One of the problems with Mint is that the recommended upgrade method is a reinstall, and the alternative requires several steps and using the terminal.

If you make upgrades inconvenient and scary people will not do them. If there is one thing I am sure of it is that most people will pick convenience over security.

I don't understand why they wouldn't upgrade, especially as users could leave themselves open to bad actors.

I'm somewhat happy I didn't choose Mint as my distro.

I read that as mainly UPDATE not UPGRADE, though the latter would presumably be included.

Mint is very popular and until the necessity of snap and flatpack was very good. I ran it for years after Ubuntu began playing silly devils with the display and I still have a few installations: an old online server Mint 18, which I am in the process of replacing with Debian; my wife's desktop, also 18 and which will be replaced by (probably) Debian in the next few weeks (18 will be EOL in April); and a desktop and seldom-used laptop, both with 19.2, which I installed when I couldn't successfully install 20 (which in any case had serious limitations). Those two will be probably be replaced within a year, though.

My main and secondary desktops run Manjaro, which is a rolling release. Downside is: it needs rebooting about once a month after a major update that always seems to include a kernel update (the almost only reason for the reboot). Debian seems to do auto-updates without rebooting but it requires a deliberate action to install it, though this does not seem to cover upgrades.

Nevertheless, I think the Debian auto-update approach is required for Mint. Either that or a rolling release which does not require a reboot - though most people probably turn off their computers overnight anyway so not such a problem. Upgrade is, I agree, a problem - even with Debian. That needs fixing.

Before turning to linux several years ago I thought it auto-updated and relaced running tasks "on the fly", not needing a reboot. I was obviously incorrect, but I see no reason why this can't be applied to both updates AND upgrades. Manjaro almost has it (I think that also applies to Arch); Debian has it apart from upgrades; work it out, developers: make linux even greater!

Using an OS that's over 2 years old is a risk, IMHO, so, yes, it needs updating. I wonder if people think it updates by itself?

@dstiles, there are various extents to which updates without reboot is possible. It is possible to do even kernel updates without a reboot, but people only bother with that for high availability servers.

Debian and derived distros can upgrade a major version easily. Ubuntu desktops pops up an option to upgrade to a new version (if available, and you can set it to ignore non LTS versions) after every update. Mint makes it hard: [linuxmint-user-guide.readthedocs.io...]

Mint is easy to install, but this makes it hard to maintain.

I suspect Mint has bad numbers for updates because it is targetted at naive users who are more likely to ignore update reminders and avoid upgrades.

A compromise would be to provide progressively scarier notifications. Start with "there are updates available" and escalate to "your computer is not secure".

Mint already offers an option to automate updates. They could make that the default but that does not solve the problem with major version upgrades.

I was aware that Ubuntu prompted for upgrades but I think the ordinary date procedure is still a bit unfriendly, from what I've read. Mint - one reason I went to Manjaro for my desktop, only to discover that every month a new kernel needed a reboot. Rolling release is a nice theory but still lacking in practicality, I think. Still, easier than Mint.

I wonder why Ubuntu and Mint do not adopt the Debian auto-update method. And if Manjaro could update the kernel without a reboot...

I am pretty sure you can configure Ubuntu to auto-update the same way as Debian.

There are problems with auto-updates: shutting down during an update can really mess things up, so you have to prevent shutdowns which can be inconvenient.

i was just able to set my wife's Xubuntu machine to auto-install security updates. It did not seem to have an option to auto-install other updates.

I meant to say I did not see an option to auto-install other updates in the GUI. I think it can be done with config files though.

Mint has the shield in the bottom right bar -- A little red exclamation point appears inside the shield when it needs to update. It's a reminder to anyone with any semblance of sense that an update is available. It's not too unlike how when you're speeding down the motorway and your oil light comes on. People notice the oil light but somehow seem to miss the little red exclamation point in the shield.

I'm going to put the blame squarely on Microsoft for this whole not being mindful of updates thing. For literally years, quite nearly an entire generation even, here's Microsoft running it's processes in the background on a box being used by a totally oblivious end user. No mention of updates at all until all of a sudden .... boom ... the screen goes dark because the system is rebooting due to an update (Win 98, ME, 2k, and XP were notorious for this). I don't have a clue as to how many hours worth of rewrites I've had to do because Microsoft didn't give any notice about a potential upcoming reboot. (Windows 7 did give some indication of a reboot toward the end however) This was one of the main reasons why I left Microsoft Windows in the first place.

Auto updates are the bees knees for most who don't want to bother with updates. One of the biggest selling points in getting my wife to use a Linux box was to let her in on the fact that it wouldn't just willy-nilly reboot out of the blue until she actually initiated the reboot herself.

The only time Linux Mint needs to reboot is if there is an update to the kernel itself, otherwise, you can update to your hearts content without so much as a passing glance.

I don't understand why they wouldn't upgrade, especially as users could leave themselves open to bad actors.

People that are still running a Linux Mint 17.x box are probably still using it because the newer builds have left their old integrated board graphics behind, and they either don't have the money for a newer (old) box or a graphics card or both.

I've got a few boxes around here that won't run Mint 19 or 20 without first installing a graphics card.

Speaking to the upgrade.

I've upgraded 2 boxes lately. From Mint 19 to Mint 20.

Though Mint is fast and light, and fairly easy to administer, I'll have to admit that doing an upgrade can be somewhat of a chore. I ran both upgrades through the terminal, and in the time it took to do that, I could have easily had more time for tea if I would have just backed everything up and done an install with the new build in the first place.
(manually upgrading through the terminal from build 19 to build 20 of Mint was still much faster than upgrading from Windows 8.1 to Windows 10 automatically, so at least there's that bit)

Upgrading is indeed a drawback, but even in spite of that drawback, I'll still roll with the Mint builds as they are released. (Mint is the only DEB build that doesn't look like Ubuntu - Ubuntu is fine, but it's rather ugly and I prefer the regular Windows type/style of layout)

I think that if Mint could reconcile the actual upgrades between builds, in an automatic way, without sacrificing speed and over all functionality of the system during the upgrade, we would have a winner.
As far as all of the other little updates that come along during the lifetime of the build version itself, I could go with auto or not, because that's not really an issue with me.

(Mint is the only DEB build that doesn't look like Ubuntu - Ubuntu is fine, but it's rather ugly and I prefer the regular Windows type/style of layout)

There are lots of Debian based distros that look nothing like the standard Ubuntu. Even Ubuntu spins like Kubuntu and Xubuntu look very different. I have Antix with a few different DEs on an old machine, and none of them look like stock Ubuntu - especially not Enlightenment.

Also, most Linux DEs are very configurable. You can make them look like whatever you like.

People that are still running a Linux Mint 17.x box are probably still using it because the newer builds have left their old integrated board graphics behind, and they either don't have the money for a newer (old) box or a graphics card or both.

It would generally have to be very old to be unsupported, AFAIK. They should then switch to a distro with better support for old hardware. My Antix laptop is 13 years old, and I know of people running it on much older hardware.

Also, most Linux DEs are very configurable. You can make them look like whatever you like.

I've tried several different environments over the years and have come to settle for Mint out of the box. Mostly just from personal experience with regard to the others.
Mint is the most less confusing for entry level Linux users. It most closely resembles what many have been used to already and it's much easier to convert these old dodgy Windows users. Loading up an Ubuntu-like UI and then expecting them to then make a choice of any one of the several or so other environments that are out there is a bit of a stretch for most. Granted, there are a few that might be up for giving it a go, but most, by my experience, can become overwhelmed by it all in pretty short order.

For all of what I do with regard to messing about with computers, I'm sure you'll appreciate the fact that my beast of choice is the circa 2008 HP xw4600 workstation core 2 quad. It does, and has done everything I've asked it to over the years without complaint. Mint 20 glides quite nicely on it.

For whatever reasons there might be for one to stay on Mint 17, whether it be laziness, old equipment, or something else, I wouldn't know for sure exactly, but I have had both clients and myself in the past run up into problems with the single core's not playing well with Mint 19 and 20. Puppy Linux, Lubuntu, and some others do quite nicely on these, but are fairly limited. (you begin to have problems with Lubuntu if you add too much to it from the repos)

> problems with the single core's not playing well with Mint 19 and 20

That could explain some of the problems my brother and I have experienced with Mint 20, though some of the machines have multiple cores and still clagged up.

I used Mint for several years after Ubuntu became unwieldy, but am now running Manjaro and considering Debian for the future. One of my machines runs Mint 19, installed after a failed attempt at installing 20. One of the trends, particulary on Mint 20, is flatpack and snap (are those the correct names? I forget). They are intrusive, low-performance and high-resource and there have been discussions concerning privacy.

But I agree re: newbies. Mint is still one of the easiest entries to linux.

Loading up an Ubuntu-like UI and then expecting them to then make a choice of any one of the several or so other environments that are out there is a bit of a stretch for most.

To clarify, that is not what I am suggesting. I am suggesting using a variant that has one of those DEs installed by default. I mean something like Xubuntu (although you might have to move the panel to the bottom to put it in a familiar locations - a few extra clicks after login) [xubuntu.org...] or the KDE version of MX Linux (debian based) [mxlinux.org...] or numerous others.