Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Operating Systems Software Upgrades Linux

OS Upgrades Powered By Git 92

Posted by timothy
from the sounds-like-a-good-idea dept.
JamieKitson writes "The latest Webconverger 15 release is the first Linux distribution to be automagically updatable from a Github repository. The chroot of the OS is kept natively in git's format and fuse mounted with git-fs. Webconverger fulfills the Web kiosk use case, using Firefox and competes indirectly with Google Chrome OS. Chrome OS also has an autoupdate feature, however not as powerful, unified & transparent as when simply using git."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

OS Upgrades Powered By Git

Comments Filter:
  • arg (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Blymie (231220) on Tuesday October 09, 2012 @12:01PM (#41597979)

    They describe it as "automagic", SO I HAVE NO #$%&*(*+&% INTEREST IN IT!

    Ever! Arg!

  • Re:arg (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Fwipp (1473271) on Tuesday October 09, 2012 @12:14PM (#41598123)

    It's designed for web kiosks, like the kind you see in libraries. It's not for power Linux users. It's for a "set-up-and-forget" installation where everything just works, and magically stays updated and patched.

  • Yet Another... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by msobkow (48369) on Tuesday October 09, 2012 @12:21PM (#41598205) Homepage Journal

    Yet Another Update Manager.

    Replacing one transport with another isn't innovative enough to warrant the attention. You could use torrents under YUM or APT, you could use GIT, SVN, or any of a number of change management tools as a means to tell the client which updates to subscribe to and install.

    But I doubt any such approach will ever see critical mass, just because the two big players (Debian/Ubuntu and RedHat/RHEL) already have perfectly usable tools. You'd need some serious whizz-bang new features to justify changing those tools, and the article doesn't suggest anything that can't be done already with existing technology.

    Change for the sake of change is pointless; there has to be a benefit big enough to justify the change, and I don't see that in the write-up.

As in certain cults it is possible to kill a process if you know its true name. -- Ken Thompson and Dennis M. Ritchie

Working...