On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Ken Schneider wrote:
On Wed, 2005-06-01 at 10:27 -0500, Jon Nelson wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
Fine discorse. You are to be congratulated. You are slamming one of the few SuSE employes active on the list.
OK, I deserved that. I didn't read closely enough. Blame it on lack of sleep, mea culpa. CLEARLY he described what it's for, and I'm to blame for misreading his response. I certainly didn't intend to "slam" anybody, there is a huge difference between a difference of opinion and a personal attack.
That issue aside, I think I've raised some questions that got lost in the noise, specifically the item about SuSE's inability to be upgraded while running. Additionally, Hartmut seems to agree that it's confusing to have an item "System Update" that doesn't appear to function as "many people" believe it does, and I feel that it's a problem. Fundamentally, it's not as big of a problem as the inability to upgrade while running, however.
What is so important that you -have- to upgrade while the system is running? It is always better to upgrade a non-running system. Update is different. There are far more things changing under the hood than you think which is why you should boot to the install media do upgrade.
I don't have to upgrade a running system. If I could do a diskless (no CD,DVD, or floppy) upgrade that would really be ideal. There are many machines that don't have any of those items. As for "It is /always/ better to upgrade a non-running system." (emphasis mine) that's an absolute and I'm quite sure isn't always true - there may be many times when upgrading while running (even in runlevel 1 or 2) may be preferable to attempting to do an upgrade of a non-booted system. -- Carpe diem - Seize the day. Carp in denim - There's a fish in my pants! Jon Nelson <jnelson-suse@jamponi.net>