Edgy in the news
geekboy at angrykeyboarder.com
Mon Oct 30 06:24:32 GMT 2006
<posted and mailed>
Constantine Evans spake thusly on 10/29/2006 04:00 PM:
> m c wrote:
>> * Using apt-get dist-upgrade rather than upgrade-manager
>> - Could this be reduced by emphaising on the release notes, on
>> ubuntu.com and in the support channels, the correct way to upgrade?
>> - Could apt be patched to give clearer warnings that dist upgrading
>> could break your system, and recommend that the user run upgrade
>> manager instead. In fact, just run update-manager when the user tries
>> this, whilst siulanousy taking their pony away from them
> I don't use update-manager because I prefer doing such things with a
> CLI. Running update-manager instead of dist-upgrade when the user wants
> to run dist-upgrade would be completely inappropriate. How do you even
> know that the user is in X? How do you know that they have X installed?
I've never done an upgrade. I always do fresh installs. With that said,
it's absolutely aabsurd for users to be officially discouraged from
"apt-get dist-upgrade". Ubuntu *is* Debian based and that's pretty
standard stuff. It's not unorthodox by any means. Frankly I'm more
paranoid about using the updater for upgrades.
> I'd rather not have Ubuntu *force* any user to do anything, especially
> something that requires X.
Well I don't see how they could *force* anybody to do anything. They
just won't help you out if you do things they way they weren't meant (by
the Ubuntu devs) to be done.
With that said, I'm infamous for arguing with devs. ;-)
> Warnings about Automatix would probably offend quite a few people.
I've heard so much about that program being garbage (unlike EasyUbuntu)
that I've never even looked at it. It's not from an Ubuntu developer.
It's not in the Ubuntu archive. Why shouldn't Ubuntu discourage people
from using it?
>> Perhaps there needs to be a greater emphasis on widespread and
>> systematic testing of upgrades rather than the large number of
>> variants of CD installs in the release crunch, including from
>> non-standard, user abused systems
> I'm not sure why non-standard systems should be considered "abused".
> Many users have good reasons for having non-standard systems. I
> installed Ubuntu using debootstrap, and I'd rather not be admonished for
> doing so.
And if your system works and you've not had problems, then fine. But
Ubuntu doesn't support that method of install. If you had problems and
complained that would be another story. Why should they help you out
when you didn't install the way they intended for you to? It's not like
you're paying for support.
© 2006 angrykeyboarder™ & Elmer Fudd. All Wights Wesewved
More information about the sounder