Upgrading from Lucid to Maverick: Fresh, new Install vs Upgrade using Update Manager

[Basil Chupin]

On 12/01/2010 03:31 AM, Alan Pope wrote:
> On 30 November 2010 07:34, Basil Chupin <blchupin at iinet.net.au> wrote:
>   
>> The Upgrade Manager 'suggested' to me that it would take 105 minutes to
>> download the upgrade files (at which point I went shopping after I
>> answered "Go Ahead") and after this downloading finished it "told" me
>> that it would take 90 minutes to process the new files, except that at
>> the 45 minute mark the whole bloody sheebang stopped because the stoopid
>> upgrade system was waiting for me answer "Yes" to the question if I
>> accepted the EULA re the ttf mscorefonts -- and there was NO way I could
>> respond to this because the EULA menu was BEHIND the Update Manager menu
>> and there was no way which I knew (and I tried even waiving a live
>> chicken's leg [from one of the chicken's next door] to bring up the
>> 'background' EULA menu to be able to answer "YES!"
>>
>>     
> The tl;dr version of this mail is basically:-
>
> * Upgrades download more than clean installs (not exactly 'news' given
> many upgrades will be upgrading more packages than a base install will
> have, so will inevitably have more to download)
> * You unfortunately hit a bug in the upgrade process
>
> Now, if the purpose of your mail was to rant about the upgrade then
> that's done,

It is astonishing what people will write when they have some
preconceived idea about another person's intentions.

There have been numerous questions from people in this forum about
whether to upgrade or to go for a clean install. Responses varied.

I just went thru the exercise of doing something which I never did do
before and so thought that it would be useful for those who will be
asking the same questions about upgrade vs clean install, to be
proactive and provide some info about my experience.

I simply mentioned what I experienced.

I did not complain.

I did not rant.

I did not whinge.

I did not blame anybody for my hassles.

I did not accuse anyone of incompetence.

I did not state that Ubuntu was a heap of horse manure.

I did thank NoOp for providing the answer for how to get out of such a
cock-up (which he provided in an answer to a another problem quite some
time ago and which I wrote down in my "little black book").

And yet I get some unknown calling me "the new Karl", and also getting
this "rebuke", together with URLs which show that the problem which I
encountered is known. Fine, up to a point, and I thank you for the
references.

But the logic behind this is somewhat beyond me: nobody has ever
mentioned here that they have struck this problem of the upgrade from
Lucid to Maverick not being able to be responded to in the upgrade
manager when it came to upgrading the msfonts - meaning, how then should
I have gone looking for the answer to a problem I hadn't come across yet
and which has not been mentioned in this list?

How can anyone go looking for an answer to a problem which they haven't
yet encountered?

>  but I'm more interested in how that can be fixed for
> others. Bitching about a problem on a users mailing list wont get the
> issue fixed.

Get it right: I did not "bitch".

>  My personal opinion is that people bitch a lot about
> upgrades but rarely do anything to help fix them. They then recommend
> nobody else upgrades, thus perpetuating a cycle of fail as nobody ever
> upgrades, thus valuable feedback is never given, they never get
> better, and people continue to recommend nobody upgrades!
>   

There have been many - MANY - comments in the past about not upgrading
but doing clean installs *and* vice-versa.

None of those posters, either claiming to upgrade or to clean install -
ever attracted a single comment from you about their comments.

So why now?

> I just visited this url which (given I'm a bit sad) 

Well, I am a bit more than just "a bit sad"......

[pruned]

Kind regards,

BC


-- 
Attorney:    Are you qualified to give a urine sample?
Witness:    Are you qualified to ask that question?