update-manager --no-focus-on-map ??
rikona at sonic.net
Fri Jan 1 06:14:02 UTC 2016
Thursday, December 31, 2015, 1:30:43 AM, Ralf wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 19:17:52 -0800, rikona wrote:
>>Wednesday, December 30, 2015, 6:05:52 AM, Liam wrote:
>>> sudo apt-get update ; sudo apt-get dist-upgrade -y
> sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get dist-upgrade
> I would replace the ";" with "&&", since it makes no sense to continue
> with the dist-upgrade, if the update should fail.
> I strongly recommend not to use the "-y" option. A user always should
> care about the packages that should be upgraded and then manually
> confirm to continue.
>>> ... then I generally reboot.
> That's bad, there are a few exceptions when restarting or at least
> logging out and in is required, there are ways even to switch the kernel
> without a restart. However, to use a new kernel it IMO is better to
>>> sudo apt-get clean
>>> sudo apt-get autoclean
> It's hard to recommend how inexperienced users should handle this.
> Perhaps it doesn't matter.
>>> sudo apt-get autoremove
> I recommend to run it after each remove, purge and upgrade, to keep the
> list of packages overseeable.
>>Since the several 'update-manager --no-focus-on-map' instances seem to
>>be taking significant memory [and may not be visible], would it be
>>best, and safe, to kill all the update-manager PIDs and then run the
>>above from a shell?
> Simply purge the package update-manager ;).
> If I would install it on my Wily install, it would also install tons of
> other unneeded packages.
> [root at moonstudio ~]# dpkg -l update-manager|tail -n1
> un update-manager <none> <none> (no description available)
> [root at moonstudio ~]# apt-get install update-manager
> 38 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
> Need to get 9073 kB of archives.
> After this operation, 41.9 MB of additional disk space will be used.
> Do you want to continue? [Y/n] n
> Warning! There are different kind of computer users. All my Linux,
> also my Ubuntu install are tailor-made to fit to my needs.
Yes, you probably have the knowledge to make this work well for you.
> Inexperienced users should be aware that security upgrades are very
> important and it might be better to stay with update-manager.
I know much less - that sounds good to me. :-))
> Assumed RAM and CPU resources or battery power are important and/or
> there should be the need to avoid interrupts, e.g. to improve
> real-time capability, then it might be a good idea to purge
> update-manager, but first consider to disable all unneeded services.
> By default Ubuntu auto-starts everything provided by a package that
> could be auto-started, for sure update-manager isn't the biggest
> evil, if there are reasons to care about each interrupt, each
> percent CPU and RAM usage.
I mentioned update-manager because htop seemed to be indicating it had
many instances running, and the total MEM for those was large -
perhaps 50%+ of mem according to htop. That is why I brought it up.
Opera is my other big mem hog - I may have 100-150 tabs open in a few
instances of Opera and it can get to where swap is full, which gives
problems - flakiness and eventual crashes.
My next box will have a LOT more memory!! :-)
Again, thanks for the help!
More information about the ubuntu-users