When LTS is a rolling release

Juancho

unread,

Apr 14, 2019, 5:51:22 AM4/14/19

to

Man, I hate it when a supposedly LTS linux distribution turns into a
rolling release thing...

I run Ubuntu 14.04 LTS on my ancient laptop, and I had the default
38.8.0 that came with it.

An "apt-get upgrade" later, which took me from Ubuntu 14.04.4 to
14.04.5, my Thunderbird is now at version 52.4.0.

And then, some time later after another "apt-get upgrade", as I went up
to Ubuntu 14.04.6, my installed Thunderbird went up to version 60.5.1.

Some Thunderbird add-ons (Leet-Key ROT13, among them) are no longer
working for me now, and I have to invest time to solve that. I didn't
know I was on a rolling release distro, but apparently indeed I am.

/Rant off.

Grant Taylor

unread,

Apr 14, 2019, 1:10:13 PM4/14/19

to

On 4/14/19 3:51 AM, Juancho wrote:
> Man, I hate it when a supposedly LTS linux distribution turns into a
> rolling release thing...

I don't consider that behavior a rolling release. At least not like
Arch or Gentoo.

> Some Thunderbird add-ons (Leet-Key ROT13, among them) are no longer
> working for me now, and I have to invest time to solve that. I didn't
> know I was on a rolling release distro, but apparently indeed I am.

That's just the nature of Thunderbird / Firefox / Chromium, which seem
to be racing through version numbers, possibly because they can.

--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

Garrett Wollman

unread,

Apr 14, 2019, 8:55:53 PM4/14/19

to

In article <20190414185015....@firedrake.org>,
Roger Bell_West <roger+a...@nospam.firedrake.org> wrote:

>On 2019-04-14, Grant Taylor wrote:
>>That's just the nature of Thunderbird / Firefox / Chromium, which seem
>>to be racing through version numbers, possibly because they can.
>

>The cool kids are now using the version that hasn't finished compiling
>yet. Which explains why they've been so quiet lately.

In the case of the browsers, it's because they are no longer browsers
at all but "platforms" for running "apps", racing madly against each
other to recapitulate all the mistakes of the last 50 years of
operating systems development. Except with a "security" model that
includes promiscuously executing any code they happen to trip across
on the entire Internet. Naturally, this leads to a lot of security
band-aids that must be cycled every few days.

-GAWollman

--
Garrett A. Wollman | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can,
wol...@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is
Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015)

Juancho

unread,

Apr 15, 2019, 6:04:51 PM4/15/19

to

On 15/4/19 2:55, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> In the case of the browsers, it's because they are no longer browsers
> at all but "platforms" for running "apps", racing madly against each
> other to recapitulate all the mistakes of the last 50 years of
> operating systems development. Except with a "security" model that
> includes promiscuously executing any code they happen to trip across
> on the entire Internet. Naturally, this leads to a lot of security
> band-aids that must be cycled every few days.

Oh, the security of the web... I feed on the thought of it.

A day will come when having your personal web site on SSLv2 HTTPS will
be the most secure thing, because all SSL libraries deployed in use will
lack SSLv2 support - so the script kiddies will be unable to brute force
your personal web site any more. And then, good old Firefox 2.0 will be
all you ever need to reach your own-cloud server... all done in pure
HTML 4.01 with very neat tables full of densely presented information.

Security through obsolescence, it's a new and emerging concept.

Wojciech Derechowski

unread,

Apr 16, 2019, 1:56:13 AM4/16/19

to

On Mon, 15 Apr 2019 22:04:49 +0000, Juancho wrote:
[...]

> Security through obsolescence, it's a new and emerging concept.

Obsolescence through security OTOH must be well established now. I had to flip
PrivateTmp for apache2.service in several use cases because apparently the
systemd mob is after tmp files as oh-so-insecure and therefore obsolete.
I am trying to guess what they will banish next. Possibly shells.

WD
--
Who is Entscheidungs and what is his problem?

Mans Nilsson

unread,

Apr 16, 2019, 8:53:49 AM4/16/19

to

Den 2019-04-16 skrev Roger Bell_West <roger+a...@nospam.firedrake.org>:

> That's OK, if you're running flfgrzq you've been ownz0r3d about once a
> month since it came out, so your data are no longer your own anyway.

<UI>
Qrihna
</UI>

Like the oldskool Qrovna we all hate, old versions of applications,
barely patched to run, an even older kernel with a hairy tree of
patches, but free of flfgrzq. And that does reduce the suckage by a few
millipascals. Now, if there was a automation-friendly way to shove a
never BcraNSF down its throat..

--
Måns Nilsson primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina
MN-1334-RIPE SA0XLR +46 705 989668
Let me do my TRIBUTE to FISHNET STOCKINGS ...

Wojciech Derechowski

unread,

Apr 16, 2019, 10:04:15 AM4/16/19

to

On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 08:58:21 +0000, Roger Bell_West wrote:

> On 2019-04-16, Wojciech Derechowski wrote:
>>Obsolescence through security OTOH must be well established now. I had to flip
>>PrivateTmp for apache2.service in several use cases because apparently the
>>systemd mob is after tmp files as oh-so-insecure and therefore obsolete.
>>I am trying to guess what they will banish next. Possibly shells.
>

> That's OK, if you're running flfgrzq you've been ownz0r3d about once a
> month since it came out, so your data are no longer your own anyway.
>

They never were as I'm only there to run fbye, 'beg your pardon, cloud.
I did find fairly recent network stuff is needed when pull replicas
started torturing core servers, so I sort of let the latest deadrat in
on those replicas and for my sins had to deal with the menace when some
reports went suddenly titsup.

Juancho

unread,

Apr 21, 2019, 10:28:02 AM4/21/19

to

On 14/04/19 19:10, Grant Taylor wrote:
> That's just the nature of Thunderbird / Firefox / Chromium, which seem
> to be racing through version numbers, possibly because they can.

Whatever they can, they certainly do it.

However, I'm now back to Guhaqreoveq 24.4, and the Leet-Key add-on is
working fine again, as it should and as it was.

I think Google/Gmail must be paying someone inside Mozilla to sabotage
Guhaqreoveq, otherwise I'm too stupid to understand what their grand
plan is about.