No wired or wireless network

Avi Greenbury lists at
Mon Oct 21 14:05:01 UTC 2013

Robert Holtzman wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 10:17:14PM +0100, Liam Proven wrote:
>> On 19 October 2013 21:51, Robert Holtzman <holtzm at> wrote:
>>> What are the reasons not to?
>> Because, as the OP discovered, they fill up with old kernels, and then
>> you're screwed.
> What would be the reason to keep more than a few older kernels?

There's rarely much reason to actively keep them but for a long time 
there was also no real mechanism for automatically disposing of them, 
and so people's /boot did fill up with them unless they had a 
particularly large /boot. I've heard there is one now but I've not 
noticed it in action yet.

>>>> [2] Don't try to fix your old installation. Back up the stuff in /home
>>>> and do a full clean reinstall.
>>> Ah, the M$ solution.
>> Well, also the Ubuntu solution, as "inspired" by Mac OS X. The
>> installer explicitly looks for and preserves an existing /home tree
>> while nuking everything else. It is a standard feature.
> That's the first I've heard of that. Is it an ubuntu feature or a linux
> feature? Documented where?

It's a feature of the Ubuntu installer; I don't think it's documented 
outside of the installer itself.

It's not that this is the recommended way to upgrade (that's still a 
simple in-place upgrade); but since /home is so well isolated it's not 
very difficult to preserve that through the install. It may be worth 
noting, given the context, that this feature doesn't rely on /home being 
a separate volume to /.


More information about the ubuntu-users mailing list