no bother
    to update and be safe.
    I want 0804 (heavy hog?) to come out.
    Bill

  19. Re: Ubuntu Updates Annoyance

    Moog wrote:
    > Dragomir Kollaric illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
    >

    .... snip ...
    >
    >> Are you a tree-hugger? Do you by any chance smoke? If you
    >> do, are you aware that every six seconds a person on this
    >> planet dies, because of smoking? Here in my country a
    >> small country BTW, 3 persons per day die because of
    >> "PASSIVE-SMOKING". This means people who have been exposed to
    >> it for years have to suffer greatly. As for me *THAT* would
    >> be a much greater "environment-issue" then if a distribution
    >> that tries to be available to many hardware will provide
    >> options to download additional software/update.

    >
    > Actually. If smoking indeed does kill people prematurely it
    > could be said to have a beneficial effect on the environment.
    >
    > The human race consume the planets resources. They give little
    > back. If there are less human beings on the planet due to
    > smoking and passive smoking then the environment will
    > unquestionably benefit.
    >
    > In other words. Spark up that Ciggy. You know it makes sense. ;-)


    Nature is always trying for reasonable balances. That's why we
    have wars, cancer, cigarettes, sexual diseases, accidents,
    starvation. Nature is just trying to control our excessive
    expansion. Sooner or later she will succeed. We will not be
    happy.

    --
    [mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
    [page]:
    Try the download section.



    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  20. Re: Ubuntu Updates Annoyance


    >>
    >>

    > Not every update is hardware related. 99% of the time they are
    > security/bug fixes. Just like Windows. And just like Windows, you don't
    > have to perform the upgrade if you don't want to. The whole point of
    > having all those extra bits is to try to make the install/upgrade go as
    > smooth as possible. Why add to the confusion and try to have a desktop
    > install and a laptop install? Laptops come in just as many flavors as
    > desktops. Hard drive space is big enough lately that it's just easy to
    > keep the same install system and dump everything onto the drive. You
    > could always go in and delete what you don't feel you need but why
    > bother. You'd spend more energy doing that then just letting the system
    > upgrade normally. And you can always lock things out from upgrading if
    > you so choose.


    True, but why should the updater keep trying to update you for hardware
    you obviously don't have. Why do I need an update to one make of video
    driver if I don't have that in my laptop?

    I did try to stop the update and succeeded. But the next time an update
    came around, it tried to update the item I had told it not to update. It
    kept bugging me everytime I booted up. I finally gave in and let it
    install something I didn't need.

    Al

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast