Downloading updates

[#1]

I Have downloaded all the updates that have been available for Mint 11 even though I possibly do not need some of them.
By doing this could I end up with an OS that becomes bloated with stuff like Windows and end up with a machine that becomes slower and more prone to crashes.
Must admit nothing has crashed so far but boot up times appear slower ?

[#2]

What exactly do you mean by "downloaded all the updates"? Do you mean that you installed every update you were offered, or that you downloaded every updated .deb file, even ones for components that weren't installed?
Anyway, it's not like Windows, you don't end up with loads of old backup copies of .dll files, nor do you have a system like WinSxS that keeps numerous different versions of .dll files.
Any operating system can become bloated if you install lots of things you don't use. Windows updates don't make your machine slower or more prone to crashes. Well, any update for any OS could be more broken than what it replaced, and could make things crash.
Probably one of the reasons the ext4 filesystem was developed was so that Linux users can defrag it. 

[#3]

Although I use Linux I know very little about it and for want of a better description would be classed as a newbie so not wishing to miss any important updates (as I do not know what's important and what is not)  I download the lot.
Your final sentence about defragging is interesting, I use Bleachbit is that the same thing or is there a sepcific program you would recommend to defrag Linux ?

[#4]

What is with the current idea that there is some kind of important reason for constantly deleting any history saved by any program? Why not just set Firefox to always use private browsing mode, or to clear all history on exit?

[#5]

In addition to PCLOS, my main distro, I also run Mint.
I keep both distros fully updated regularly . That doesn't mean I install everything available, just update what I have.
I've being doing this for years with no problem: it doesn't cause "bloat" or slow running.
I've always understood that the Linux file system (ext3/4) is so much more efficient than Windows NTFS that it doesn't need, or even benefit much, from defragging.
I like this explanation:
http://www.whylinuxisbetter.net/items/defragment/index.php?lang=
"The more you use Windows, the slower it is to access files ; the more you use Linux, the faster it is. The choice is up to you!"

[#6]

Well the bloat gets added between Linux distribution releases. Someone always decides we need a few more background services.
The defrag comment was a half joke, but if the Linux ext4 filesystem is so superior, why then was an e4defrag command added?
The filefrag command has been around for longer, let's see what it says about various files:
[tt]$ filefrag /usr/lib64/xulrunner-2/libxul.so
/usr/lib64/xulrunner-2/libxul.so: 8 extents found, perfection would be 1 extent
$ filefrag /var/lib/rpm/Packages
/var/lib/rpm/Packages: 31 extents found, perfection would be 1 extent
$ filefrag /home/ejs/.mozilla/firefox/XXXXXXXX.default/places.sqlite
/home/ejs/.mozilla/firefox/XXXXXXXX.default/places.sqlite: 542 extents found, perfection would be 1 extent[/tt]
If I'm reading that correctly, my firefox places.sqlite has ended up fragmented into 542 pieces.

[#7]

Any file system can get fragmented (in a bad way) if you hit it hard enough.
Since ext4 was designed for really big systems, it seems likely that some kind of reporting / modification software would be quite useful.
e.g. What would be the effect of running lots of Windows VM's on a ext4 file system. 
BTW A certain amount of fragmentation is a good thing if it allows files to be extended into an area (possibly physically close) which can be accessed quickly.

[#8]

Quote from: A

Since ext4 was designed for really big systems, it seems likely that some kind of reporting / modification software would be quite useful.

The filefrag command predates ext4.

Quote from: A

BTW A certain amount of fragmentation is a good thing if it allows files to be extended into an area (possibly physically close) which can be accessed quickly.

So, fragmentation to reduce, err, fragmentation? Well yes, leaving free space between files can reduce file fragmentation.

[#9]

filefrag only reports individual file fragmentation.
The clue is in the name.

[#10]

Quote from: ejs

So, fragmentation to reduce, err, fragmentation? Well yes, leaving free space between files can reduce file fragmentation.

The concept of file extents comes from mainframe operating systems. It is a mechanism for pre-allocating a block of contiguous disc space for a file, so that fragmentation does not occur when appending new data. If a file has more than one extent it could be deemed to be fragmented, but usually extents are so big, the benefit of having large blocks of contiguous data within an extent far out-weighs the minor performance hit to the operating system of having to cope with switching between extents when accessing a file.
On big boys' operating systems you have a lot of control over how the extents are allocated and can usually set the sizes, numbers and disc locations of permitted extents on a per file basis, which allows the disc layout of a particular file to be optimised for the applications that use it. The idea of extents offers other benefits too. Pre-allocating extents can guarantee that file will always have disc space to write into. Very large data-sets can be backed up more easily by copying files one extent at a time. Or a file's extents can be stored across several discs in a controlled and predictable way.

[#11]

In my 10 years or so of Linux/*nix experience I have never defragged a disk. I've simply never needed to.