Robin Laing wrote:
> On 03/15/2010 02:33 PM, Antonio Olivares wrote:
>> Dear fellow Fedora users,
>>
>> At distrowatch there is some discussion whether Fedora would become a
>> "Rolling Release" like Arch. See:
>>
>> http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20100315
>>
>> http://www.desktoplinux.co
On 03/24/2010 07:46 PM, Jerry Feldman wrote:
> One of the things
> that Ubuntu brings to the table is a timely notification that the new
> release is available as a popup notification on the routine update. I
> don't recall if a similar one is in Fedora 12.
Yes, there is, via PackageKit.
Rahul
-
On 03/24/2010 04:34 AM, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 06:49:43 + (UTC)
> Thufir wrote:
>
>
>> On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 13:56:08 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
>>
>>
I guess what I am saying is there needs to be a way for the new user to
keep their machine updated without all t
On 03/23/2010 05:27 PM, Rick Stevens wrote:
> Which is another reason to back up your system. REGULARLY! If the
> defecation hits the impeller, you can restore.
>
I love your analogy but fully agree. Today, with low cost drives, a
regular backup is always a good alternative. We can debate wher
On 03/24/2010 01:54 PM, Konstantin Svist wrote:
> KDE 3.5 -> 4 upgrade annoyed me to no end because KDE4 wasn't ready for
> prime time. The current version is pretty nice, but I've switched to XFCE.
>
> But that doesn't mean that all change is bad. For instance, upstart
> integration has been way b
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 06:49:43 + (UTC)
Thufir wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 13:56:08 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
>
> >> I guess what I am saying is there needs to be a way for the new user to
> >> keep their machine updated without all the headaches. This is why some
> >> will stick with Window
On 03/24/2010 01:00 AM, Tim wrote:
> The churn (change/turn) being the constant turning over, from one thing
> to another, whatever it was, and however you did it. Upgrade or
> re-install, it's still churning. The more annoying aspect of churn is
> how rapidly you had to go through it.
>
KDE
On 03/24/2010 12:32 AM, Thufir wrote:
> >From the post I was responding to, though, I infer that one cannot
> upgrade without re-installing (at least, reliably). I'll have to check
>
You can upgrade, and I've heard people claim that it works smoothly.
So far I've upgraded several times using
On Wed, 2010-03-24 at 07:32 +, Thufir wrote:
> From the post I was responding to, though, I infer that one cannot
> upgrade without re-installing (at least, reliably). I'll have to
> check the documentation. Wasn't that the "churn"?
The churn (change/turn) being the constant turning over, f
On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 23:59:24 -0700, Konstantin Svist wrote:
> On 03/23/2010 11:49 PM, Thufir wrote:
>> Exactly why I no longer run FC. The sole reason I use ubuntu is that
>> you can upgrade without re-installing. Why hasn't this been
>> implemented in FC yet?
>>
>>
> Probably because Fed
On 03/24/2010 12:29 PM, Konstantin Svist wrote:
> On 03/23/2010 11:49 PM, Thufir wrote:
>
>> Exactly why I no longer run FC. The sole reason I use ubuntu is that you
>> can upgrade without re-installing. Why hasn't this been implemented in
>> FC yet?
>>
>>
> Probably because Fedora Cor
On 03/23/2010 11:49 PM, Thufir wrote:
> Exactly why I no longer run FC. The sole reason I use ubuntu is that you
> can upgrade without re-installing. Why hasn't this been implemented in
> FC yet?
>
Probably because Fedora Core isn't maintained anymore ;)
--
users mailing list
users@list
On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 13:56:08 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
>> I guess what I am saying is there needs to be a way for the new user to
>> keep their machine updated without all the headaches. This is why some
>> will stick with Windows. Only needs to be re-installed every year.
>> And you have to
On Tuesday 23 March 2010, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>On 03/24/2010 02:57 AM, Rick Stevens wrote:
>> Provided the /boot partition was big enough, yes. The default disk
>> partitioning left the /boot partition just a tad too small for many
>> people to use yum to upgrade.
>
>That's not the case anymore.
On 03/24/2010 02:57 AM, Rick Stevens wrote:
>
> Provided the /boot partition was big enough, yes. The default disk
> partitioning left the /boot partition just a tad too small for many
> people to use yum to upgrade.
>
That's not the case anymore. The new default for /boot in Fedora 13
will b
On 03/23/2010 03:11 PM, Greg Woods wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-03-23 at 14:27 -0700, Rick Stevens wrote:
>
>> Provided the /boot partition was big enough, yes. The default disk
>> partitioning left the /boot partition just a tad too small for many
>> people to use yum to upgrade.
>
> I didn't use yum, I
On Tue, 2010-03-23 at 14:27 -0700, Rick Stevens wrote:
> Provided the /boot partition was big enough, yes. The default disk
> partitioning left the /boot partition just a tad too small for many
> people to use yum to upgrade.
I didn't use yum, I booted off the new DVD and did an upgrade from
the
On 03/23/2010 01:25 PM, Greg Woods wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-03-23 at 13:56 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
>
>> This is perhaps better accomplished by using a separate partition
>> for your data and system. IOW, perhaps you should put /home, and
>> perhaps /usr/local and /opt, on separate partitions. This
Greg Woods wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-03-23 at 13:56 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
>
>> This is perhaps better accomplished by using a separate partition
>> for your data and system. IOW, perhaps you should put /home, and
[...]
> That's not quite as easy as it sounds, because when you log in to a new
>
On Tue, 2010-03-23 at 13:56 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
> This is perhaps better accomplished by using a separate partition
> for your data and system. IOW, perhaps you should put /home, and
> perhaps /usr/local and /opt, on separate partitions. This is a good
> idea, anyway, because then if you ha
Robin Laing wrote:
> I would like the option to rolling release or upgrade. I say this
> because of my family. My wife is not with the install and I have to
> think of her. My daughter installed F12 herself on a new laptop.
>
> My wife was running FC7 until I re-installed to F12 but moving to
On 03/15/2010 02:33 PM, Antonio Olivares wrote:
> Dear fellow Fedora users,
>
> At distrowatch there is some discussion whether Fedora would become a
> "Rolling Release" like Arch. See:
>
> http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20100315
>
> http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS8716234495.html
>
>
Antonio Olivares wrote:
> Dear fellow Fedora users,
>
> At distrowatch there is some discussion whether Fedora would become a
> "Rolling Release" like Arch. See:
>
> http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20100315
>
> http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS8716234495.html
>
> Also Fedora has thi
On 03/19/2010 02:04 PM, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
>
> But if that capability is being provided by some other rpm (under a
> different name), the rpm update could replace this one with the new
> one. For a while, the new could work with the old command, with a
> notice/warning to change your habits, and
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 16:43:44 -0400 Tom Horsley
wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 14:37:25 -0600
> Mike McCarty wrote:
>
> > It has a major disadvantage to the support team, of not being
> > able to "retire" a release from support.
>
> And how does someone describe their software that currently
> say
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 14:37:25 -0600
Mike McCarty wrote:
> It has a major disadvantage to the support team, of not being
> able to "retire" a release from support.
And how does someone describe their software that currently
says something like "Works on fedora 12 or later"? :-).
Maybe "Works on fe
Ranjan Maitra wrote:
> Dear friends,
>
> This is indeed an interesting topic and I am not completely sure which
> side I am on. Perhaps a hybrid but more on the side of the rolling
> release model after thinking about it for the reasons listed below.
>
> A rolling release has the advantage that
On 17 March 2010 13:35, Cris Rhea wrote:
> Recently, I rebooted two servers that had 20 days shy of 3 years
> of uptime:
>
> 10:37:30 up 1075 days, 16:48, 1 user, load average: 0.33, 0.30, 0.33
>
> While interesting in the "uptime game", it really struck me that
> we have finally achieved the
> On 3/17/10, Konstantin Svist wrote:
> > On 03/16/2010 01:41 PM, Mike McCarty wrote:
> >> How times have changed. It used to be that *NIX supporters put
> >> the output from uptime in their e-mails, some of which were
> >> years. It was a symbol of how stable the releases were, and
> >> how stabl
On 3/17/10, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
> On Wednesday 17 March 2010 09:00:55 am Andras Simon wrote:
>> [si...@localhost tmp]$ uptime
>> 09:55:55 up 87 days, 22:58, 6 users, load average: 0.41, 0.39, 0.30
>>
>> This is on an eee pc that is pm-suspended when not in use.
>
> How about the output of "
On Wednesday 17 March 2010 09:00:55 am Andras Simon wrote:
> On 3/17/10, Konstantin Svist wrote:
> > On 03/16/2010 01:41 PM, Mike McCarty wrote:
> >> How times have changed. It used to be that *NIX supporters put
> >> the output from uptime in their e-mails, some of which were
> >> years. It was a
On 3/17/10, Hiisi wrote:
> 2010/3/17 Andras Simon :
>> On 3/17/10, Hiisi wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> --remove-with-leaves is dangerous option. It can erase a half of your
>>> system. Be careful when using it!
>>
>> I hope it asks for confirmation.
>
> yum does. So, never use it with -y!
I wouldn't dare to
2010/3/17 Andras Simon :
> On 3/17/10, Hiisi wrote:
>
>>
>> --remove-with-leaves is dangerous option. It can erase a half of your
>> system. Be careful when using it!
>
> I hope it asks for confirmation.
yum does. So, never use it with -y!
>
> Andras
--
Hiisi.
Registered Linux User #487982. Be
On 3/17/10, Hiisi wrote:
>
> --remove-with-leaves is dangerous option. It can erase a half of your
> system. Be careful when using it!
I hope it asks for confirmation.
Andras
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedora
On Tue, 2010-03-16 at 14:41 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
> It used to be that *NIX supporters put the output from uptime in their
> e-mails, some of which were years.
I used to do that, though the maximum was about 3 months. Usually not
because the computer crashed, or needed rebooting, but I used
2010/3/17 Andras Simon :
> On 3/17/10, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
>
>>
>> There is one benefit (to me) to do an upgrade. That is because I often
>> add rpms to check things out and these bring in all dependencies. Even
<--SNIP-->>> containing binaries, none of which have been used for the
past (let us
>
On 3/17/10, Konstantin Svist wrote:
> On 03/16/2010 01:41 PM, Mike McCarty wrote:
>> How times have changed. It used to be that *NIX supporters put
>> the output from uptime in their e-mails, some of which were
>> years. It was a symbol of how stable the releases were, and
>> how stable the machin
On 3/17/10, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
>
> There is one benefit (to me) to do an upgrade. That is because I often
> add rpms to check things out and these bring in all dependencies. Even
> if I remove these other rpms, I can not often keep track of all the
> dependencies that have come in (and are not
Dear friends,
This is indeed an interesting topic and I am not completely sure which
side I am on. Perhaps a hybrid but more on the side of the rolling
release model after thinking about it for the reasons listed below.
A rolling release has the advantage that once I set up someone who is
not th
On 03/16/2010 01:41 PM, Mike McCarty wrote:
> How times have changed. It used to be that *NIX supporters put
> the output from uptime in their e-mails, some of which were
> years. It was a symbol of how stable the releases were, and
> how stable the machines running them were.
>
> Now people "look
John Austin wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-03-15 at 13:51 -0700, Konstantin Svist wrote:
>> On 03/15/2010 01:33 PM, Antonio Olivares wrote:
>
> I look forward to a clean start every six months
How times have changed. It used to be that *NIX supporters put
the output from uptime in their e-mails, some of w
> > > I look forward to a clean start every six months
>
> > > 20 minute install - pleasure getting it back to
> how I like it !!
>
> > >
>
> > > John
>
> > Obviously you don't use your machine for anything
> resembling work.
>
> > I tend to wait for up to half a year past the new
> release fo
On 16 March 2010 16:59, John Austin wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-03-16 at 08:58 -0700, Konstantin Svist wrote:
> > On 03/16/2010 02:37 AM, John Austin wrote:
> > > I look forward to a clean start every six months
> > > 20 minute install - pleasure getting it back to how I like it !!
> > >
> > > John
> >
On Tue, 2010-03-16 at 08:58 -0700, Konstantin Svist wrote:
> On 03/16/2010 02:37 AM, John Austin wrote:
> > I look forward to a clean start every six months
> > 20 minute install - pleasure getting it back to how I like it !!
> >
> > John
> >
> >
>
> Obviously you don't use your machine for any
On 03/16/2010 02:37 AM, John Austin wrote:
> I look forward to a clean start every six months
> 20 minute install - pleasure getting it back to how I like it !!
>
> John
>
>
Obviously you don't use your machine for anything resembling work.
I tend to wait for up to half a year past the new rele
Am Dienstag, den 16.03.2010, 09:37 + schrieb John Austin:
> On Mon, 2010-03-15 at 13:51 -0700, Konstantin Svist wrote:
> > On 03/15/2010 01:33 PM, Antonio Olivares wrote:
> > > Would Fedora users accept a rolling release model? IT would be nice to
> > > setup an internet poll to see what many
On Mon, 2010-03-15 at 13:51 -0700, Konstantin Svist wrote:
> On 03/15/2010 01:33 PM, Antonio Olivares wrote:
> > Would Fedora users accept a rolling release model? IT would be nice to
> > setup an internet poll to see what many Fedora users have to say?
> >
>
> I would love a "rolling rel
On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 13:51:59 -0700
Konstantin Svist wrote:
> On 03/15/2010 01:33 PM, Antonio Olivares wrote:
> > Would Fedora users accept a rolling release model? IT would be
> > nice to setup an internet poll to see what many Fedora users have
> > to say?
>
> I would love a "rolling release"
On 15 March 2010 20:51, Konstantin Svist wrote:
> On 03/15/2010 01:33 PM, Antonio Olivares wrote:
> > Would Fedora users accept a rolling release model? IT would be nice to
> setup an internet poll to see what many Fedora users have to say?
> >
>
> I would love a "rolling release" versionless sy
On 03/15/2010 01:33 PM, Antonio Olivares wrote:
> Would Fedora users accept a rolling release model? IT would be nice to setup
> an internet poll to see what many Fedora users have to say?
>
I would love a "rolling release" versionless system! The full-system
upgrades are never fun.
--
50 matches
Mail list logo
