Why are packages being held back

[Chris Miller]

On 7/16/07, Steven Vollom <stevenvollom at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>  Douglas Phillipson wrote:
>  When doing apt-get upgrade I get the message:
>
> The following packages have been kept back:
>  hal istanbul
> 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 2 not upgraded.
>
> Why is this happening? Are these possibly broken packages or something?
>
> Thanks
>
> Doug P
>
>
>  I too am new to Kubuntu and Linux, but no, nothing is wrong, in fact just
> the opposite.  The really great news is that the upgrades are probably just
> that, not fixes, just improvements.  When you take the money out of the
> equation, it allows for better products and results.  You are being notified
> of things your computer needs that will make it even better.
>
>  In Microsoft, it is usual a repair patch to solve a problem that should
> have been fixed prior to release.  In LINUX, the programs are stable and

Actually they're just substituting a different wad of code while
keeping the old broken junk on your hard drive.  Realistically Windows
is built the wrong way from the very ground up.  Start reading up on
MSDN about drivers for Windows and things of that nature and you'll
appreciate the simplicity of Linux.

> don't need fixes, unless they are beta.  That means that they will tell you
> if the bugs haven't been worked out yet.  Haven't you noticed that most
> Microsoft updates are to fix problems with the Microsoft product.  When they

God save me the moment they release a fix for something that's not
theirs.  When they do that...  were they using Windows to spy on other
developers?  Are they stealing code from those developers?

> upgrade, they sell you the new product.  It isn't a fix, it is an expense.
> When have you purchased a Microsoft product you didn't get a patch for
> within a week or so, and then with regularity until the next upgrade.
>
>  When Microsoft went from Win 98 to WinXP or whatever change they made, they
> called it an upgrade.  That is what you just reported in your email.  2
> upgrades.  In Linux, the terminology is similar, except an upgrade is not a
> fix, it is an improvement.  There are very few patches to LINUX products,
> because they are made as close to perfect before you get them as is

lol.  Linux has more than it's fair share of bugs and broken bits.
However, Linux is more intelligent about how it handles them and about
how it structures the whole OS so it can recover from those errors
more gracefully.

> possible.  It is a matter of pride.  No Junk.  When it say upgrade, install
> it, it will make your system better.

Unless it's Novell talking about Gnome *ducks*.

>  Haven't you noticed you never need to defrag your Linux.  That is the
> reason.  You don't need a tool you will never use.  By the way, if it says

That's because Linux's default file systems are self defragmenting.
They still are subject to defragmentation, but that's taken care of
during error scanning.  The algorithm treats fragmentation as a minor
error.  If you put a Linux file system through enough abuse, it'll get
fragmented and will need to be scanned for errors.

Windows and the NTFS file system, however, doesn't even have a clue.
I'm not sure if Windows even has a system for where to place new files
on disk.  It seems to cluster them at random distances from two
points.  What a joke.

> patch, install that too, it will fix something; it is just that that will
> hardly ever happen with LINUX, and it is still better for your computer.

It happens quite often that it fixes things.  Software is just such a
complex thing that even "upgrades" may inadvertently fix broken
things.  However, most of the bug fixes are so specific that the only
way to duplicate the bug is by having certain hardware.  Talk about
tough to find...

>  I have been with LINUX for about a month only and I will never go back to
> Microsoft.  It would be like moving from a neighborhood where everyone is
> healthy and well, then moving into a disease filled neighborhood where
> everyone is always going to the doctor.  You would have to be a masochist to
> do that.
>
>  Take a deep breath and relax and press install.  If you are using Kubuntu
> by any chance, they have a program provided by their KDE application called
> Adept Manager that will blow your mind.  About 22,000 programs are there for

I'd suggest Synaptic.  Adept is still under heavy development and
hasn't yet been certified to be even comprehensible to someone other
than a core developer.  It's good at keeping track of updates and
notifying you of when there are new updates available, however, the
package browser was ill-conceived and could stand a redesign.  Plus
it's horrible on slower systems.

> the taking, most of which are problem free.  Of course there are a small
> amount of Beta programs, but they will tell you they haven't removed all the
> bugs yet.  Nonetheless, Linux betas are better than Microsoft upgrades.
> They have fewer things to fix.

There's tons of Beta stuff for Linux if you want it.  I ran Kubuntu
beta for a long while (then it went stable on me).  The beta stuff for
Linux is quite stable, and so long as you don't stress too many parts
of it at once it should hold together well.

>  Most cordially,
>  Steven Vollom, fine-artist retired

Should add "Kubuntu/Linux Evangelist" to that ;^)