[LL-user]

May I ask for the reason of this regression in regards to a one-stop shop for updating the system?

In the past the user:
* didn't have to check manually
* could update the system in one go
* was able to automate everything if desired
* could manually manage the installed kernel versions

Now the user has two update processes to take care of and the kernel part MUST be done manually. Even worse, the check if an update is necessary, can also only be done manually.

Why can't the kernel update part not be done via the Lite repository like all the other Lite software? While keeping the task of managing which kernel of the two gets installed and how many version should remain on the system to the Lite Kernel Manager? This would be much user friendlier. What am I missing here?

[valtam]

I would have thought the 2 kernel pages would have answered that for you.

No. 1 we don't do something just because that's the way it's always been done or because it's the norm, or because other distros do it. We make decisions based on the most sensible solution. It's analogous to someone voting for their favorite party each year just because they always have, regardless of what policy changes will occur.

The number one reason it makes sense to separate the kernel updates from regular updates is breakage. In Ubuntu bases, grub and kernel updates are the most common form of system breakage. If you have a working kernel, then there is no reason to update it regularly. Most of the kernel CVE'S require physical access to a server or are of a benign nature, or that requires someone to access your switched off pc when you are not there. This can be mitigated by applying a system password in the BIOS. If people aren't implementing this most basic security measure, I have no sympathy for them.

The user has one update processes to take care of if they have a working kernel, period.