[KLUG Members] OK, I just have to ask . . .

[Mark Kowitz]

First of all, I updated FC1 with Kubuntu just the last summer--mainly
to try out the 2.6 kernel and the latest KDE, so I was hanging on to
an old system myself.  And I wasn't refering to "updates", security or
otherwise, I was more speaking of a major upgrade to a distro (which,
in my experience, is better done as a clean-install vs. an in-place
upgrade).  Periodic updates are very convenient nowadays, with the
"automagic" update utitlities that you can schedule to run in the
background; and obviously apps don't need a reinstall with just a
kernel update/recompile.
This wasn't intended to start any kind of argument or flame war. . .I
was just curious of how more experienced users than myself view
version updates.
Oh, and I do thank you for your insights given so far.

mk

PS: And another thought I have had bouncing around in my head . . .
Who leads whom, as far as the desktop conveniences go (no, I'm not
speaking of KDE vs. Gnome).  But between Linux and MS?  It seems some
new thing comes out on one, say USB auto mount, then is incorporated
in the other.  Am I right in thinking it's somewhat of a wash?  MS
leads in some, and is then incorporated into the Linux desktop, and
others visa-versa?

On 12/12/06, Robert G. Brown <bob at whizdomsoft.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 19:51:17 -0500, "Mark Kowitz" <mkowitz at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >You know the big hub-bub of MS releasing Vista, and how many
> >geeky-type folks can't wait to get their hands on and install this
> >latest OS release in the last 3-4 years?
> Lots, I guess. I don't keep track of this, and in any case it's hard.
> Various news organizations kick up quite a lot of fuss and hype about
> this... I think that Vista has only been mentioned only once or
> twice in my hearing range in the last few months, and eagernees was
> not the atmosphere.
>
> >Many Linux distros have release schedules much tighter than MS, such
> >as Ubuntu, for instance, that updates on a six month cycle.
> Many... most aren't even that organizaed. Generally, large organizations
> pushed to get release cycles that long.
>
> >Do any of you, or other users you are in contact with, update your
> >machines every release?
> Ususally more often, like ciritcal patches or specific package updates.
>
> >I mean, there must be great improvements...
> why?
>
> > and jumps in technology, or they wouldn't be bothering so often.
> Please explain, releasing is not only the economic choice you seem to
> imply, nor is it limited to these concerns.
>
> >I personally don''t have the time or patience to update my OS...
> Then don't.
>
> >..., re-install apps, and tweak things up again, even once a year!
> What apps need to be re-installed when you install, say a kernel?
>
> What are your thoughts?
> In open source culture, release cycles are comparitively short (by
> commercial standards), since release can be done to reach an audience
> of developers. There are "bug fix only" releases, or "performance only"
> releases. Developers expect that users are either religiously applying
> updates (a practice that amuses me, too), or they are reading the
> change log, and only updating when there's something compelling.
>
> You're also getting an answer from someone who had, until rather recently,
> a customized Red Hat Linux 5.2 box, which I put together in 1998 or
> something.
>
>                                                 Regards,
>                                                 ---> RGB <---
> _______________________________________________
> Members mailing list
> Members at kalamazoolinux.org
> 
>


-- 
Mark Kowitz
---------------------------------------------
He is no fool . . .
    who gives what he cannot keep
             to gain what he cannot lose.
--jim elliot