No wired or wireless network
holtzm at cox.net
Mon Oct 21 22:47:38 UTC 2013
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 04:14:19PM +0100, Colin Law wrote:
> On 20 October 2013 23:11, Robert Holtzman <holtzm at cox.net> wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 10:17:14PM +0100, Liam Proven wrote:
> >> On 19 October 2013 21:51, Robert Holtzman <holtzm at cox.net> 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?
> >> >>  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?
> I don't know whether it is documented, but it certainly works. Just
> go into the 'something else' option in the installer and tell it to
> install into the same partition as the existing ubuntu and make sure
> Format is NOT checked for that partition. This feature has been
> available for at least a couple of years now.
That's about the time I dumped Ubuntu for Debian. I still keep copies on
the computers to play with.
Are you saying that Ubuntu will install over an existing installation
while leaving /home untouched yet rewriting all the rest?
Your mail is being read by tight lipped
NSA agents who fail to see humor in Doctor
Key ID 8D549279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the ubuntu-users