Upgrading your distro should come with a warning
It's that time of year again when a lot of the major distros are putting out new releases, and people are clambering to get the new versions installed. But there are two camps of people in this rush to get the latest and greatest. The upgraders, who prefer to leave their computer as is, and hit the "upgrade" button, hoping to come back to their computers in a couple hours and revel in their shiny new OS. Then their are those who prefer the "clean install" by backing up any important stuff, wiping the drive, and starting from scratch. But is the upgrade method really worth it? |
|
|
Comments (24)
4 earlier comments in the full thread.
I had slight trouble with Ubuntu 8.04-8.10-9.04 (done in 1 day) ...
I'm almost ready to roll a clean Debian Lenny or Squeeze install.
My oldest dist-upgraded Debian machine is several years old, 6 or 7 I think. Just waiting for the hardware failure than will end its run! Linux doesn't get worse with age like Windows, it gets better as bugs get fixed and we tweak it to suit our needs.
There are some neat hacks for preserving your package selection, which speeds up restoring a clean install to the state you want it in. But it's still a lot of fiddling getting everything back the way you want it.
If you have a machine that you've used Ubuntu's single partition install on, you MUST upgrade, or do the backup and restore of personal files dance. Upgrading (using the cdupgrade tool) from CD or ISO image also works exceptionally well with Ubuntu, at least on the machine I've tried it on.
Quoting:But isn't it funny how many people have "solved" their upgrade problems by clean installing?
OTOH, those having "upgrade problems" may also achieve better, more stable performance from point-release upgrades rather than full wiping-out, clean-slate installations. This is easily applicable to those who hastily adopt "point-oh/point-zero" distro releases of almost any software including a Linux distro. One method of clarifying the suitability of "point-oh/point-zero" releases is brought from the Perl CPAN sourcecode upgrade-scheme page:
Quoting:Since the release 5.6 (March 2000) Perl has followed the commonly used scheme where there is a development branch, which eventually stabilizes into a "point-oh/point-zero" (.0) release, which then branches into a maintenance branch with maintenance releases (.1, .2, ...), while the development branches back to uncharted waters. The development (or devel, as it is called by the Perl 5 developers) releases have an odd (as opposed to even) major release number (5.7, 5.9, 5.11, 5.13, ...), while the maintenance (or maint) releases have an even major release number (5.6, 5.8, 5.10, 5.12, 5.14, ...). The release candidates leading up to "point-zero" releases are called testing releases.(from http://www.cpan.org/src/README.html ) So for Perl as for other software, one can either hastily adopt a .0 version of this software and then continually upgrade to increasingly stable major maintenance releases (.2 , .4, .6 ...etc), or else start an install from a clean slate using a maintenance release. As others note in previous comments, Debian GNU/Linux itself also makes it fairly easy to accomplish a point-release upgrade from a major stable version.... e.g., upgrading from Stable "Lenny" 5.0.3 to 5.0.4.
For those such as the Linux Curmudgeon tech writer who might more strongly than others insist upon "starting from scratch with clean installs", there IS a completely sensible and relevant opinion that clean installs especially SHOULD be carried out with new, never-before-tried distros, i.e., using "distro-hopping". One piece suggesting as much is Brockmeier's 'In Defense of Distro-hopping', found at http://ostatic.com/blog/in-defense-of-distro-hopping . One quite-applicable excerpt of this is here:
Quoting:Looking through the lens of an IT professional, whether that's a system administrator, tech writer, developer, or working in IT marketing, it's a really good idea to have an accurate view of the landscape. And you don't get that by jockeying only one distro all day every day. What I've seen happen to all too many users is a sort of Linux myopia, where the realm of what's possible is scoped to only one distro, and the understanding of what's available is dialed down to what's available in the user's chosen distro.Brockmeier's piece here might be well-worth reviewing, and even by the Linux Curmudgeon tech writer who so avidly suggests that upgrading [any one particular distro of choice] should "come with a warning".
I don't blame it on the Distro. It's me. I'm just crazy enough not to stick to what is available in the distro repositories, if I want newer or something that isn't available.
In the process of "augmenting" the system, I undoubtedly do more damage then good from time to time. That an upgrade routine chokes on my Frankensteinian setup is understandable.
That's why I've opted to just do a clean install with a new major version. I partition my drives accordingly and I'm up and running the same day I wiped it. I do do lose some settings, but they can be easily changed.
On the other hand, I've started to rely on the default settings of a distro much more than before. If my half yearly wipe-and-reinstall ritual is to be as painless as possible, I need sane defaults. Must be why relatively minor experiments from any given Distro has the potential to send my mood far south.
Only 70 installs?
Don't worry sonny, you'll catch up with the rest of us some day!
I strongly suspect that choice of distro plays into this, as installation/upgrade is one of the things that is not standardized across distros.
As to which is easier/faster --
That depends on how you spend your time. For me, the key is single-threaded time. If I have to sit there for the whole process, I darned well want it to be fast. If I can start and go off to do other things, cool.
The first step of the whole process, btw -- install or upgrade -- is to get the softtware, not the insertion of your nifty little USB stick. Whether you download an ISO image, or bring it down as the first step in an upgrade, that's likely to take more time than any subsequent steps.
Im afraid with desktop based distros ive been burned to many times to trust their upgrade abilities.
Haha I run away fast.
Agreed.
This means war.
/dick
Quoting:sudo apt-get purge libmono* libgdiplus cli-common libglitz-glx1 libglitz1
will get rid of F-Spot completely, which is great. I simply reinstalled Mono after removing the Mono applications I don't use. Now I can better track the Developers.
Quoting:sudo apt-get install digikam
I'd recommend Shotwell, it integrates into Ubuntu so much better. It's a really nice application, and for those suffering from nomonomania, it's a C++ application.
Shotwell is not comparable to Digikam. It is nice, but much less capable. Digikam is chock-full of professional-level features, and is well-supported. One of the best dev teams on any project.
DigiKam does more than gthumb, but the KDE photo-manager is just so darn awkward (not that F-Spot is less so, but the Mono-driven photo-manager is a trainwreck in so many aspects...)
Sharpen has many tweakable options in digiKam, yet I can't seem to get the settings right.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post

In computers, as well as in life.