Posted by: Anonymous
on September 15, 2007 03:03 AM
With so many people switching from Windows to easy-to-use Debian descended distros (or at least dual booting), you have an increasing number of people who don't understand the change description (that's assuming one's there to begin with). I don't know how many changes I've seem where the description was in serious geek-speak. It's often the opposite of the Microsoft descriptions, which tend to be uselessly generic ("This patch fixes a vulnerability which may result in someone taking control of your computer"). Unfortunately, the result is the same: people know this is a fix, but they have no idea what it's for, so they're forced to trust the source of the patch.
Is this trust misplaced? I know in the case of Microsoft, I've come to believe it is, as some of the patches they've dangled in front of my face have turned out not to be in my best interest (e.g., WGA Notify). This has not happened to me yet with Ubuntu. Maybe I've been lucky.
I would like to see clearer descriptions on Ubuntu patches (or in some cases, *any* description). Lacking that, it comes down to a matter of trust, and whether you're taking a bigger risk in *not* applying the patch.