Ubuntu 23.04 (successful upgrade again)

[fox]

I successfully upgraded from Ubuntu 22.10 to 23.04 last night, using the Software Updater. At first I had one major issue; the new Linux 6.2 kernel wouldn't install due to an outdated module (for viewing Mac files on Linux) that wouldn't build. That failure left me with a system that wouldn't boot past a command line; but only when trying to boot the 6.2 kernel. The solution was pretty easy. All I had to do was to boot from the previous 5.19 kernel (an option in grub), uninstall the 6.2 kernel, uninstall the outdated module, and reboot and reinstall the 6.2 kernel. All working now.

There is nothing particularly exciting about the 23.04 upgrade. There are a few changes I notice in nautilis, the settings, and the updated version of libreOffice, but that's about it. But once again, the successful upgrade illustrates why I stick with Ubuntu. It's pretty much as reliable as the Mac OS in both upgrading and running. And its software is as current or more current than any non-rolling release distro I know.

[Jason]

Thanks for sharing. I'm not sure how the software could be more current than a cutting-release distro. In any case, I imagine it's very current because it's frozen not that long before release. But is it current in 3-6 months? I expect not but then there's a new release so it really doesn't matter that much.

I think having the most recent software is over-rated anyway. Most people won't find it necessary unless it's a big new release like a new version number, not just a point release. Some might need those features but in a lot of cases, you can just get the newer package using a PPA, or get it from a direct source. I suspect that it's just that many Linux users want the latest and greatest or they're a developer or regular bug-reporter.

[ssfc72]

So Fox, does this mean you can no longer view Mac files on your Ubuntu, with running the older kernal?

[fox]

Yes, that is what it means. The problem is with the newest Apple File System (APFS), which is what MacOS has been using for 4 or 5 years. Prior to that, there was a Linux driver for the older HFS+ file system.

[Jason]

I wonder why Apple changed filesystems? Was there something deficient in the old one?

[fox]

I didn't know the answer myself, so I Googled it. This article explains it pretty well. But in a nutshell, HFS+ is quite old and had a number of deficiencies (from TechRepublic article):
- Concurrent access of the file system by a process is not allowed.
- No snapshots
- No support for dates beyond February 6, 2040
- Limited native file support for other file systems
- Timestamps do not use the nanosecond standard.
- Checksums for data integrity is missing.

Some advantages of APFS (from TechRepublic article):
- Allows for clones or multiple copies of the same file, with only changes stored as deltas, which reduces storage space when making revisions 
  or copying files
- Can create point-in-time snapshots
- Full-disk encryption with single or multi-key encryption for added security
- Uses checksums for data integrity of metadata
- Metadata corruption prevention due to creating new records instead of overwriting existing ones, which can become corrupt due to system
  crashes
- Increases performance on some devices by eliminating the need to write changes twice compared to HFS+ Journaled file systems
- More efficient management of storage typically yields additional free space.

From my perspective, the disadvantage of not being able to directly access APFS files from my MacOS partition far outweigh the advantages of switching filesystems. However, that would not concern Apple. If it did, they would release an open source driver for accessing APFS.

[Jason]

Interesting. I don't see a huge benefit either except in certain situations. They're playing catch up to already existing journaling filesystems but the average user probably wouldn't notice the difference although snapshots and full-drive encryption are useful features.

Perhaps Apple will open-source the filesystem so that other OSes can make drivers to access it or at the very least provide an API so they can talk to the files on it. I must say that the 2040 limit is a major worry. ;-)