Discussion:
Why should one upgrade Fedora whenever a new version is released?
(too old to reply)
Paul Smith
2013-07-12 19:45:18 UTC
Permalink
Dear All,

Why should one upgrade Fedora whenever a new version is released? What
are the main reasons?

Thanks in advance,

Paul
Digimer
2013-07-12 19:49:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Smith
Dear All,
Why should one upgrade Fedora whenever a new version is released? What
are the main reasons?
Thanks in advance,
Paul
Access to newer versions of software and the features they add. In
general, it's personal preference. How "bleeding edge" do you wish to
be? If you are somewhat more risk averse, then staying on older, still
supported Fedora versions is just fine, too.
--
Digimer
Papers and Projects: https://alteeve.ca/w/
What if the cure for cancer is trapped in the mind of a person without
access to education?
Steven Stern
2013-07-12 19:49:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Smith
Dear All,
Why should one upgrade Fedora whenever a new version is released? What
are the main reasons?
Assuming you're on a version that still gets support, patches, and updates:

1. If you've chosen Fedora, it's because you like living near the edge.
Face it, it's fun. Things break, things get fixed, hurdles are jumped.
It shows you are superior to people who use Windows or OS/X, even if
you're the only one who appreciates that. If you don't like the Fedora
life but like the Red Hat environment, switch to CentOS. Stable,
strong, boring. :-)

2. Skipping versions (e.g., using only odd-number versions) complicates
the upgrade processes. It will *probably* work, but it's less certain
than upgrading with each bump.
--
-- Steve
Eddie G. O'Connor Jr.
2013-07-12 19:51:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Smith
Dear All,
Why should one upgrade Fedora whenever a new version is released? What
are the main reasons?
Thanks in advance,
Paul
As far as it was explained to me: you're not REALLY required to upgrade,
if the version you're using suits your purposes. The upside to NOT
upgrading is you won't have to worry about anything "new" breaking
something that's "always worked before in the old version of Fedora".
But the downside is you won't be exposed to cutting edge technology
either. It's comparable to the sticking your head in the sand vs.
exploring the island you've just crash landed on!...LOL! At least that's
how the guy explained it to me when I asked a similar question...


EGO II
Temlakos
2013-07-12 19:51:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Smith
Dear All,
Why should one upgrade Fedora whenever a new version is released? What
are the main reasons?
Thanks in advance,
Paul
Today we have an upgrade tool that makes the upgrade process almost
seamless. That is, as long as you upgrade every time. Miss a version,
and you're in trouble. Miss two or three versions, and any major change
will force you to do a complete, wipe-your-drive re-installation.

As to why it matters: software is always subject to updates. Some of
this is required for security reasons. And any version of an operating
system must come to the end of its life, or else you have no time to
invent anything new.

Temlakos
Joe Zeff
2013-07-12 20:00:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Temlakos
Today we have an upgrade tool that makes the upgrade process almost
seamless. That is, as long as you upgrade every time. Miss a version,
and you're in trouble. Miss two or three versions, and any major change
will force you to do a complete, wipe-your-drive re-installation.
No. I've skipped versions when I've seen more trouble with fresh
installs and upgrades reported than I think reasonable. The only time I
ever had a problem with an upgrade it was because the upgrade program
hung, leaving things in an unstable state. It's safe to skip one
version, but more than one can be very, very problematic.
lee
2013-07-13 14:01:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Smith
Dear All,
Why should one upgrade Fedora whenever a new version is released? What
are the main reasons?
Besides all the reasons already mentioned: It can be much more
manageable to adjust one or two things when upgrading from one release
to the next than it may be having to suddenly adjust five or ten after
skipping some releases.

What are the main reasons not to upgrade?
--
Fedora 19
Michael Hennebry
2013-07-13 15:57:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by lee
Besides all the reasons already mentioned: It can be much more
manageable to adjust one or two things when upgrading from one release
to the next than it may be having to suddenly adjust five or ten after
skipping some releases.
What are the main reasons not to upgrade?
For me it was the aggravation.
Installing was always a struggle.
I was on F14 when I tried to do a fresh install of F16.
Never got it to work.
I'm running CentOS now, but keep F14 around in case I need it for something.
--
Michael hennebry at web.cs.ndsu.NoDak.edu
"On Monday, I'm gonna have to tell my kindergarten class,
whom I teach not to run with scissors,
that my fiance ran me through with a broadsword." -- Lily
Eddie G. O'Connor Jr.
2013-07-13 18:37:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Hennebry
Post by lee
Besides all the reasons already mentioned: It can be much more
manageable to adjust one or two things when upgrading from one release
to the next than it may be having to suddenly adjust five or ten after
skipping some releases.
What are the main reasons not to upgrade?
For me it was the aggravation.
Installing was always a struggle.
I was on F14 when I tried to do a fresh install of F16.
Never got it to work.
I'm running CentOS now, but keep F14 around in case I need it for something.
Maybe it's because you skipped a release? (F15) I would take the advice
of many of the peopel on this list and upgrade when possible, this way
you have fewer issues.


EGO II
Michael Hennebry
2013-07-14 16:26:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eddie G. O'Connor Jr.
Post by Michael Hennebry
For me it was the aggravation.
Installing was always a struggle.
I was on F14 when I tried to do a fresh install of F16.
Never got it to work.
I'm running CentOS now, but keep F14 around in case I need it for something.
Maybe it's because you skipped a release? (F15) I would take the advice
of many of the peopel on this list and upgrade when possible, this way
you have fewer issues.
As mentioned, I tried to do a *fresh install*.
I never seriously consider upgrades.
A failed upgrade would leave me without the old and without the new.
That said, I did try to do a fresh install
of F15 followed by an upgrade to F16.
No go. Don't remember exactly why. It might be in the archives somewhere.
F17 would not install either.
--
Michael hennebry at web.cs.ndsu.NoDak.edu
"On Monday, I'm gonna have to tell my kindergarten class,
whom I teach not to run with scissors,
that my fiance ran me through with a broadsword." -- Lily
Eddie G. O'Connor Jr.
2013-07-16 01:56:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Hennebry
Post by Eddie G. O'Connor Jr.
Post by Michael Hennebry
For me it was the aggravation.
Installing was always a struggle.
I was on F14 when I tried to do a fresh install of F16.
Never got it to work.
I'm running CentOS now, but keep F14 around in case I need it for something.
Maybe it's because you skipped a release? (F15) I would take the
advice of many of the peopel on this list and upgrade when possible,
this way you have fewer issues.
As mentioned, I tried to do a *fresh install*.
I never seriously consider upgrades.
A failed upgrade would leave me without the old and without the new.
That said, I did try to do a fresh install
of F15 followed by an upgrade to F16.
No go. Don't remember exactly why. It might be in the archives somewhere.
F17 would not install either.
Oh. Ok...I for one am trying to keep it strictly "upgrades only", but
every now and then something doesn't go as planned, in which case I go
the "fresh-install" route myself. Here's to hoping the future releases
will be solid and error free, (keeping fingers crossed! LOL!)


EGO II
lee
2013-07-13 23:25:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Hennebry
Post by lee
What are the main reasons not to upgrade?
For me it was the aggravation.
Installing was always a struggle.
I was on F14 when I tried to do a fresh install of F16.
Never got it to work.
I'm running CentOS now, but keep F14 around in case I need it for something.
Perhaps they have come a long way: I started only with F17, so I can't
say anything about older versions.
Post by Michael Hennebry
From what I've been reading, CentOS isn't upgradeable at all. If that's
true, I'm surprised you're using it.

If you like having more recent software and a distribution that can be
upgraded, you could give F19 a try. Upgradeability provides more
continuity on the long run than a non-upgradeable distribution that has
a long lifetime instead can.
--
Fedora release 19 (Schrödinger’s Cat)
James Hogarth
2013-07-14 06:45:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Hennebry
From what I've been reading, CentOS isn't upgradeable at all. If that's
true, I'm surprised you're using it.
Red Hat does not support upgrades between major versions of enterprise
Linux... And the rebuilds thus have the same policy.

The point of using it of course is a stable environment for 7 years or so
between major upgrades and not for the bleeding edge of software.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20130714/09cf14fb/attachment.html>
lee
2013-07-14 23:24:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Hogarth
Post by Michael Hennebry
From what I've been reading, CentOS isn't upgradeable at all. If that's
true, I'm surprised you're using it.
The point of using it of course is a stable environment for 7 years or so
between major upgrades and not for the bleeding edge of software.
And after those seven or ten years, you have to start over from
scratch. In case you need a new feature, you have to start over from
scratch with a more recent release that has it.

It's surely a great option to have when you can entirely say it is what
you need. To me, it seems it can turn out to be quite limiting.
--
Fedora release 19 (Schrödinger’s Cat)
lee
2013-07-14 07:36:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Hennebry
From what I've been reading, CentOS isn't upgradeable at all. If that's
true, I'm surprised you're using it.
* you use it if you do not need new features over the lifecycle
For which use cases can you predict that you will be fine with the same
software for the next ten years?
--
"Object-oriented programming languages aren't completely convinced that
you should be allowed to do anything with functions."
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/08/01.html
Michael Hennebry
2013-07-14 16:41:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by lee
Post by Michael Hennebry
From what I've been reading, CentOS isn't upgradeable at all. If that's
true, I'm surprised you're using it.
* you use it if you do not need new features over the lifecycle
For which use cases can you predict that you will be fine with the same
software for the next ten years?
Something about which I am ignorant:
Which changes require new releases and which do not.
Would someone be kind enough to give me
examples of each between F14 and F19?
Why were new releases required?
--
Michael hennebry at web.cs.ndsu.NoDak.edu
"On Monday, I'm gonna have to tell my kindergarten class,
whom I teach not to run with scissors,
that my fiance ran me through with a broadsword." -- Lily
Rahul Sundaram
2013-07-14 17:06:16 UTC
Permalink
Hi


On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Michael Hennebry <
Post by Michael Hennebry
Post by lee
Post by Michael Hennebry
From what I've been reading, CentOS isn't upgradeable at all. If that's
true, I'm surprised you're using it.
* you use it if you do not need new features over the lifecycle
For which use cases can you predict that you will be fine with the same
software for the next ten years?
Which changes require new releases and which do not.
Would someone be kind enough to give me
examples of each between F14 and F19?
Why were new releases required?
Updates to an existing release follow
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy. Libraries that require a
ABI change generally aren't pushed as updates. Major changes such as the
new installer, switch to systemd init system, major new versions of
GNOME etc are only introduced in a new release. The general idea is to
strike to a balance between providing new features to end users vs not
being disruptive.

Rahul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20130714/ba7a0001/attachment.html>
Richard Vickery
2013-07-14 21:12:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rahul Sundaram
Hi
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Michael Hennebry
Post by Michael Hennebry
Post by lee
Post by Michael Hennebry
From what I've been reading, CentOS isn't upgradeable at all. If that's
true, I'm surprised you're using it.
* you use it if you do not need new features over the lifecycle
For which use cases can you predict that you will be fine with the same
software for the next ten years?
Which changes require new releases and which do not.
Would someone be kind enough to give me
examples of each between F14 and F19?
Why were new releases required?
Updates to an existing release follow
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy. Libraries that require a ABI
change generally aren't pushed as updates. Major changes such as the new
installer, switch to systemd init system, major new versions of GNOME etc
are only introduced in a new release. The general idea is to strike to a
balance between providing new features to end users vs not being disruptive.
Rahul
--
There are quite a few reasons to keep upgrading for me: the likes of
fedup and yum are just 2 of many examples that are not available on
the older editions.
Michael Hennebry
2013-07-15 02:22:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rahul Sundaram
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Michael Hennebry <
Post by Michael Hennebry
Which changes require new releases and which do not.
Would someone be kind enough to give me
examples of each between F14 and F19?
Why were new releases required?
Updates to an existing release follow
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy. Libraries that require a
ABI change generally aren't pushed as updates. Major changes such as the
new installer, switch to systemd init system, major new versions of
GNOME etc are only introduced in a new release. The general idea is to
strike to a balance between providing new features to end users vs not
being disruptive.
I get that breaking things should require a new release.
With that criterion,
solely adding a new feature should not require a new release.
Requiring its use would be another matter.

If all else fails, I can and have installed from source.
--
Michael hennebry at web.cs.ndsu.NoDak.edu
"On Monday, I'm gonna have to tell my kindergarten class,
whom I teach not to run with scissors,
that my fiance ran me through with a broadsword." -- Lily
Rahul Sundaram
2013-07-15 03:23:18 UTC
Permalink
Hi
Post by Michael Hennebry
I get that breaking things should require a new release.
With that criterion,
solely adding a new feature should not require a new release.
Requiring its use would be another matter.
Right. Number of features have been introduced as updates or new packages
as well. Only the disruptive ones have to wait for a new release

Rahul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20130714/802eab82/attachment.html>
lee
2013-07-15 01:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Hennebry
Post by lee
For which use cases can you predict that you will be fine with the same
software for the next ten years?
Why were new releases required?
New releases are a means to limit the lifetime of the already existing
ones. This is required because there are a release schedule and limited
resources:

"Historically, the Fedora Project has found supporting two releases plus
Rawhide and the pre-release Branched code to be a manageable work
load."[1]


[1]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Release_Life_Cycle#Maintenance_Schedule
--
Fedora release 19 (Schrödinger’s Cat)
Reindl Harald
2013-07-14 09:37:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by lee
Post by Michael Hennebry
From what I've been reading, CentOS isn't upgradeable at all. If that's
true, I'm surprised you're using it.
* you use it if you do not need new features over the lifecycle
For which use cases can you predict that you will be fine with the same
software for the next ten years?
*business usage*
is it really that hard to understand?

you have a *dedicated* machine or VM foor *one* application
you have vendor support for this software over the lifetime
your vendor claims to support RHEL6 - so this means REHL6
until EOL of the distribution

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 263 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20130714/22a73ccf/attachment.sig>
lee
2013-07-15 00:16:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Reindl Harald
Post by lee
Post by Michael Hennebry
From what I've been reading, CentOS isn't upgradeable at all. If that's
true, I'm surprised you're using it.
* you use it if you do not need new features over the lifecycle
For which use cases can you predict that you will be fine with the same
software for the next ten years?
*business usage*
That's a very general answer. You could as well, and perhaps even more
likely, use it for a server you're setting up for yourself at home.

Businesses do change over time, and their requirements brought upon the
soft- and hardware they are using change with them. The requirements
your server at home needs to fullfill may be less likely to change as
much.

Of course, this doesn't mean that there aren't use cases for CentOS in
businesses (or elsewhere). I'm merely wondering what exactly those
are. Ancient software and not being upgradeable seem to make for very
hard limits.
Post by Reindl Harald
you have a *dedicated* machine or VM foor *one* application
That may be so or not, and what the machine needs to do can change over
time.
Post by Reindl Harald
you have vendor support for this software over the lifetime
your vendor claims to support RHEL6 - so this means REHL6
until EOL of the distribution
"CentOS is designed for people who need an enterprise class OS without
the cost or support of the prominent North American Enterprise Linux
vendor."[1]


[1]: http://www.centos.org/modules/tinycontent/index.php?id=3
--
"Object-oriented programming languages aren't completely convinced that
you should be allowed to do anything with functions."
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/08/01.html
Reindl Harald
2013-07-15 00:21:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by lee
Post by Reindl Harald
Post by lee
For which use cases can you predict that you will be fine with the same
software for the next ten years?
*business usage*
That's a very general answer. You could as well, and perhaps even more
likely, use it for a server you're setting up for yourself at home
you could it even use for your desktop.....
Post by lee
Businesses do change over time, and their requirements brought upon the
soft- and hardware they are using change with them.
mhh thats why so many companies still using WinXP i guess
Post by lee
The requirements your server at home needs to fullfill may be less
likely to change as much
if on your server at home something goes wrong nobody cares
if you change something on a business server and break the
services for some hundret of customers the things are looking
completly different

hence - you need not to explain *me* how things may change as
i use Fedora for many years at production but you asked why
others are using RHEL/CentOS and you got your answers

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 263 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20130715/a4f60785/attachment.sig>
lee
2013-07-15 04:47:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Reindl Harald
Post by lee
Post by Reindl Harald
Post by lee
For which use cases can you predict that you will be fine with the same
software for the next ten years?
*business usage*
That's a very general answer. You could as well, and perhaps even more
likely, use it for a server you're setting up for yourself at home
you could it even use for your desktop.....
I probably could, but I don't want to be stuck with ancient software.
Post by Reindl Harald
Post by lee
Businesses do change over time, and their requirements brought upon the
soft- and hardware they are using change with them.
mhh thats why so many companies still using WinXP i guess
Maybe there are other reasons for that, like that is isn't upgradable
and/or that it is expensive to switch. It's also possible that other
software they are using works best with that, maybe because the other
software hasn't been upgraded yet.

That a company is using a particular software doesn't mean that this
software fits the companies' needs perfectly or even at all. The longer
a company waits before upgrading, the more difficult it can become to do
it.
Post by Reindl Harald
Post by lee
The requirements your server at home needs to fullfill may be less
likely to change as much
if on your server at home something goes wrong nobody cares
Well, I do.
Post by Reindl Harald
if you change something on a business server and break the
services for some hundret of customers the things are looking
completly different
hence - you need not to explain *me* how things may change as
i use Fedora for many years at production but you asked why
others are using RHEL/CentOS and you got your answers
Unless I missed it, nobody has described a particular use case yet in
which it is obvious that it is good to use CentOS. Upgrading holds its
risks as well as using software that cannot be upgraded. The future
cannot be predicted. So how do you make a decision like between using
Fedora and CentOS?
--
"Object-oriented programming languages aren't completely convinced that
you should be allowed to do anything with functions."
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/08/01.html
James Hogarth
2013-07-15 06:10:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by lee
Unless I missed it, nobody has described a particular use case yet in
which it is obvious that it is good to use CentOS. Upgrading holds its
risks as well as using software that cannot be upgraded. The future
cannot be predicted. So how do you make a decision like between using
Fedora and CentOS?
As much as I disagree with Harald on certain issues he did give you the
answer to this... You just choose not to hear it.

In most business scenarios - the vast majority - it's insane to go with an
OS that only has a 6-12 month lifespan.

If buying hardware that probably will have a 3-5 year refresh cycle for a
start.

Time spent doing upgrades is time not doing something more interesting such
as testing new technology in a test lab.

The time taken to validate a complete stack for a business application
might well have you have way through the release cycle before it'd be
feasible to upgrade.

Massive overhauls of key components (the init system for example as a
recent issue) are a huge amount of risk.

As the number of systems goes up it becomes even trickier dealing with an
upgrade cycle... You really don't want 'fedup' to become your full time job
:-P

The key risk for upgrades in business is security fixes and not features -
these upgrades are present... Within the lifetime of a project you are
highly unlikely to be ripping out and replacing key bits of the application
stack.

Vendors (including pure open source solutions backed by a vendor) will
support a long term distribution but not something like fedora where the
increase of cost for them to support it due to potentially massive changes
every 6 months is significant.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20130715/99debed9/attachment-0001.html>
lee
2013-07-15 18:55:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Hogarth
Post by lee
Unless I missed it, nobody has described a particular use case yet in
which it is obvious that it is good to use CentOS. Upgrading holds its
risks as well as using software that cannot be upgraded. The future
cannot be predicted. So how do you make a decision like between using
Fedora and CentOS?
As much as I disagree with Harald on certain issues he did give you the
answer to this... You just choose not to hear it.
I'm hearing it; I'm merely asking for a particular use case.
Post by James Hogarth
The key risk for upgrades in business is security fixes and not features -
these upgrades are present... Within the lifetime of a project you are
highly unlikely to be ripping out and replacing key bits of the application
stack.
Vendors (including pure open source solutions backed by a vendor) will
support a long term distribution but not something like fedora where the
increase of cost for them to support it due to potentially massive changes
every 6 months is significant.
So you are saying that, for some good reasons, you can generally assume
right away that in business applications the risks involved with changes
greatly outweigh the potential advantage of having new features and that
you need something that doesn't change for at least three to five years?

Does that make it worthwhile to use software that cannot be upgraded
when it reaches its end of life (either because support ceases or
because new features are needed)?
--
Fedora release 19 (Schrödinger’s Cat)
Rick Stevens
2013-07-15 20:59:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by lee
Post by James Hogarth
Post by lee
Unless I missed it, nobody has described a particular use case yet in
which it is obvious that it is good to use CentOS. Upgrading holds its
risks as well as using software that cannot be upgraded. The future
cannot be predicted. So how do you make a decision like between using
Fedora and CentOS?
As much as I disagree with Harald on certain issues he did give you the
answer to this... You just choose not to hear it.
I'm hearing it; I'm merely asking for a particular use case.
Post by James Hogarth
The key risk for upgrades in business is security fixes and not features -
these upgrades are present... Within the lifetime of a project you are
highly unlikely to be ripping out and replacing key bits of the application
stack.
Vendors (including pure open source solutions backed by a vendor) will
support a long term distribution but not something like fedora where the
increase of cost for them to support it due to potentially massive changes
every 6 months is significant.
So you are saying that, for some good reasons, you can generally assume
right away that in business applications the risks involved with changes
greatly outweigh the potential advantage of having new features and that
you need something that doesn't change for at least three to five years?
Fedora is a bleeding-edge testbed. Massive changes every six months is
what Fedora is all about. We are the lab rats for Red Hat's engineering
efforts. We test the stuff, figure out what's good, bad, indifferent,
stupid or brilliant and they use that to guide their research.

Once enough changes have been made and those changes prove stable, then
Red Hat snapshots Fedora, does some additional tuning and tweaking and
it becomes the next major RHEL release. A bit later on, CentOS (built
from RHEL's source RPMs) becomes available.

In business, stability is the watchword. Using something like Fedora for
any business-critical operation is asking for trouble. That is what RHEL
(if you need support and are willing to pay for it) and/or CentOS (if
you are willing to live with community-based support) are for. Those are
stable platforms and won't undergo "major" changes for several years at
a time (e.g. CentOS 5 is still around three years later, although
updated; CentOS 6 has been around at least 18 months).
Post by lee
Does that make it worthwhile to use software that cannot be upgraded
when it reaches its end of life (either because support ceases or
because new features are needed)?
It depends on what the software is. If your business depends on it and
it's critical to your processes, then you really have no choice but to
use it. That's not uncommon, but it can be dangerous. I collect and
restore old cars (mostly Jaguars). Parts are often NLA and I have to
make my own or adapt others. No, the cars aren't critical to my
survival so the analogy isn't exact, but you get the point. If you can
transition from something with no support to something that does have
support, then you should do it. But only _you_ can make that
determination. Don't blindly upgrade something because "Gee! It's a new
release...it's gotta be better!" You have to look at the release notes
and see if the patches and such are something you need and it won't
break what you have. Due diligence, my friend!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
- Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer, AllDigital ricks at alldigital.com -
- AIM/Skype: therps2 ICQ: 22643734 Yahoo: origrps2 -
- -
- A day for firm decisions!!! Well, then again, maybe not! -
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Reindl Harald
2013-07-15 20:35:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by lee
Post by James Hogarth
Vendors (including pure open source solutions backed by a vendor) will
support a long term distribution but not something like fedora where the
increase of cost for them to support it due to potentially massive changes
every 6 months is significant.
So you are saying that, for some good reasons, you can generally assume
right away that in business applications the risks involved with changes
greatly outweigh the potential advantage of having new features and that
you need something that doesn't change for at least three to five years?
Does that make it worthwhile to use software that cannot be upgraded
when it reaches its end of life (either because support ceases or
because new features are needed)?
after *TEN YEARS*?
surely!

not for me, maybe not for you
but surely!

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 263 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20130715/9d6d5b17/attachment.sig>
Michael Hennebry
2013-07-15 20:42:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by lee
Post by Reindl Harald
mhh thats why so many companies still using WinXP i guess
Maybe there are other reasons for that, like that is isn't upgradable
and/or that it is expensive to switch. It's also possible that other
software they are using works best with that, maybe because the other
software hasn't been upgraded yet.
In my case, I found Fedora very expensive to upgrade.
Even before complete failure, installs were a pain.
I spent days or weeks wanting to kill something.
Installing CentOS went perfectly.
I did net install, something I'd never done before,
because my DVD drive wasn't working at the time.

If I want something that *I* cannot install on CentOS,
I'll just have to find a distribution earlier in its release cycle.
That might be the time to consider virtualization.
Post by lee
Unless I missed it, nobody has described a particular use case yet in
which it is obvious that it is good to use CentOS. Upgrading holds its
risks as well as using software that cannot be upgraded. The future
cannot be predicted. So how do you make a decision like between using
Fedora and CentOS?
Is there a particular use case in which it
is obvious that it is good to use RHEL?
--
Michael hennebry at web.cs.ndsu.NoDak.edu
"On Monday, I'm gonna have to tell my kindergarten class,
whom I teach not to run with scissors,
that my fiance ran me through with a broadsword." -- Lily
David
2013-07-15 20:55:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Hennebry
Post by lee
Post by Reindl Harald
mhh thats why so many companies still using WinXP i guess
Maybe there are other reasons for that, like that is isn't upgradable
and/or that it is expensive to switch. It's also possible that other
software they are using works best with that, maybe because the other
software hasn't been upgraded yet.
In my case, I found Fedora very expensive to upgrade.
Even before complete failure, installs were a pain.
I spent days or weeks wanting to kill something.
Installing CentOS went perfectly.
I did net install, something I'd never done before,
because my DVD drive wasn't working at the time.
If I want something that *I* cannot install on CentOS,
I'll just have to find a distribution earlier in its release cycle.
That might be the time to consider virtualization.
Post by lee
Unless I missed it, nobody has described a particular use case yet in
which it is obvious that it is good to use CentOS. Upgrading holds its
risks as well as using software that cannot be upgraded. The future
cannot be predicted. So how do you make a decision like between using
Fedora and CentOS?
Is there a particular use case in which it
is obvious that it is good to use RHEL?
You are aware the Red Hat and CentOS are made from Fedora?
--
David
Michael Hennebry
2013-07-15 21:27:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by David
Post by Michael Hennebry
Is there a particular use case in which it
is obvious that it is good to use RHEL?
You are aware the Red Hat and CentOS are made from Fedora?
'Tis why I asked.
--
Michael hennebry at web.cs.ndsu.NoDak.edu
"ANGELS ARE REAL AND THEY'RE EASY" -- Judy Hines
Bill Oliver
2013-07-15 22:38:30 UTC
Permalink
[snip]
Post by lee
Unless I missed it, nobody has described a particular use case yet in
which it is obvious that it is good to use CentOS. Upgrading holds its
risks as well as using software that cannot be upgraded. The future
cannot be predicted. So how do you make a decision like between using
Fedora and CentOS?
Is there a particular use case in which it
is obvious that it is good to use RHEL?
Well, IMHO, you want RHEL (as opposed to CentOS) when you need paid support.

The particular use case that I have where I'm switching from Fedora to CentOS is a virtual machine rented in the cloud.

On my home machines, where I can touch the on-off button and see the boot screen, I can play around with installations and if something goes wrong, I can fix it.

On a virtual machine, there are more severe limitations. For instance, if I power down my virtual machine, I have to submit a service ticket to get it turned back on -- I can't touch it to do it myself. I have "poweroff" softlinked to "reboot." Similarly, if there's a screw-up in upgrading that affects boot, I'm hosed.

When I got the machine, I told the company to install F16. Now F16 is not supported, I find that it is impossible for me to either upgrade or install, because both require that I see and interact with the boot screen. I talked to support, and they are happy to "reprovision" the box with either F19 or CentOS. However, it means that they do it on *their* schedule, and I have to be ready to re-install all my stuff (webpage, configurations, nameserver, etc).

Thus, it's a huge hassle to either upgrade or install a new version every few months. Since I'm using this machine as a server, I have no need to play with cutting edge stuff on it. I'm more interested in stability and long-term security upgrades. I'm having it reprovisioned to CentOS.

billo
Reindl Harald
2013-07-15 23:00:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Oliver
[snip]
Post by lee
Unless I missed it, nobody has described a particular use case yet in
which it is obvious that it is good to use CentOS. Upgrading holds its
risks as well as using software that cannot be upgraded. The future
cannot be predicted. So how do you make a decision like between using
Fedora and CentOS?
Is there a particular use case in which it
is obvious that it is good to use RHEL?
Well, IMHO, you want RHEL (as opposed to CentOS) when you need paid support.
yes
Post by Bill Oliver
On my home machines, where I can touch the on-off button and see the boot screen, I can play around with
installations and if something goes wrong, I can fix it.
yes
Post by Bill Oliver
On a virtual machine, there are more severe limitations.
no - on *specific* setups they may
Post by Bill Oliver
For instance, if I power down my virtual machine, I have
to submit a service ticket to get it turned back on
then you choosed the wrong provider if you can't do this by yourself
Post by Bill Oliver
I can't touch it to do it myself. I have "poweroff"
softlinked to "reboot." Similarly, if there's a screw-up in
upgrading that affects boot, I'm hosed.
with your setup

normally with a VM you have the benefit of a *full Snapshot before the upgrade
and if something goes wrong you are on a working state within seconds

as well as you can setup the ame configuration in a local VM and
test the upgrade steps until you are sure how to act with the
production machines
Post by Bill Oliver
When I got the machine, I told the company to install F16. Now F16 is not supported,
I find that it is impossible for me to either upgrade or install, because both require
that I see and interact with the boot screen.
why?

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upgrading_Fedora_using_yum
20 virtual machines, all upgraded with yum, all production
none of them needed the boot screen to see

yes, UsrMove and GRUB2 migration is possible without boot
screen and the downtime is not more than a regular reboot
after a kernel update

this was installed as F9 and is now F17 until end of this month
tune2fs 1.42.3 (14-May-2012)
Filesystem volume name: system
Last mounted on: /
Filesystem UUID: 918f24a7-bc8e-4da5-8a23-8800d5104421
Filesystem magic number: 0xEF53
Filesystem revision #: 1 (dynamic)
Filesystem features: has_journal ext_attr resize_inode dir_index filetype needs_recovery extent flex_bg
sparse_super large_file uninit_bg dir_nlink
Filesystem flags: signed_directory_hash
Default mount options: journal_data_writeback user_xattr acl nobarrier
Filesystem state: clean
Filesystem created: Mon Aug 18 06:48:05 2008
Last mount time: Mon Jul 15 20:03:02 2013
Last write time: Mon Jul 15 20:03:00 2013
Post by Bill Oliver
I talked to support, and they are happy to "reprovision" the box with either F19 or CentOS.
However, it means that they do it on *their* schedule, and I have to be ready to re-install
all my stuff (webpage, configurations, nameserver, etc).
well, you better would be suited with a company giving you
remote access to your VM's console over a VPN

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 263 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20130716/be8ab60c/attachment.sig>
Steven Stern
2013-07-16 18:03:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Reindl Harald
well, you better would be suited with a company giving you
remote access to your VM's console over a VPN
A quick plug for Linode, which offers this.

HOWEVER, if it's a server AND it's not just a personal thing, then you
need to justify to your employer the time it takes to upgrade for each
release, as well as the potential down time.

That's why the business servers I run are running CentOS. When CentOS 6
came out, I justified the cost of running one month where the CentOS 5
VPS was up and I migrated content to a new CentOS 6 VPS. I won't have
to do this again until CentOS 7 is out and is reasonably stable.
--
-- Steve
Reindl Harald
2013-07-16 18:08:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Stern
Post by Reindl Harald
well, you better would be suited with a company giving you
remote access to your VM's console over a VPN
A quick plug for Linode, which offers this.
HOWEVER, if it's a server AND it's not just a personal thing, then you
need to justify to your employer the time it takes to upgrade for each
release, as well as the potential down time
i do

the downtime of services from Fedora 9 to Fedora 18 was 30 seconds
for the reboot and 60 seconds for the two reboots caused by
UsrMerge - not more and not less

the upgrade itself takes 3-5 minutes per server
preapre that this runs smooth 1-2 days so 4 days a year
where i am still reahable for my daily work - who cares?

if you not believe this - i have all outputs of yum (stderror and stdout)
in the archive from 2008 to 2013 for all of the around 20 virtual servers

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 263 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20130716/d767afec/attachment.sig>
lee
2013-07-16 03:22:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Hennebry
In my case, I found Fedora very expensive to upgrade.
That I can understand --- upgrading twice a year, especially when
it's questionable if the upgrade works --- can be painful, all the more
when you have many machines to upgrade. It gave me a lot to worry about
even with only one.
Post by Michael Hennebry
If I want something that *I* cannot install on CentOS,
I'll just have to find a distribution earlier in its release cycle.
That might be the time to consider virtualization.
True, it can help you out when requirements change and makes
upgradeability less important.
Post by Michael Hennebry
Post by lee
Unless I missed it, nobody has described a particular use case yet in
which it is obvious that it is good to use CentOS. Upgrading holds its
risks as well as using software that cannot be upgraded. The future
cannot be predicted. So how do you make a decision like between using
Fedora and CentOS?
Is there a particular use case in which it
is obvious that it is good to use RHEL?
At least I can imagine some, assuming that their commercial support is
worthwhile to have. I wouldn't expect needing lots of new features on a
mail- or web-server.
--
Fedora release 19 (Schrödinger’s Cat)
Michael Hennebry
2013-07-16 07:15:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by lee
Post by Michael Hennebry
In my case, I found Fedora very expensive to upgrade.
That I can understand --- upgrading twice a year, especially when
it's questionable if the upgrade works --- can be painful, all the more
when you have many machines to upgrade. It gave me a lot to worry about
even with only one.
Having precisely one computer meant that I couldn't
look for on-line help while doing an install.
--
Michael hennebry at web.cs.ndsu.NoDak.edu
"On Monday, I'm gonna have to tell my kindergarten class,
whom I teach not to run with scissors,
that my fiance ran me through with a broadsword." -- Lily
lee
2013-07-16 08:38:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Hennebry
Post by lee
Post by Michael Hennebry
In my case, I found Fedora very expensive to upgrade.
That I can understand --- upgrading twice a year, especially when
it's questionable if the upgrade works --- can be painful, all the more
when you have many machines to upgrade. It gave me a lot to worry about
even with only one.
Having precisely one computer meant that I couldn't
look for on-line help while doing an install.
That's one big advantage of the life systems some distributions have:
You can always boot that and look for help even while installing. If
something went wrong, you can reboot the life system and use it to find
more help.
--
Fedora release 19 (Schrödinger’s Cat)
Fernando Lozano
2013-07-16 15:16:47 UTC
Permalink
Hi,
Post by lee
Post by Michael Hennebry
In my case, I found Fedora very expensive to upgrade.
That I can understand --- upgrading twice a year, especially when
it's questionable if the upgrade works --- can be painful, all the more
when you have many machines to upgrade. It gave me a lot to worry about
even with only one.
If it helps, I upgraded a number of systems from F17 straight to F18
without a problem (except for a little packaging bug in openjdk). Some
of those systems included packages from external repos like rpmforge. So
you could upgrade once a year instead of twice.

Upgrades from the network take a long time. It would help if we could
point to a local DVD install media and use the updates repo at the same
time, so fedup don't take so long downloading packages.

Better yet, it could be possible to make a local mirror of the updates
repo (rsync?) and point fedup to it. This local mirror could act as a
"cache", with fedup checking if their packages are the latest and
downloading from the net if not.


[]s, Fernando Lozano
lee
2013-07-17 01:47:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fernando Lozano
Hi,
Post by lee
Post by Michael Hennebry
In my case, I found Fedora very expensive to upgrade.
That I can understand --- upgrading twice a year, especially when
it's questionable if the upgrade works --- can be painful, all the more
when you have many machines to upgrade. It gave me a lot to worry about
even with only one.
If it helps, I upgraded a number of systems from F17 straight to F18
without a problem (except for a little packaging bug in openjdk). Some
of those systems included packages from external repos like rpmforge. So
you could upgrade once a year instead of twice.
It seems to work fine now, and I like to have recent NVIDIA drivers. I
don't mind upgrading twice a year when it works, and it might have the
advantage that per each upgrade, not as many changes are introduced as
when upgrading less frequently.

I've been running Debian Testing for a very long time. Since it was
always up to date, you never needed to upgrade.
Post by Fernando Lozano
Upgrades from the network take a long time. It would help if we could
point to a local DVD install media and use the updates repo at the same
time, so fedup don't take so long downloading packages.
One way or another, you need to download, which takes a while. Then all
the packages need to be upgraded, and that also takes a while. While
you run fedup to prepare for the upgrade, you can do other things just
as if you were downloading a DVD image.
Post by Fernando Lozano
Better yet, it could be possible to make a local mirror of the updates
repo (rsync?) and point fedup to it. This local mirror could act as a
"cache", with fedup checking if their packages are the latest and
downloading from the net if not.
That would make a lot of sense when you need to upgrade several machines
--- I guess it's somehow possible. It probably has been "automated" in
that it would only download and cache the packages that are actually
needed since you probably do not need the whole repo with all available
packages.
--
Fedora release 19 (Schrödinger’s Cat)
Fernando Lozano
2013-07-17 19:05:25 UTC
Permalink
Hi,
Post by lee
It seems to work fine now, and I like to have recent NVIDIA drivers. I
don't mind upgrading twice a year when it works, and it might have the
advantage that per each upgrade, not as many changes are introduced as
when upgrading less frequently.
Until Fedora comes with a more radical change (like when it moved from
Gnome 2 to Gnome 3) I guess we can be confident fedup will work.
Post by lee
Post by Fernando Lozano
Upgrades from the network take a long time. It would help if we could
point to a local DVD install media and use the updates repo at the same
time, so fedup don't take so long downloading packages.
One way or another, you need to download, which takes a while. Then all
the packages need to be upgraded, and that also takes a while. While
you run fedup to prepare for the upgrade, you can do other things just
as if you were downloading a DVD image.
Yes, I like the fact fedup only locks the machine after the necessary
reboot.

My ideas make sense only for repeating the processes on multiple
machines. If I could download all packages / and store then in a DVD
media or a shared disk beforehand, it would save time for the second
machine and so. Like we can do today with the install media, but
expanded for Fedora updates and third-party repos.

Imagine if fedup worked using yum "keep cache" and then setup a http or
nfs share for other machines to reuse all downloaded content. Then other
machines wouldn't need to download / install anything to their local HDs
before rebooting (except for the new grub, kernel and a few binaries
kile yum), they would upgrade directly from the first one.


[]s, Fernando Lozano
Joe Zeff
2013-07-17 19:23:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fernando Lozano
My ideas make sense only for repeating the processes on multiple
machines. If I could download all packages / and store then in a DVD
media or a shared disk beforehand, it would save time for the second
machine and so. Like we can do today with the install media, but
expanded for Fedora updates and third-party repos.
Imagine if fedup worked using yum "keep cache" and then setup a http or
nfs share for other machines to reuse all downloaded content. Then other
machines wouldn't need to download / install anything to their local HDs
before rebooting (except for the new grub, kernel and a few binaries
kile yum), they would upgrade directly from the first one.
That would work, and work well if, and only if all of the machines had
the same software. Your DNS server/s don't need apache, your SMTP
servers probably don't need any database packages and the workstations
have their own specific needs. What would probably work best is to
create a local repo that contains all of the new packages for what one
might call the core programs that all of your boxen need so that they
only have to go to the Internet for the specialty packages. I wonder if
there's a way to make fedup understand that.
Fernando Lozano
2013-07-17 20:01:33 UTC
Permalink
Hi,
Post by Joe Zeff
Post by Fernando Lozano
Imagine if fedup worked using yum "keep cache" and then setup a http or
nfs share for other machines to reuse all downloaded content. Then other
machines wouldn't need to download / install anything to their local HDs
before rebooting (except for the new grub, kernel and a few binaries
kile yum), they would upgrade directly from the first one.
That would work, and work well if, and only if all of the machines had
the same software. Your DNS server/s don't need apache, your SMTP
servers probably don't need any database packages and the workstations
have their own specific needs. What would probably work best is to
create a local repo that contains all of the new packages for what one
might call the core programs that all of your boxen need so that they
only have to go to the Internet for the specialty packages. I wonder
if there's a way to make fedup understand that.
Imagine a bunch of desktops (or developer workstations) being upgraded
using fedup. Their software would be very similar.

And my idea is that fedup would download from the net anything missing
(or newer) than the lan cache, so different configurations would be
supported fine.

A local mirrir of fedora repos would take care of more diverse setups,
if fedup could use then as a cache.


[]s, Fernando Lozano
lee
2013-07-18 05:05:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fernando Lozano
Imagine a bunch of desktops (or developer workstations) being upgraded
using fedup. Their software would be very similar.
And my idea is that fedup would download from the net anything missing
(or newer) than the lan cache, so different configurations would be
supported fine.
There probably is a solution for that. If not, you can always try to
use squid to build up a cache.
--
Fedora release 19 (Schrödinger’s Cat)
Michael Hennebry
2013-07-17 15:38:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by lee
Post by Michael Hennebry
Having precisely one computer meant that I couldn't
look for on-line help while doing an install.
You can always boot that and look for help even while installing. If
something went wrong, you can reboot the life system and use it to find
more help.
What does "life systems" mean in this context?
googling mostly got me proper nouns.
--
Michael hennebry at web.cs.ndsu.NoDak.edu
"On Monday, I'm gonna have to tell my kindergarten class,
whom I teach not to run with scissors,
that my fiance ran me through with a broadsword." -- Lily
Fred Smith
2013-07-17 16:40:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Hennebry
Post by lee
Post by Michael Hennebry
Having precisely one computer meant that I couldn't
look for on-line help while doing an install.
You can always boot that and look for help even while installing. If
something went wrong, you can reboot the life system and use it to find
more help.
What does "life systems" mean in this context?
googling mostly got me proper nouns.
liVe, not liFe
Post by Michael Hennebry
--
Michael hennebry at web.cs.ndsu.NoDak.edu
"On Monday, I'm gonna have to tell my kindergarten class,
whom I teach not to run with scissors,
that my fiance ran me through with a broadsword." -- Lily
--
users mailing list
users at lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
--
---- Fred Smith -- fredex at fcshome.stoneham.ma.us -----------------------------
"For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged
sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow;
it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart."
---------------------------- Hebrews 4:12 (niv) ------------------------------
Reindl Harald
2013-07-14 01:40:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Hennebry
From what I've been reading, CentOS isn't upgradeable at all. If that's
true, I'm surprised you're using it.
the idea behind a LTS distribution is that you have *10 years*
update-support and stay on exatcly the software versions
which was shipped as you installed it meaning *no* updates
with incompatible changes at all

the point is:
* you get security updates over the whole life-cycle
* you use it if you do not need new features over the lifecycle
* security fixes are backported to the shipped version
* so you have simply *no need* to upgrade

CentOS is a 1:1 RHEL clone
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux#Life-cycle_dates
_________________________________________

so, and on a Fedora installation after one year the support
ends, you will never see any security update after that

you can hardly compare a bleding edge distribution and CentOS

* two differnet usecases
* two different worlds

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 263 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20130714/e24156c8/attachment.sig>
Reindl Harald
2013-07-12 19:48:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Smith
Why should one upgrade Fedora whenever a new version is released? What
are the main reasons?
because after F19 is released a month later F17 is EOL and
get no security updates and no support and the same for F19
after F20 is released

if you do not want this use a LTS distribution

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 263 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20130712/329be2d7/attachment.sig>
Ranjan Maitra
2013-07-14 00:11:31 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 21:48:40 +0200 Reindl Harald
Post by Reindl Harald
Post by Paul Smith
Why should one upgrade Fedora whenever a new version is released? What
are the main reasons?
because after F19 is released a month later F17 is EOL and
get no security updates and no support and the same for F19
after F20 is released
if you do not want this use a LTS distribution
And frankly, I do not understand these horror stories. Maybe I have
been lucky, but ever since the LiveCD's came out (F8-9 or so?) and we
moved to USB, installs are like a couple of minutes.

Unfortunately, however, the new Anaconda has delayed the point of
getting there (to installation) by quite a bit.

There is always a chance that something will break, but since the
software is by and large backwards compatible, there is greater
likelihood of more features/hardware working.

Ranjan

____________________________________________________________
Receive Notifications of Incoming Messages
Easily monitor multiple email accounts & access them with a click.
Visit http://www.inbox.com/notifier and check it out!
Reindl Harald
2013-07-14 00:30:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ranjan Maitra
On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 21:48:40 +0200 Reindl Harald
Post by Reindl Harald
Post by Paul Smith
Why should one upgrade Fedora whenever a new version is released? What
are the main reasons?
because after F19 is released a month later F17 is EOL and
get no security updates and no support and the same for F19
after F20 is released
if you do not want this use a LTS distribution
And frankly, I do not understand these horror stories.
which horror stories?

* that F17 is EOL end of this month?
* that F18 will be EOL a month after F20 is released?
* that every week new exploits for every sort of software
are coming out? well, subscribe at securityfocus.com
and then say again "horror stories" in case of using
unmaintained systems connected to the web

this and nothing else is the answer of the question in the subject
and if you do not want to make at least once a year a dist-upgrade
you chosed the wrong distributiin - there is nothing between
Post by Ranjan Maitra
Maybe I have been lucky, but ever since the LiveCD's came out
(F8-9 or so?) and we moved to USB, installs are like a couple of minutes.
no idea how this is related to my answer or the topic
frankly i make fedora dist-upgrades on a routine basis
all the year and most of my systems are upgraded from
F9 to F18 with yum
Post by Ranjan Maitra
Unfortunately, however, the new Anaconda has delayed the point of
getting there (to installation) by quite a bit.
luckily i do not see Anaconda that often

once a machine is installed it is upgraded twice a year
and in case of new hardware the RAID disks are moved to
the new one or virtual sevvers are migrated online

but taht's all completly off-topic

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 263 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20130714/bef7f2d1/attachment.sig>
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...