-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday, 2016-03-24 at 21:27 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 6:35 PM, Xen <> wrote:
...
So people are like, oh we can't really make the SYSTEM function well, we will just ensure that any big error can easily be recovered from by going back in time.
Versus starting over with a clean installation? That is the original rollback.
So that's just what I am saying, that snapshotting is in essence not a satisfactory thing and just a roundabout way to make a system function that is otherwise horribly broken. Instead of fixing the system, you ensure that it can't hurt you anymore - so bad.
Hmm, broken state or reinstall. You get away with this when the testing is monumental, like what Apple does, who have no reversion options for updates. OS X, you update to a sub version, that's it, you can't undo it. But they also do a metric ton of testing. It's so complicated now that they even have expanded their pool to public beta testers. For iOS, there isn't even a revert possible. You can only reset which obliterates apps, settings and user data, but not the most recent update you applied.
Nah, I'll take a snapshot and wait a week thanks.
Me too. I have seen software updates rollback in very expensive unix systems (in the million dollar range). With software updates very thorughly tested, because they were fined if the update failed and caused even a minor downtime or some loss of functionality. Even so, they had rollbacks. And that started around 1990 or earlier. I could not look at the details of how it was done, but I think they made links, storing both the old and the new versions in different directories and made links for the individual files replaced. Depending on how things went out in the field, they deleted the new or the old copy, adjusting the links as were necesary. Of course, the number of files that had to be touched was limited, compared to a modern Linux. For more complex updates, they could separate one side of the mirrorred disks, and do the update on one side of the system mirror only. This was done, I believe, for full system upgrades, but might be done for any procedure. So yes, I like the feature. It doesn't mean I'll use btrfs yet... but I'm interested ;-) - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlb1DMoACgkQtTMYHG2NR9W6kwCfawhvUqqBIJIoQjMFttRs/Anu 9GMAnA/VGEYLcMuxauDDarOiZtPjBm2m =y6h/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org