On Sunday 15 June 2008 10:42, ziklag wrote:
> On Saturday 14 June 2008, Rikard Johnels wrote:
> > On Saturday 14 June 2008 18:21, ziklag wrote:
> > > I guess that I'm having trouble saying anything nice about Linux
> > > lately. It seems like each rev. gets worse. I just "upgraded" (sic)
> > > to FC9. What a kludge! Now here's an ALPHA quality product:
> >
> > ...Lots of ranting cut....
> >
> > > So frustrated with Linux.
> >
> > So stop using it???
> > If it bugs you so badly, why stay around using it???
> >
> > I for my side have been around since the RH Mothers day release. +0.1
> > (somewhere late 1995)
(snippage for bandwidth)
> >
> > I myself tend to wait a while for the "bleeding edge guys" to comment on
> > all the strangeness and new features provided in a new release, and then
> > make a assessment on wether to upgrade or wait.
> > And i go by the parole, "If it works to your needs and is to your liking,
> > stay with it!"
> > There is no need to have the latest just cause its availale.
>
> When your system is unstable, then 'yes', there usually is a need to
> try the latest software.
>
> > Sure, if there is things that yet doesnt work in your particular release,
> > you might want to try the newer one.
> > But whenever i do that i use a "scrap disc" to make a new evaluation
> > install to test the system before i use it "live".
> > I never "just upgrade and hope for the best."
> > If i like it, and it fixes what didnt work. Fine!
> > If it doesnt, and my old setup is working as wanted, i'll stick to that,
> > and wait for a fix later on.
>
> Back in the day, used to be able to afford a whole computer test lab.
> Now, I consider it extravagent to have an XP box (for downloading
> music and burning music CDs (linux can't do this on my machine.)),
> my old BeOS R5 for playing music (SoundPlay rocks), and my "high-end"
> Linux AMD-64 system. I don't have spare disk space to test it out
> first.
You've got a 'high-end' AMD64 machine and you *don't have spare disk space?*
You didn't think to format your hard drive into several partitions? You
only need say 5GB for a full install (so long as you keep your own data on a
different partition, which is always a good idea), and since you can't buy a
hard drive with less than 80GB these days (or has it gone up by now?), you
should be able to spare room for at least a couple of partitions for the OS.
Heck, you could buy a whole new hard drive for half what Windoze Vista would
cost you.
One of the great things about Linux is that (unlike many Windoze flavours) it
doesn't demand to run from Partition 0 of Drive 0. Nor does it try to screw
you if you install several copies of itself.
I do just what Rikard Johnels (above) does for upgrades, and it's easy and
fairly bomb-proof.
But all this is OT on a KDE list, I think.
cr
... AMD-64 running Debian Etch 32-bit, and trying Debian Etch 64-bit, oh and
Damn Small Linux, and anything else I feel like trying, they all boot happily
with Grub. Used to run Win98 as well (on Partition 0 of Drive 0) till the
drive died of old age and I couldn't be bothered reinstalling it.
___________________________________________________
This message is from the kde mailing list.
Account management: https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde.
Archives: http://lists.kde.org/.
More info: http://www.kde.org/faq.html.
