Ric Moore wrote:
On Tue, 2007-05-15 at 21:45 +0100, David Fletcher wrote:
Is this a reasonable opinion? I don't mind if the list disagrees, but I would
be interested in reading some points of view from others.
Dave
Dave, please notice that most of the complaints are over "upgrading" and
that several of us rant endlessly about how a clean install is always
preferable. Ergo, good advice gets ignored and then the crying towel
gets tossed into the ring. Owell, I hate to get to this point but it's
"screw 'em". "A hard head makes a soft ass" is what is said behind the
razor wire... and it holds as a proof in this case.
After all, this crate is close to the bleeding edge, so a couple of
burps in the barrel during an upgrade can become a huge problem. It's
predictable, it computes and it happens. To then run off to complain
about a broken system which becomes magically "fixed" by a clean install
to another distro is just this side of lame. To know that the majority
of these users head to Ubuntu is enough to keep me here, where the
majority of the users left here are clearly clicking on all cylinders.
Ric
This is one of those things that I have seen discussed.
I just saw the update route for Ubuntu and it was great. One machine
wouldn't install the latest Ubuntu but an older version would.
Installed it and then upgraded to the latest.
Now this was a clean install and I bet doing the same in FC would work
almost as well using yum. It is when you add in other repositories and
customize the system when things start getting complicated.
As others have said, there are major changes that just don't "Upgrade
nicely." Maybe this can be worked on with some pre/post install
scripts to help alleviate this. This is one of the reasons I am still
using FC4 at home. I am waiting for FC7 to do the re-install. I tried
the upgrade path on my work machine which isn't modified as much as my
home machine and it was a problem.
--
Due to the move to M$ Exchange Server,
anything that is a priority, please phone.
Robin Laing
