Reindl Harald <h.reindl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Am 08.07.2013 22:10, schrieb lee: >> Reindl Harald <h.reindl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> Am 08.07.2013 20:19, schrieb lee: >>> >>> it is easy to setup a virtual machine with any for your >>> wokrload critical software configured 1:1 like on the >>> working system and test things out >> >> A VM is very different from the computer for which an upgrade is >> pending. Testing in a VM might be helpful and can yield very different >> results, so it doesn't give you anything more than an indication. > > no it is not in case of test if configurations of > the used software are still working or needs major > changes and prepare for them And it does only that, and still limited because the software being tested is running under different conditions. >> Besides, I don't find it easy at all to set one up because the >> networking part is extremely difficult. > > using VMware Workstation it is trivial to > get a VM running in it's own NAT network > > works out of the box And it costs EUR 193.5.[1] Do you have to buy updates, too? Can you convert an existing system as is into a VM with it? What is the performance impact with OpenGL apps? [1]: http://store.vmware.com/store?Action=DisplayPage&Locale=de_DE&SiteID=vmwde&id=ProductDetailsPage&productID=166452200 >> Even with that solved, how would I clone the system that needs to >> be upgraded 1:1 into a VM? I don't even have the disk space for that. > > you need not to clone the whole machine > you only need to install the same packages and > copy your configurations 1:1 in the VM > >> You're really going to extreme lengths to be able to upgrade Fedora. Do >> you seriously think all users need to run their systems in VMs and have >> two (mostly) identical computers around so they can upgrade? I guess >> not everybody wants this, and not everybody has the means to do this. > > i did major Fedora upgrades often and long enough > on my primary working machine - VM's are only a > way to test things easily and get expierience > without the danger to ruin your working system Do you realise that you live in a world most users of Fedora and most users of computers in general probably don't live in? With all the means you have at your disposal and plenty time you even get payed for to mess around with computers, I can see how it becomes easy to upgrade Fedora. What would you do if you had only one computer with all your data on it you don't want to lose and which you need to keep running on your own time and your own expense? You'd be in a totally different world and might see things differently. >>> finally it is a matter of expierience, playing around, testing >>> and learning, yes it takes time but i never re-installed any >>> fedora setup since FC3 and you can be sure i damaged a lot >>> in my beginning days >> >> Yeah I just need something where at least basic things like upgrades >> work. > > if you try to understand how all the pieces of a distribution > are working together you would realize that a dist-upgrade > is not that "basic thing" It was always easy to do with Debian, and it's a basic thing that needs to work. It doesn't matter how complicated it may actually be, it's still basic functionality. An operating system that cannot be kept up to date is useless. > - did you ever sucessful upgrade a windows from XP to Win7? I never tried. I remember someone who updated his windoze 95 to 98, but I can't tell if that was successful because either of them always have been too broken to begin with and windoze messes itself up over time so you have to reinstall it anyway. So I guess "successful upgrade" is not applicable here. Since it's useless to begin with, the question whether it can be upgraded or not has never been relevant to me. > i did sucessfull upgrade 20 very important Fedora machines > from F9 to F18 with each step between and major changes like > systemd and UsrMove - show another OS where you can manage > this in any way You could with Debian until they messed up with their brokenarch. Perhaps you still can, but they probably never fixed the issues they created. That you probably couldn't was the reason for me to switch to Fedora after about 15 years of Debian being reliable. Show me another OS that has proven to be reliable for over 15 years. >>> there is no "this is the reference dokumentation" >>> it is a matter of learn how the basic things like initramfs, bootloader >>> and so on are working, >> >> Do they finally have good documentation for grub? > > i do not bother > backups and snapshots are my friends Lol, you contradict yourself then. >> Well, nobody is paying me to keep my computer running and up to date; >> I'm the one paying for it. It's good for you to stick with something >> inherently unreliable and unpredictable because otherwise you might lose >> your job. It's bad for me because I would only be wasting my time and >> money, and I might lose my data. > > understand that it is *not* unreliable and unpredictable if > you are investing the time to learn and prepare > > if you want not invest the time you are out of luck Time is only one factor. You have clearly shown that you have means at your disposal with which I can see that it can be easy to upgrade Fedora. Unfortunately, I don't have these means and I'm not being payed for my time. Reconfigure your advice according to the available means, and then let's see how you upgrade Fedora and how easy that turns out to be. >> Your conclusion would have to be that Fedora can only reasonably be used >> in a professional environment like you have at your disposal and that it >> is totally unsuited for what they say that their user base is. > > do they? Yes, see [2]. When you look at one of the descriptions of the kind of users they are assuming on [3], you will find that they consider "Stability" as the first reason for their "voluntary Linux consumer" to use Linux. They also mention "Availability of high-quality software"[3]. Now look at [4] where they explicitly state that they do *not* assume that a user "Understands operating system internals" or "Knows how programs and libraries are related or interact", which is what you suggest as required to be able to upgrade Fedora. You can read for yourself, I don't see much point in going on like this. You are saying that it is easy and trouble free to upgrade Fedora when you have (kinda) unlimited amounts of time, when you can be considered an expert in the internal workings of Fedora or have the time to become one, when you have many computers at your disposal, when you have software like VMware to be able to easily set up and clone VMs to try things out. Sure, under such "ideal" circumstances it may be easy. Can you show how that fits in with what Fedora considers to be their user base? Can you show how the kind of user they assume to have is supposed to reliably --- and remember "Stability" and "high-quality software" --- upgrade Fedora? Considering what they say and considering my upgrade and now update experience, I can only say that Fedora is a total failure in that regard. [2]: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User_base [3]: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User_base_-_voluntary_Linux_consumer [4]: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User_base_-_computer-friendly > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Foundations > > Our rapid release cycle is a major enabling factor in our ability to > innovate. We recognize that there is also a place for long-term > stability in the Linux ecosystem, and that there are a variety of > community-oriented and business-oriented Linux distributions available > to serve that need. However, the Fedora Project's goal of advancing > free software dictates that the Fedora Project itself pursue a > strategy that preserves the forward momentum of our technical, > collateral, and community-building progress. Fedora always aims to > provide the future, first. Are you trying to show that when I'm looking for reliability, I should not use Fedora because it is more important to them to "provide the future" than to provide a reliable distribution? Or are you trying to show that this statement contradicts what they assume as their user base? I'm wondering what your reasoning is behind using Fedora for production systems for which reliability is usually an important criteria. Do these systems really need to have "the future" built-in to be up to their purpose, neglecting reliability? You must have made some decision about that, with good reason, and I'm curious. And I need to ask: What's the most reliable Linux distribution which is sufficiently up to date? -- "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 -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
