Tim wrote:
>> What is it about a reinstall that is so hard that it makes putting
>> up with a desktop you find quite lacking for months?
>
> I still have one system running FC4, because it's a major pain to
> update.
I'm more likely to buy that for some heavy duty production system
serving many users. For a small home network, I don't.
> It's got lots of files, and that'd involve masses of backing up
> before attempting it, not to mention getting a new mail server,
> etc., up and running on the new system, and not losing any of the
> old mail. That's the sort of thing I just don't like to have to do.
If a system is that important, wouldn't you already have backups as
well as know what files were important? I think it's only prudent to
do so.
Further, in the case of the OP, the system clearly sounded like a
plain desktop box. That is most certainly something you can reinstall
in an hour or two, tops.
> As far as I'm concerned, there's only two easy ways to upgrade, and I
> don't have the spare cash for either. Other things are far more
> important.
>
> 1. Buy a new hard drive, install the new system onto that. Connect the
> old drive, and copy across what you need.
>
> 2. Or, buy a new computer, install onto that. Connect the old system,
> and copy across what you need.
I can think of others. Currently, I'm enjoying puppet for automating
and defining what systems should look like. That might be overkill
for a small home network (which is where I'm using it), but it's very
valuable knowledge (and it's fun too
.
With puppet, I have a central location where I can define:
* packages installed on (or absent from) the system
* services to enable and disable
* config files needed to make things work the way I want
* users and groups to be created
* cron jobs
* mount points
* other little details I'm forgetting
Then I can just do a generic install, add puppet, and tell it to ask
the puppet master to configure it. Like magic, the system checks in
with the puppet master and transforms itself into just what I want.
A nice thing about this is that I can keep all of the puppet
configuration in a version control system and pull the config from that
to any box I want to make the puppet master.
An alternative (or augmentation) to this that has worked fairly well
for my personal desktop is to keep all of my home dir in version
control. When I install a new box one of the first things I do is
pull my configuration to the new box. That handles all of my little
bin scripts, config files, keys, and such.
(Admittedly, this may work better for me than some others because I
use a lot more text apps with simple config files that others do. But
I do make use of gconftool-2 to import and export some settings to and
from gconf.)
Also, on my desktop system which I update regularly, I typically have
a large data partition, and two smaller (~10Gb) partitions for
installing the OS. So right now I have F-8 and F-9. When F-10 comes
out, I'll install that over the F-10 partition. That way I can always
boot back to the previous version if there are some kinks in the new
version that I can't work out right away.
> To update a working system that you depend on really requires
> backups, working out what you need to keep between new and old
> systems, patience, and plenty of spare time to sort out everything
> that goes wrong or needs tinkering with.
I agree completely. I also think that if you depend on a system that
much, you need to do these things already. And once you do, it makes
upgrading them much easier.
> And can involve a prolonged period, post update, of restoring a pile
> of things that's still only on the backup (gpg keys, other server
> customisations, old cruft you kept but thought you didn't really
> need again, etc.).
Puppet and git handle that with relative ease for me. Puppet
especially. If I install a new system and find that I'm missing some
package I really need, I don't just yum install it and then forget
about it until the next install (which might be a few years on a
server). Instead, I add it to puppet and then it will be installed on
the current box as well as on the next install I do.
You could even do something similar with kickstart, for the install
part.
Basically, my thinking is that you have either a highly customized
system in which case you should have good backups and a handle on what
files matter to you or you have a relatively generic desktop that
doesn't have much customization to it. In either case, I don't see it
taking that much effort to upgrade it. Certainly not months, and
definitely not in the case where you find your current system painful
to use as the OP seemed to feel. ;-)
--
Todd OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There is no pleasure in having nothing to do; the fun is in having
lots to do and not doing it.
-- Mary Wilson Little
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
KDE 4.0 desktop... can I... back to KDE 3.5.9 ?
