Re: [SLE] 9.1 to 9.2 upgrade tested? (going OT)
At 03:35 AM 13/10/2004, jfweber@bellsouth.net wrote:
*** Reply to message from Osho GG
on Tue, 12 Oct 2004 19:02:56 -0700 One more candle and a trip around the Sun*** Has anyone tested the 9.1 to 9.2 upgrade path yet? How was your experience? Please share.
clean installs save lots and lots of greif. ;^) Lots of backups help too...
The point I think is that it is SERIOUSLY time that SuSE fixed this minor release timewarp it's still in. By rights we, the users and technical installers / upgraders should be able to upgrade between minor releases, only clean install at major ones. I know of quite a few people (managerial level) that balk at considering linux because of this (data loss, time of upgrade per machine, etc.) and no talking will change their minds. scsijon
*** Reply to message from scsijon
The point I think is that it is SERIOUSLY time that SuSE fixed this minor release timewarp it's still in. By rights we, the users and technical installers / upgraders should be able to upgrade between minor releases, only clean install at major ones.
But Jon, seriously, you can do the updates at least the most major ones become incorporated into the last release via the YAST Online Updates... that means you get the functionality w/o having to do clean upgrades .You even eventually get the look and feel of the new version... what you don't get is kernal changes... and other MAJOR changes which, if you don't need them you shouldn't buy it... You can easily do a once per year install of any new/major items OR put your people on the SLES version which is still at 8.0 version ( it's more updated than that but that was the number they decided upon..) that comes w/ some sort of guarrantee that no upgrade is needed for IIRC 3 years... BIg biz should go that way... as they can during that time do any roll outs of hardware changes they wish while at the end of the period, I'd bet money the upgrades can be done in a rolling manner as well. I.e. No major interuptions need take place , w/ a bit of planning. It seems like the minor releases tended to happen and need clean installs, may always need such, because there are major changes to Linux generally. The fact that the commercial companies are trying to sort out any differences in where they put stuff . Now, that sounds minor, but how often have you installed something that wont run, because it's looking for a library or some other bit of code that is located in a different place than , say, Red Hat puts it... And if you are writing programs for Big Biz, or even not so big Biz it's important to know where all that stuff is or there will never be a really wide adoption of Linux. People have to know that when they install things into , say their own home directory, it will be able to locate all the stuff it needs to function. OR they will have to adopt an OS/2 type approach where every program has all it's librabies in it's own directory... Just my general feelings about this situation, of course, YMMV -- j -- nemo me impune lacessit
scsijon wrote regarding 'Re: [SLE] 9.1 to 9.2 upgrade tested? (going OT)' on Wed, Oct 13 at 06:39: [...]
By rights we, the users and technical installers / upgraders should be able to upgrade between minor releases, only clean install at major ones. I know of quite a few people (managerial level) that balk at considering linux because of this (data loss, time of upgrade per machine, etc.) and no talking will change their minds.
Do these managers support Windows, or are they partial to other *nixes? I have personally done almost every possible combination of updates from one windows version to another, and have, without fail, regretted each and every one of those upgrades when I had to do a clean install later anyway. Anyway, "insert plug for gentoo-style updating here". ;) It's a differnet distro, but it'd sure be nice if SuSE could just 1) set up paths conformant to the LSB and 2) stick with those friggin' paths for a while. Perhaps things wouldn't break so darned often if they'd come up with a good file system structure + a good format for the files in /etc, and then stick with it for more than a release or two. I mean, damn, I change cars about once a year, but most of them still fit in the same garage. :) --Danny
Hi there I'm trying to create a local ftp server, so i can install suse faster on my classrom machines. I have a vsftp running on another server, where i have all the suse files. It's placed under {user ftp root}/suse/i386/9.1/... just like all the mirror sites. I am using a useracount with password(have tried with anonymous no change). The errormessage i get in the installation window "Failed to establish connection". If i try to install using one of the mirrors, it works. the ftp server only log in the messages file: vsftpd: warning: can't get client address: Bad file descriptor the ftp server works and when i try to do an ftp to it, i do think it looks just like when i ftp to the mirror. The files have the same settings, and placed the same way. I have also tried to move the files to my HTTP then i get this error in the httpd error log: Invalid URI in request GET suse/i386/9.1/boot/root HTTP/1.0 Have anyone tried this, please give me a hint or 2, i must be blinded by something with regards Henrik Grevelund
participants (4)
-
Danny Sauer
-
Henrik Grevelund
-
jfweber@bellsouth.net
-
scsijon