Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 11:13:24 -0400 From: Jim Ohlstein <jim@ohlste.in> To: Damien Fleuriot <ml@my.gd> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why Are You Using FreeBSD? Message-ID: <4FC78A94.8070008@ohlste.in> In-Reply-To: <4FC77EAD.1090900@my.gd> References: <C480320C-0CD9-4B61-8AFB-37085C820AB7@FreeBSD.org> <4FC779C0.7020801@ohlste.in> <4FC77EAD.1090900@my.gd>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 5/31/12 10:22 AM, Damien Fleuriot wrote: > On 5/31/12 4:01 PM, Jim Ohlstein wrote: >> To add others, in no particular order: >> >> Ease of upgrade. While some have noted that binary upgrades are easier >> on Debian, it's far and away superior, IMMHO, to have a locally compiled >> system. Many Linux distros have no upgrade path short of a wipe and >> re-install. >> > > Far superior, check, FAR MORE TIME CONSUMING, check as well ! No need to yell. Good things take time. That's life. The thing that takes the most time is building world. My boxes stay online during that time, and I am usually doing other things, so who cares if it takes an hour or so? I only take the system offline after I've installed the new kernel. I boot into single user mode, install world and reboot. Cleaning up configuration files takes a few minutes, then I'm good to go. While I do rebuild all ports, I have only had *one* occasion where a binary built on an older system croaked on a new kernel. I have about 500 ports installed so maybe that's not that many. I upgrade my systems once or twice a year. It's not really a lot of time for me. Linux distros all certainly require a reboot for a new kernel and some likely require editing of config files. So where is the "far more time consuming"? In the compiling? Sorry, but I'm not one to sit and watch the lines go by on the terminal. I have better things to do and I do them. If the compilation hits a snag I'd find out why, fix it, and run it again. > > > Also, I don't get your "linux distros have no upgrade path short of a > full reinstall" bit ? Here's one. From http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/MigrationGuide : "The actions described in this article can damage existing filesystems and operating systems if not done carefully, or even if followed exactly. Please experiment first on a test box, and only proceed after creating current and tested backups if you value your data. Never blindly copy/paste commands, particularly as root, without a thorough understanding of their effects. An attempt to upgrade CentOS-5 to CentOS-6 with *upgradeany* resulted in a non-functional system." [snip] A fresh install is generally *strongly* preferred over an upgrade. [snip] "Remember - A fresh install is generally *strongly* preferred over an upgrade." [yes, they said it twice] [snip] "Upgrades from systems other than the latest CentOS (WhiteBox, RHEL, TaoLinux, ...) may be possible but will also require more work cleaning up afterwards. Consider migrating to the corresponding CentOS release before upgrading." Sounds like an onerous and potentially dangerous process, and not recommended. You can do it if you want. I wouldn't. That's what I mean. The recommended way to upgrade RHEL based systems is with a fresh install. Maybe "no upgrade path" should have been "only a dangerous and not advised upgrade path". Does that make you feel better? I didn't research other distros, but I'd guess there are at least a few with similar advisories. I'm not going to argue this as it can become an almost religious matter for some and a lightning rod for trolls. I'll leave it at that. Peace... out. -- Jim Ohlstein
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4FC78A94.8070008>