Most stable and tested distribution?
in [General Linux]
|
Prev: passive mode ftp high ports driving me nuts
Next: equivalent of f.circleup or CirculateUp for fvwm2
From: Stan Bischof on 5 Jan 2010 16:56 Giorgos Tzampanakis <gt67(a)hw.ac.uk> wrote: > > Suggestions? debian Stable. Or if you don't mind spending a few $$, RedHat ( NOT fedora ) Never "upgrade" a major release, do clean reinstall Stay away from most distributions as they do not generally have stability as primary focus. Stan
From: Giorgos Tzampanakis on 5 Jan 2010 17:01 Stan Bischof <stan(a)newserve.worldbadminton.com> wrote in news:4b43b59c$0$1652$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net: > Never "upgrade" a major release, do clean reinstall It looks like this is a very important point. I wonder why. I remember once I tried to upgrade my Ubuntu installation (following the instructions from the website) and I ended up with a broken X. At that point I'd been using Ubuntu for more than 6 months, being a linux virgin at the time. I was furious when it broke without me doing anything wrong. When I went into #ubuntu someone even told me I should be thankful that my system boots at all after the upgrade. I think this is really, really bad. An upgrade should never break a system. If there's a high probability that the system will break, it should be made known to the user beforehand.
From: The Natural Philosopher on 5 Jan 2010 17:05 Giorgos Tzampanakis wrote: > Stan Bischof <stan(a)newserve.worldbadminton.com> wrote in > news:4b43b59c$0$1652$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net: > >> Never "upgrade" a major release, do clean reinstall > > It looks like this is a very important point. I wonder why. I > remember once I tried to upgrade my Ubuntu installation > (following the instructions from the website) and I ended up with > a broken X. At that point I'd been using Ubuntu for more than 6 > months, being a linux virgin at the time. I was furious when it > broke without me doing anything wrong. When I went into #ubuntu > someone even told me I should be thankful that my system boots at > all after the upgrade. > > I think this is really, really bad. An upgrade should never break > a system. If there's a high probability that the system will > break, it should be made known to the user beforehand. > I upgrade Debian stable constantly. I even went from sarge to etch with few problems.
From: Giorgos Tzampanakis on 5 Jan 2010 17:06 Bit Twister <BitTwister(a)mouse-potato.com> wrote in news:slrnhk79ii.n2g.BitTwister(a)wb.home.test: > Define updates and which type of linux, (free or paid > support). Free. Any update being pushed through the distribution's update channels. Major releases included. If there's a major release every 6 or 12 months, why should I have to do a reinstall?
From: Keith Keller on 5 Jan 2010 17:23
On 2010-01-05, Giorgos Tzampanakis <gt67(a)hw.ac.uk> wrote: > Stan Bischof <stan(a)newserve.worldbadminton.com> wrote in > news:4b43b59c$0$1652$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net: > >> Never "upgrade" a major release, do clean reinstall > > I think this is really, really bad. An upgrade should never break > a system. If there's a high probability that the system will > break, it should be made known to the user beforehand. I have upgraded major releases of CentOS without major problems. But I certainly prefer to do a clean install. A good partitioning plan helps (i.e., put /home and other locally-generated data on their own separate filesystems, so that you can safely erase the OS filesystem(s) without touching your data). --keith -- kkeller-usenet(a)wombat.san-francisco.ca.us (try just my userid to email me) AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt see X- headers for PGP signature information |