| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
No thanksNo thanksPosted Mar 15, 2005 21:12 UTC (Tue) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167)In reply to: Try Ubuntu Hoary instead by b7j0c Parent article: Announcing Fedora Core 4 test1
You don't need to buy or burn these Fedora images, you can use them directly (if it's a fresh install you need to burn the first image, or use a floppy in order to boot Linux). Both Red Hat and Fedora will install or upgrade from NFS, HTTP or FTP images, local hard disk images, local RPMs, etc. using the ordinary graphical installer.
It's hard to imagine how "switch distros and re-install everything" could possibly beat the clean upgrade paths for 10 years or so of Red Hat and Fedora... I guess if you screw up your system every few months you get to try all these distros out, but I've never had that problem.
(Log in to post comments)
No thanks Posted Mar 15, 2005 23:45 UTC (Tue) by NightMonkey (subscriber, #23051) [Link] To my memory, with the pre-Fedora Red Hat, upgrading was great if you didn't do anything outside what RedHat thought the "average user" would do. But, more often than not, you'd get a broken mess when "upgrading". I found that re-install was the better option for production systems.
No thanks Posted Mar 16, 2005 2:23 UTC (Wed) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] I upgraded several Red Hat machines (particularly our servers) over the years without too much trouble. Most problems were due to partitions that were too small for the new packages, or messed up packages (stuff installed over packages from sources, things moved to strange places, ...)
No thanks Posted Mar 16, 2005 4:15 UTC (Wed) by loening (guest, #174) [Link] I've got a box that's gone Redhat 8 -> Fedora Core 2 -> Fedora Core 3 that I haven't physically seen since it was running Redhat 8. I don't recall ever having to fix anything because of the upgrade process. And it runs a web server and samba, so it's more than just a token box. Upgrading with yum definitely does the job.
|
|
||||||||||||