Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Operating Systems

Ask Slashdot: How Often Do You Update Your OS? 319

Posted by Soulskill from the whenever-i-accidentally-reboot dept.
An anonymous reader writes: A couple friends of mine have been having a debate recently. One is constantly updating all of his operating systems (desktop, phone, and otherwise), often as soon as a new patch is available. He tries betas and nightlies. He has a different ROM on his phone every other week. The other friend is much more conservative with his updates. Once his systems are running smoothly, he wants to leave them alone for as long as possible. He'll do some serious security updates, but he's extremely wary of anything involving major UI changes or functionality differences. What's your preference? Are you constantly tweaking? Waiting for the early adopters to work out the kinks? How does your preference change between work machines and personal machines?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ask Slashdot: How Often Do You Update Your OS? More

Ask Slashdot: How Often Do You Update Your OS?

Comments Filter:
  • First I update the VMs, if they survive then I update the main box. I'm running CentOS BTW.

    • Conservative. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by fyngyrz ( 762201 ) on Monday July 20, 2015 @01:46PM (#50146593) Homepage Journal

      Still running OSX 10.6.8 -- an OS version ca. July 2011

      Isn't broken in the sense that anything about it significantly impedes what I use the computer for; anything that was really crappy -- like Safari -- has been replaced with something that worked better.

      Ergo, no need to "fix" it.

      I have more interesting things to do with my time than adopt change for the sake of change.

      There's a great deal positive that can be said for a stable OS environment, not the least of which is that software which I develop for it will work for more people than software that utilizes functionality only available from a later version of the OS. Speaking for myself, I view a statement about any application of the general form "requires late version of/latest OS" as an abject failure of the developer to think of the users.

      That's not to say that others aren't, or shouldn't be interested in the latest OS version-- it's just that I am not, and that addresses the question that was asked.

      • I used to have a great deal of interest in my computers, but after Windows 8, OSX, Gnome 3 and Unity, I really don't like computers any more, so I just do what's necessary to pay the bills.

      • Users still using outdated OSes have no right to complain when they're left behind.

        OS X has gotten so lean with it's requirements, all you need is a Mac with a 64bit CPU

  • It's all about the Pentiums (Score:4, Funny)

    by ender- ( 42944 ) on Monday July 20, 2015 @01:18PM (#50146255) Homepage Journal

    In the immortal words of Weird Al:

    "I've beta tested every operating system; gave props to some but others, I dissed 'em "

    Yeah I tend to update and change my OS frequently on my personal systems. Work systems tend to be kept in known stable configurations.

  • Future Shock (Score:3)

    by Anna Merikin ( 529843 ) on Monday July 20, 2015 @01:20PM (#50146279) Journal

    Alvin Toffler thought human personalities could be split between those who welcome change and those who avoid it. First published in mid-20th century.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
    http://www.amazon.com/Future-S... [amazon.com]
    https://www.goodreads.com/book... [goodreads.com]

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by TWX ( 665546 )
      Change for its own sake is no benefit though. Marketing has made me skeptical of claims of change-for-the-better as sales and marketing are there to drive revenue, not to benefit the customer. As far as personal computer interfaces go, the last time I saw a change that really was for the better was the release of Windows 98 and its revision of the Windows 95 UI, and even then there were some downsides along with the improvements.

      I want facts and figures to back up change. Show me that the new car is t

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by fyngyrz ( 762201 )

        I welcome change and advance, I think it does us all good in the long run. That doesn't mean I will choose to partake in same.

      • The fashion industry would like to respectfully disagree with you.

        In all seriousness, apparently some change does matter. I read about a study (on phone and too lazy to find link) where heterosexual women were asked to decide which of a group of photographs of men were more "striking" or somesuch. When the group was almost all people with beards, those without we're deemed more striking. And vice versa.

        So, if everyone does something one way, being different stands out. Not everyone is creative enough to

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Merk42 ( 1906718 )

        Justify the change.

        When talking about GUIs, it often is justified. Sometimes with metrics like number of clicks, or click targets. Another is something like: "we tested A B and C and in general people using B did thing better/faster/easier". Unfortunately that leaves people who preferred A and C, or people with baby duck syndrome, to act like change is always done for the sake of change and no one ever listens to them.

        • For me, it isn't enough to lower the number of clicks. Moving something I use all the time to behind three additional clicks, because the average user never sees it, is just stupid. Changing the name of the computer from "Computer" to "My Computer" to "The Computer" is change, for what reason? Changing things just to be different hurts everyone.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Merk42 ( 1906718 )

            For me, it isn't enough to lower the number of clicks. Moving something I use all the time to behind three additional clicks, because the average user never sees it, is just stupid. Changing the name of the computer from "Computer" to "My Computer" to "The Computer" is change, for what reason? Changing things just to be different hurts everyone.

            Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it was done "just to be different".

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by mrex ( 25183 )

          Another is something like: "we tested A B and C and in general people using B did thing better/faster/easier".

          Welcome to modern design. Save new users 1 click, betray existing userbase by creating a cumulative thousand misclicks per user.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Merk42 ( 1906718 )

            Another is something like: "we tested A B and C and in general people using B did thing better/faster/easier".

            Welcome to modern design. Save new users 1 click, betray existing userbase by creating a cumulative thousand misclicks per user.

            Who said anything about new users vs existing users?

    • You know, this has nothing to do with personality ... it has to do with change management and how risk averse your organization is, as well as how important the system is.

      Many of us will have worked in IT environments with very low threshold for risk and breakage. Which means we don't apply a change unless it has been verified elsewhere ... most regulated industries are (or should be) sufficiently risk averse that they have no choice but to be extra cautious.

      I've worked in enough industries with a low enou

      • A thoughtful response. Organizations many times have a culture which embraces change and in other ones or times a "not invented here" psychology dominates. But I have no argument with your experience. I have no dog in this fight; I simply wanted to point out that this has been investigated in individuals before.

  • when time is available (Score:3, Insightful)

    by I4ko ( 695382 ) on Monday July 20, 2015 @01:20PM (#50146281)
    Whenever I have some of the most expensive and valuable resource to waste - my time. If it is up and working, security updates go in, after 2 to 3 weeks, other updates may go with them as well, but not necessary. I would rather be out on my bicycle or working on my photo collection ( sometimes I take 3-4k photos on a weekend) than doing updates. Keep in mind, the summary talks about upgrades - the new rom every week. Update is keeping the same version, upgrade is moving to another.

    • This is pretty much the case for me now. I used to upgrade frequently, but decided that as a hobby, OS upgrades weren't really as exciting as everything else I wanted to do.

      Now I upgrade when either (a) there's a compelling feature worth adding (b) the current OS breaks or (c) I get new hardware and installation of a new/current release OS is no more time consuming than the old OS.

      I don't trust major revision upgrades to install over existing OS, even when they're supposed to work, so I normally do bare me

  • Ubuntu (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PvtVoid ( 1252388 ) on Monday July 20, 2015 @01:21PM (#50146287)

    This is an issue that I think is handled beautifully by Ubuntu's release system. LTS releases come out on a relatively steady schedule, with bleeding-edge releases in between. I personally stick with LTS releases, which come out often enough to keep me up to date with features, etc., but without lots of things breaking all the time.

    And, yes, I like Unity very much.

  • Update slow ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gstoddart ( 321705 ) on Monday July 20, 2015 @01:22PM (#50146327) Homepage

    Let the suckers and adventurers be the beta testers.

    Don't run the crap which is most likely to be causing you security problems in the first place -- I've never been impacted by a Flash zero day exploit because I don't run it.

    Many years of being around computers has taught me that I have no intention of putting up with the drama of beta testing for companies who do a lousy job of QA.

    I've seen WAY too many things which are broken on day 1, or even worse, which introduce new broken on day 1 that it takes some time to identify.

    There isn't an OS vendor on the planet I'd accept a fresh release from and install on the first day.

    If you do this stuff as a hobby, have fun with it. The rest of us don't have the time or the inclination to consider upgrading the OS to be a hobby.

    • Re:Update slow ... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Dutch Gun ( 899105 ) on Monday July 20, 2015 @02:55PM (#50147205)

      Exactly. I was going to say the frequency of updates of your OS probably is inversely proportional depending on the seriousness of the work you're doing on it.

      Updating from daily builds? Hobby OS.

      Upgrading to new OS immediately after release? Thanks for finding all those zero-day exploits and rare bugs for the rest of us when we eventually upgrade.

      Applying ONLY critical patches, and even then only when thoroughly vetted? You're using your computer to do actual work, and can't afford downtime.

    • > If you do this stuff as a hobby, have fun with it. The rest of us don't have the time or the inclination to consider upgrading the OS to be a hobby.

      Let me translate that for you: Some of us are hackers. The rest of us are not.

      You're welcome.

  • Neither is Right for Everyone (Score:3)

    by lorenlal ( 164133 ) on Monday July 20, 2015 @01:25PM (#50146371)

    Your friends show two distant points on the patching spectrum we have to make all the time.

    Neither is right, nor wholly wrong. The first friend doesn't worry so much about stability, and for himself that's fine. He knows the choices he's making and he's really into that. Good for him. The second friend is more conservative and more in line with what the mainstream hopes for and expects. I'd like to know what they consider "serious security" updates, because it could be anywhere from reasonable security to complete insecurity. This is why most environments have tiers of patching and testing. We know we need to get security updates out as much as possible. Some people get more value out of being on the bleeding edge than having a stable install, others can't/won't have their work interrupted for any cost. This is also why this argument is silly to have between two people on which way is "better."

    As for what I do? My home system gets updates as soon as I see they're available. I occasionally play with nightlies or betas, on a VM, to see if there are major interface tweaks, a new feature I want, or whatever else I'm interested in. I'd never suggest that for most of my friends or relatives.

    Incidentally, that's pretty much how it goes at work. Most of the people I work with in IT, and a few select users are in the first group. Most people get security updates quickly, and well vetted other updates when they're more thoroughly tested.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Anrego ( 830717 ) *

      Indeed, comes down to what you want out of your system. Also update frequency isn't as important as the software you choose to run. I happen to mostly use stable stuff that doesn't change much: openbox+xfce for wm, mplayer, and palemoon specifically because I got tired of firefox adding shit I didn't want and taking away stuff I did. I use gentoo and generally do an update every few weeks, but it's been awhile since I did an update and anything radically changed.

      With my servers it's much the same story. Mos

  • I have one computer that just receives updates, but it is running a Linux distribution that mostly delivers bug and security patches rather than upgrading the software or changing the user interface. While it isn't my production computer per se, it is the machine that I expect to be reliable.

    The rest of my computers and devices receive updates and upgrades as often as I feel like, which is frequently these days. Nightlies and betas are usually stable enough if you avoid the first few rounds. It is also f

  • Much easier to sleep at night.

  • I generally keep current (Score:3)

    by Chris Mattern ( 191822 ) on Monday July 20, 2015 @01:27PM (#50146385)

    with the production releases and patches. I won't use betas or nightlies unless I'm trying to fix a specific bug.

  • I don't understand the question. (Score:3)

    by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Monday July 20, 2015 @01:28PM (#50146393)
    I'm still using DOS on a P-II w/640k RAM. No problems so far.

    • P-II with 640k RAM? That is one hard to find configuration. During the Pentium 2 age the normal ram is 32-128megs of ram.

      For 640k you probably would be using an 8088-286.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by MacTO ( 1161105 )

        No. They meant a Pentium II with 640 kB of RAM: they never figured out how to used memory managers to access the other 31 MB of RAM that's actually installed.

  • I used to tinker a *lot* more than I do now, but lately I have a more purpose-driven use of devices. This means I like to have them in a working and stable state when I turn them on, so my upgrades are fewer and further between. I think if your hobby is the devices themselves, then you'll upgrade a lot. If you're like me and your hobby/work involves use of the device, the bleeding edge doesn't matter so much unless the latest patch/whatever directly impacts what you're doing.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Arch (Score:3)

    by tom229 ( 1640685 ) on Monday July 20, 2015 @01:33PM (#50146451)
    I'm on arch, so way too often if you ask me. To specifically answer the question: at least once a week, with probably a new kernel update every couple of weeks. I make sure I have LVM snapshots between each update procedure as at least 1/4 of the time something breaks. I really wish arch didn't use rolling updates, but the vast AUR repository unique to arch is more than worth it.

  • BAH! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Monday July 20, 2015 @01:37PM (#50146503) Homepage

    Still running Windows for Workgroups 3.11....

    MS word 2.0 works just fine!

  • Depends upon the OS... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by QuietLagoon ( 813062 ) on Monday July 20, 2015 @01:40PM (#50146523)
    It depends a lot on the OS

    .
    Version updates:

    • Windows - stick with Windows 7 until it is no longer supported
    • FreeBSD - update to new versions a month or so after they are released
    • OS-X - stopped updating because Apple stopped supporting my Macmini
    • OpenBSD - update to new versions a month or so after they are released

    .
    Security and other interim updates:

    • Windows - security updates only (I used to update other items, but then Microsoft started pushing Windows 10 garbage onto my PCs)
    • FreeBSD - stay current with the release version updates
    • OS-X - stopped updating because Apple stopped supporting my Macmini
    • OpenBSD - stay current with the release version updates
    • This is a very good point. I run Arch Linux on my own box, but I know I can roll back a change easily from the local cache if something breaks (it very rarely does). It really does depend on what you're running, especially how easy it is to roll back changes that have been made.

  • There's a big difference between how you treat your desktops and your servers.

    I wanted a change of pace and moved from embedded stuff on Linux to iOS development. So my desktop is basically always the latest OS X version.

    I still have Linux servers running for OwnCloud and my personal website, and that's all Debian Stable. But given that it's Stable, I always update to the latest.

  • Never - rural location and data caps forever (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 20, 2015 @01:48PM (#50146609)

    Wish this got more time on slashdot.
    The 60% of the geography of the United States that does not have high-speed internet, or has low-speed data with data caps and no other options, NEVER get to update operating systems.
    While no one should think they are entitled to high-speed internet, the fact is that outside large cities u.s. connectivity is just about the worst on the planet.
    Many in rural areas can't even update an OS to a new version since everyone changed updates to be online-based.
    Back in the days of physical media, we would just order a new version of the OS on disk. This is why I left Windows after Win2000 and went to Macs - OS on DVD's for less than $20 shipped to your home. For a while, Mac was the only way if you could not download. Well, you know what happened after Snow Leopard - no more Mac media.
    In our small town of 530, there are 5 people with WIndows 7, because it came on the cheap pc/laptop they bought. A few still use Vista, 3 of us also have Mac Snow Leopard, and the rest of us have WinXP.
    None of us have the 'internet' to update anything, so we don't. Our pc's still work as good as they did when we got them though.
    We all run Ad blockers to minimize the misuse of our connections.
    When you have little internet connection and use little of the internet, you don't seem to ever get viruses and malware though. A great trade-off.

  • As the title says....

    • Oh, damn, please delete the above... too late. :-/ Obviously I've meant upgrade to a new version.

      Anyway update... well, whenever it tells me to -- except for Windows, of course, where I check the KBs first and usually there is a problem.

  • On my phone? Whenever my provider pushes an update.
    On my computer? Only when my current OS isn't doing something I need it to do.

  • I update Ubuntu on my laptop as soon as s new version comes out, my desktop a week later (just in case). My phones and tablets I update as soon as a new version of Android becomes available for it. As rooted phones don't always ota very well, I update them manually.
    As for the microwave and the refrigerator, I update them immediately, but fortunately, that never happens. I sincerely wish I could update my cats. They're 17 years old, they still run on their first OS version, which is getting a bit worn out. W

  • Server: Latest with 1 week after patches released unless security mandated. This way let's see what else breaks.

    Laptop/Desktop: Latest Windows with the above caveat. Apple update to the latest, no need to wait, apple patches so rarely. No Linux desktop/laptop (Who does that anymore?)

    Phone/Mobile: Latest, always. Chances are if it breaks it's because of some rare use case some idiot did doing something equally stupid.

    Gaming Consoles: Latest, do it, patch everything ASAP, go beta here for nifty new features!

  • I let my Linux Mint desktop slide way out of the support envelop while I waited for PC-BSD to become a viable replacement. I had a single FreeBSD machine running ZFS as my server, which had been rock solid, but I'd never run a BSD desktop before. Then in a single week it was "BSD everywhere" on my home network.

    I embrace change on my own terms (which is not change caused by the Gnome developers becoming bored of their own architecture, or Canonical deciding that tablets are the new shit). PC-BSD features

  • I run Gentoo on my primary machines. Any guesses?

  • Specifically, Debian testing with unstable and/or experimental packages if I desire a specific feature and deem them stable enough. People who talk about leaving new versions to get early problems ironed out have too much faith in software developers in my opinion. I'm amazed at the stuff I've been told they didn't notice or considered a feature. In order to get such things fixed, you need to be engaged, and that means using new versions of stuff so you actually know what's going on. If you're only using ol

  • That depends entirely on what's on the device I'm updating.

    My phone has basically no important information and the entire thing is backed up in 3 different locations. I only update it when I absolutely have to because being without it if it bricks during the update is a nightmare, and most updates change the way the phone works and just end up irritating me. I don't know anyone personally that's ever had their phone remotely hacked, and even if they did... so what?

    My work computer? It gets updated every nig

  • The beta/nightly guys are doing it because it's their hobby. This is entertainment for them. Like the guys who just analyze the hell out of game graphics instead of actually playing the games. These guys are always complaining about how their stuff isn't working right, but they love it.

    If using the OS as a tool to get things done is your main concern then you back off to what gets you the new features you need/want.

    If you're a luddite and afraid of being kicked out of your habits then you never update until

  • Mostly weekly. (Score:3)

    by cshark ( 673578 ) on Monday July 20, 2015 @02:38PM (#50147067)

    I re-image mine from an image I made, stored on a server in the middle of the house. Every time the machine boots, it re-images the OS image on the local hard drive, thoroughly destroying anything else that might have been on the disk. When an update to the main image is necessary, I make a new one.

    I create those once about every six months, unless there's an emergency patch like Heartbleed. This works on all of the computers in my home. Wife and daughter go through the same process on their machines.

    Boot to Ghost, install os, play, run, do whatever. In the event of a virus, it's short lived. When I attended Berkeley, this was the way they had set up their computer lab. I remember, at the time, being intrigued by the setup.

    Now that I have myself, my wife, and a five year old all using machines around the house (nine distinct pc's), I have a practical use application for this.

    Since I implemented this about five years ago, we have had virtually no problems with it. The drawback of course is that it's a lot easier to do if your machines, desktops, laptops, etc, all match. Learned that one the hard way, but good now.

    My machine gets shut down about once a week. My daughter is always letting the battery burn down on her laptop, so she images more frequently than anyone else in the house. My wife is also at about once a week.

  • DOS 6.2 was good. 6.22 wasn't exciting, so I stopped there. Has anything notable changed?

  • Depends. (Score:3)

    by roc97007 ( 608802 ) on Monday July 20, 2015 @03:02PM (#50147267) Journal

    It depends on whether a machine is one on which I do work for which I get paid, or not. My main workstation, which is the source of my income, warrants a very conservative update approach. I was very slow in leaving XP, and with a mature, stable Windows 7 environment, I'm in no hurry at all to adopt another version of Windows. Yeah, like everyone else I've seen the popups inviting me to upgrade to Windows 10. You first. I can't afford to be down while I figure out why things aren't working or figuring out where Microsoft hid certain buttons this time.

    I will sometimes install a new version on a spare machine just to see where technology is heading, and acquaint myself with what I will eventually have to deal with, but that's a lower priority. I'm not really interested in spending half my life doing upgrades and figuring out what broke.

  • alias ds="sudo aptitude update; sudo aptitude install debsecan \`secan-update\` dpkg aptitude debian-archive-keyring"

    function secan-update()
    {
            . /etc/default/debsecan
            debsecan --only-fixed --format packages --suite $SUITE
    }

  • When I was younger, it was fun and novel to update my OS everytime something "new" came out, so I would. I spent a lot of my weekends and weeknights doing this. Hell, sometimes I would completely wipe my machine just to try a new OS or two for fun.

    However, once I actually got into the workforce, I found I valued a stable platform a whole lot more than exploring "new" OS features (which are really never that "new" anyways). It got a lot less fun to spend all weekend trying to get something to work right, onl

  • Does the update improve my LIFE? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by holophrastic ( 221104 ) on Monday July 20, 2015 @03:21PM (#50147429)

    I also have a friend who upgrades everything all the time. "the new phone's amazing" either means that the "old phone sucks" -- which makes no sense since the old phone was "amazing" when it was new too -- or that the new marketing is amazing -- which makes sense because the old marketing was also amazing.

    There are countly amazing things that can be added to anything. Some new features are just really impressive. But being impressive doesn't mean that it improves my life at all.

    A frisbee that can be thrown over a half-mile is really cool (and called an aerobe, by the way, and I love them) but I don't have a park that large, nor would I enjoy playing catch with a friend that far away.

    Similarly, most new OS features might be neat, but they don't actually change my life at all. Perhaps the best example I can give is with regard to office/productivity suites.

    Between word, excel, wordperfect, lotus 123, and-if-you-thought-wordperfect-was-dating-myself wordstar, I've been writing essays and poems and business documents for close to thirty years. Before the computer "clipboard", before 3d text-art, before pivot tables, before ribbon bars, before toolbars, before menu bars, before arrow-keys, even before the mouse. In the end, the business documents that I produce today, to earn a living, aren't any more sophistimicated than the ones that I producted 25 years ago, early in my career. Believe it or not, youngin's, business invoices and quotes and proposals existing before XML. So none of these new features actually provide any additional benefit to my life. They only change the way I create the very same invoice -- whether for dot-matrix, inkjet, laser, PDF, or e-mail.

    How many new OS features actually add to my life? The answer is: none. So I upgrade my OS when I upgrade my computer. When is that? When my computer is too old to play the almost-latest games -- because games are entertainment, and entertainment is my sole purpose in life.

    The OS is very definitely secondary.

    All that said, there have been OS upgrades that have improved my life. Win 95 let me switch between games and work faster, which meant that I could play more games. Vista let me have more pixels so I could work more at a time and keep the tv playing in the corner at the same time. Win 7 added nothing. Win 8 added nothing. Win 10 would let me work cross-device better, if my work were capable of being done anywhere but a desk, but it ain't.

    • Re:Does the update improve my LIFE? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Monday July 20, 2015 @08:16PM (#50149323)

      I don't think you realise how things have changed. From your post I can see you're expecting only life changing killer features out of every upgrade. The reality is that the OSes and applications have changed a lot, but the improvements have been minor and incremental so you don't actually realise what you're missing.

      Not everything needs to be a killer feature. Sometimes basic things like easy to use format templates in Word, intelligent cell colouring in Excel, or the new file copy dialogue in Windows 8 have all been great feature upgrades. None individually have changed my life but ultimately all of them contribute to improving it. I could make pivot tables in Excel back in Office 97 (I'm not sure how much earlier that feature was available) but it took a heck of a lot longer and was far more complicated than the single click and drag operation it is now.

      What you're doing now may not be more sophisticated, but now anyone can do it, and anyone can do it quickly.

      The fact that you think nothing new was added between Vista and Windows 10 other than cross-device functionality would imply that either you're using the new features blindly without realising they are an improvement, or aren't aware of their existence. I'm especially amazed since you're talking about the ability to multi-task in Vista on multiple monitors that you haven't used or raved about aero snap in Windows 7 allowing you to with a simple keypress move windows around between monitors, even side by side. That doesn't even include under the hood improvements to indexing, support for solid state drives, full disk encryption.

      Basically: Just because you don't use or don't like a feature doesn't mean each OS hasn't had significant improvements.

  • Personally, I mostly stick to release versions. I may try a beta on an unimportant computer, just to get a sense of what's coming, but OS betas make more sense if you're a developer trying to make sure your app will work on the new OS. As a user, or even an IT pro, you're mostly wasting your time.

    Myself, I'll install the new version of OSX, Windows, and iOS as soon as I can get a gold master. If it's going to cause problems, then I want to experience those problems before my clients experience them. I

  • How often do I update my OS? (Score:3)

    by ArcadeMan ( 2766669 ) on Monday July 20, 2015 @04:08PM (#50147791)

    I don't update my OS, ever.

    The overlords living at 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, CA 95014 are the ones updating the OS for me.

Slashdot Top Deals

E = MC ** 2 +- 3db

Close