• Ninmi@sopuli.xyz
    4·
    1 year ago

    On the opposite end here. I know if there’s a kernel update then I’d need to reboot and restart everything.

    • gerbilOFdoom@lemmy.world
      41·
      1 year ago

      Only to activate the new kernel! You can just leave the current one running with minimal issues, even less if you have something like KernelCare live patching security bugs

        • gerbilOFdoom@lemmy.world
          1·
          1 year ago

          Assuming any dynamically loaded module will fail, why does KernelCare exist and why is it used so prevalently in web hosting environments? It costs money, so buying it when it doesn’t work seems odd.

          • AProfessional@lemmy.world
            1·
            1 year ago

            Very valuable high uptime servers exist but they take care, as in professional admins, to maintain it.

            None of this applies to Arch or home users. You get full kernel updates and no old modules are kept. You reboot.

            Other distros like Fedora keep old versions around but you still have to reboot to get updates.

  • AItoothbrush@lemmy.zip
    1·
    1 year ago

    Is there a safe way to do uodates automatically? I could store my password in plaintext and thats barbaric but it still doesnt fix the problem that packages and dependecies can break during updtaes without user input if im right. Tho i guess you could write a script that automatically looks for updates and notifies the user.

    • AProfessional@lemmy.world
      1·
      1 year ago

      The task is objectively unsafe. Both live updates are unsafe and require intervention but also Arch does not guarantee updates require no manual tasks.

    • gerbilOFdoom@lemmy.world
      01·
      1 year ago

      You can set up a Cron job or systemd timer for the root account to run that command regularly, if it is a non-interactive command!

        • gerbilOFdoom@lemmy.world
          21·
          1 year ago

          I’ve never had to interact with system updates in Linux distros beyond saying “yes I want to update” in the last decade. If I didn’t want to, there’s usually a force update flag available to skip the asking part. Would I do this for a server without backups? Absolutely not. For home use? I’ll roll the dice; I have backups even if there’s a couple days of shipping time to get all 12TB mailed to me.

          Of course, major distribution releases are a different monster. Fortunately, I don’t deal with those often and when I do, I migrate instead of upgrade.

          • cyanarchy@sh.itjust.works
            2·
            1 year ago

            Ah, I forget sometimes that I’m in a general linux community and not the arch community.

            I run arch, btw.

            Which I think is why I have a different attitude about this, the rolling release system can occasionally cause snags. I haven’t had any of the major chaos that other people will warn you about, but I have had some oddities relating to shifting dependencies or upstream changes. I’ve had one or two things refuse to update citing mandatory manual intervention.

  • Piatro
    1·
    1 year ago

    God I miss apt, why would I not want to run -Syu?

    I use manjaro btw

    • meow@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
      2·
      1 year ago

      sudo pacman -Syu is equivalent to sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get upgrade, you’d want to run it about once a day to ensure you have all current updates. Pamac should allow you to update everything from a GUI, so you don’t have to worry about that.

      • Piatro
        1·
        1 year ago

        Cool that’s what I thought, just confused by the people saying they’ve bricked their systems by doing it!

        • Adelphius@lemmy.world
          2·
          1 year ago

          Packages get updated a lot in arch. Occasionally a package may push an update with a big that can cause major problems. Often times those bugs are fixed relatively quickly, but if you update too often, you are more likely to update to a package with such bugs.