On Tue, Apr 03, 2012 at 05:58:06PM +0200, yann jautard wrote: > > so why not writing it down clearly in the iso name ? don't you think > "ubuntu-10.04-linuxcnc2.5.0-i386.iso" would have been a more > representative name ?
Yes you are right, it would be more representative. But let me go on and fully answer your question. In my opinion the only purpose of the CD is that new installs have a configuration that allows updating to the latest version of linuxcnc and every other package with trivial ease by clicking OK when the update manager pops up. I have found that sometimes people mistakenly think that the best way to upgrade linuxcnc is to get a new iso and reinstall the whole operating system. This is time-consuming, very expensive in terms of bandwidth cost (linuxcnc package is 4MB, full OS is 700MB), error-prone in terms of getting a download and CD burn with the right checksums, and it wipes out their machine configurations and other settings that would be preserved just fine if they upgraded correctly. It changes a two-minute upgrade (five minutes for major release changes like 2.4 -> 2.5) into hours of work. I further feel that if I put 2.5.0 in the name of the cd image, it reinforces this mistaken practice and users will watch for and expect a new cd image containing 2.5.1 etc etc. So to everyone currently running Lucid or Hardy and thinking about downloading the new CD, again let me point you to http://wiki.linuxcnc.org/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UpdatingTo2.5 > anyway, lots of thanks for the work done :) Welcome! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Better than sec? Nothing is better than sec when it comes to monitoring Big Data applications. Try Boundary one-second resolution app monitoring today. Free. http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
