Aahz writes:
> all. Because I was lazy, last weekend I finally did a two-stage upgrade
> from 7.10 to 8.04 and then 8.10, with zero noticeable problems.
The scary one is two independent reports of fstab corruption in the
8.04 to 8.10 upgrade. It is claimed to be unfixable by booting from
CD,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 4, 2009, at 11:26 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Aahz writes:
all. Because I was lazy, last weekend I finally did a two-stage
upgrade
from 7.10 to 8.04 and then 8.10, with zero noticeable problems.
The scary one is two independent repo
I missed the beginning here; oh well.
On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Aahz wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2009, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>> Steve Holden writes:
>>>
>>> Hey, isn't Ubuntu Debian-based? ...
>>
>> Ouch. I don't actually use Ubuntu, but when everybody on my local LUG
>> list from the "L
Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> And for that ML this is huge; I don't recall so many screams on a
> commercial vendor upgrade since Red Hat went from HJ Liu libc to glibc
> 2.
I've had problems with Kubuntu's graphical updater crashing, but never
anything a "sudo apt-get dist-upgrade" didn't fix.
Al
On Sun, Jan 04, 2009, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Steve Holden writes:
>>
>> Hey, isn't Ubuntu Debian-based? ...
>
> Ouch. I don't actually use Ubuntu, but when everybody on my local LUG
> list from the "Linux should be Windows but cheaper" newbies to former
> NetBSD developers is grouching ab
Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Aahz writes:
>
> > all. Because I was lazy, last weekend I finally did a two-stage upgrade
> > from 7.10 to 8.04 and then 8.10, with zero noticeable problems.
>
> The scary one is two independent reports of fstab corruption in the
> 8.04 to 8.10 upgrade. It is cla
Barry Warsaw writes:
> > The scary one is two independent reports of fstab corruption in the
> > 8.04 to 8.10 upgrade. It is claimed to be unfixable by booting from
> > CD, mounting the partition, and editing fstab: the editor saves but
> > the fstab returns to the original corrupt state upon
On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 8:51 PM, Steve Holden wrote:
> Ubuntu is a victim of its own success. They now have to deal with the
> same diversity of hardware environments as Windows. I hope that
> Canonical will find a way to stabilize things.
I think it's actually worse. Microsoft can always (and, i
Leif Walsh writes:
> True, most of the upgrade problems deal with packages that aren't in
> the server install. This should be an easy one, but now I'd ask, why
> not use Debian instead?
You mean, "why not stick with Debian instead?"
The reason is that Debian stable lags the real world drama
