January 02, 2013
On 1/2/2013 11:09 AM, Russel Winder wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-01-02 at 10:51 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:
> […]
>> I've been avoiding upgrading Ubuntu, because the last time I did that the
>> installer trashed everything. Lost a day on that one.
>
> Just because it happened once doesn't mean it will always happen.
>
> Until I abandoned all use of Ubuntu, I had never had an upgrade crash
> that didn't correct itself on appropriate rerun. You are the only person
> I know that had a total trashing due to installer fail.
>
> Reinstalling from scratch does not take a whole day. 2 hours maybe.

It does when you don't remember what goes in the host file, what you had installed, redoing all the ssh keys, etc. It also deleted all my virtual boxes, I never did figure out how to get them working again. I simply gave up on virtual boxes as more trouble than they're worth.

It also nuked all my mail and calender data, which is why I don't use Ubuntu for mail or calender anymore, nor do I use it for music (same thing happened).


>> P.S. The Mac is the only machine I've ever been able to upgrade the operating
>> system on that worked without trashing everything and forcing a reinstall from
>> scratch.
>
> I have the opposite experience, Apple hardware seems incapable of
> upgrading operating systems.  Their policy seems to be "you want a new
> operating system, then buy a new piece of hardware from the store."

The only actual trouble I had was the installer assumed a screen larger than the one I had, and insisted on putting the [next] button off the bottom of the screen. Argh.

P.S. I like calendar programs, but on Windows and Ubuntu, upgrading the OS inevitably deletes the calendar database. None of those frackin' calendar programs ever deign to tell me where they store their frackin' database, so I can back it up. I really, really don't understand mail and calendar programs that make it difficult to back up the data. I quit using Outlook Express because it stored the mail database in a hidden directory. WTF? Thunderbird is better, but not much.

January 02, 2013
On 1/2/2013 11:09 AM, Jordi Sayol wrote:
> I don't know why.


mercury ~> sudo apt-get install ruby
[sudo] password for walter:
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
The following packages were automatically installed and are no longer required:
  linux-headers-2.6.35-22-generic linux-headers-2.6.35-22
Use 'apt-get autoremove' to remove them.
The following extra packages will be installed:
  libreadline5 libruby1.8 ruby1.8
Suggested packages:
  ri ruby-dev ruby1.8-examples ri1.8
The following NEW packages will be installed:
  libreadline5 libruby1.8 ruby ruby1.8
0 upgraded, 4 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
Need to get 1,841kB/2,010kB of archives.
After this operation, 8,266kB of additional disk space will be used.
Do you want to continue [Y/n]? Y
WARNING: The following packages cannot be authenticated!
  libreadline5 libruby1.8 ruby1.8 ruby
Install these packages without verification [y/N]? Y
Err http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ maverick-updates/main libruby1.8 amd64 1.8.7.299-2ubuntu0.1
  404  Not Found [IP: 91.189.91.15 80]
Err http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ maverick-security/main libruby1.8 amd64 1.8.7.299-2ubuntu0.1
  404  Not Found
Err http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ maverick-security/main ruby1.8 amd64 1.8.7.299-2ubuntu0.1
  404  Not Found
Failed to fetch http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/main/r/ruby1.8/libruby1.8_1.8.7.299-2ubuntu0.1_amd64.deb  404  Not Found
Failed to fetch http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/main/r/ruby1.8/ruby1.8_1.8.7.299-2ubuntu0.1_amd64.deb  404  Not Found
E: Unable to fetch some archives, maybe run apt-get update or try with --fix-missing?
mercury ~>



January 02, 2013
On 1/2/2013 11:05 AM, Russel Winder wrote:
> To be expected in the circumstances since 10.10 is no longer supported.


Looks like I'll have to hold my nose and push the upgrade button, but after this release is settled down.

Does the latest Ubuntu work properly with SSD drives? I know 10.10 does not. I have an extra SSD drive I want to try.
January 02, 2013
On Wednesday, January 02, 2013 03:20:27 Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 02, 2013 10:19:54 bearophile wrote:
> > Jonathan M Davis:
> > > Why?
> > 
> > Because the two numbers "2.060" and "2.061" look very very similar, so people that see them risk thinking they are just two nearly identical releases of the same compiler. But many months have passed between those two versions, many bugs have being removed, several features have being introduced, and so on (just look at the difference in the zip size between the two versions), so it's better for the users to be aware that some probably some user code will need to be fixed or improved to run on the 2.061.
> 
> And how is that any different from any other release?

Two to three months generally of the past few years, so this release has been much delayed in comparison, but that doesn't really change anything. You have the same risk of things breaking that you normally do. Any bug fix risks breaking code. The only difference is that there are more bugs which have been fixed. It's quite possible that way more code broke between 2.059 and 2.060 than it did between 2.060 and 2.061. I see no reason to call out this release as being particularly dangerous. If anyone is concerned about the amount of time between releases, they can see that easily enough in the changelog.

- Jonathan M Davis
January 02, 2013
Al 02/01/13 20:28, En/na Walter Bright ha escrit:
> On 1/2/2013 11:09 AM, Jordi Sayol wrote:
>> I don't know why.
> 
> 
> mercury ~> sudo apt-get install ruby
> [sudo] password for walter:
> Reading package lists... Done
> Building dependency tree
> Reading state information... Done
> The following packages were automatically installed and are no longer required:
>   linux-headers-2.6.35-22-generic linux-headers-2.6.35-22
> Use 'apt-get autoremove' to remove them.
> The following extra packages will be installed:
>   libreadline5 libruby1.8 ruby1.8
> Suggested packages:
>   ri ruby-dev ruby1.8-examples ri1.8
> The following NEW packages will be installed:
>   libreadline5 libruby1.8 ruby ruby1.8
> 0 upgraded, 4 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
> Need to get 1,841kB/2,010kB of archives.
> After this operation, 8,266kB of additional disk space will be used.
> Do you want to continue [Y/n]? Y
> WARNING: The following packages cannot be authenticated!
>   libreadline5 libruby1.8 ruby1.8 ruby
> Install these packages without verification [y/N]? Y
> Err http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ maverick-updates/main libruby1.8 amd64 1.8.7.299-2ubuntu0.1
>   404  Not Found [IP: 91.189.91.15 80]
> Err http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ maverick-security/main libruby1.8 amd64 1.8.7.299-2ubuntu0.1
>   404  Not Found
> Err http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ maverick-security/main ruby1.8 amd64 1.8.7.299-2ubuntu0.1
>   404  Not Found
> Failed to fetch http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/main/r/ruby1.8/libruby1.8_1.8.7.299-2ubuntu0.1_amd64.deb  404  Not Found
> Failed to fetch http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/main/r/ruby1.8/ruby1.8_1.8.7.299-2ubuntu0.1_amd64.deb  404  Not Found
> E: Unable to fetch some archives, maybe run apt-get update or try with --fix-missing?
> mercury ~>
> 

You're right. Ubuntu 10.10 is not longer supported, so the repositories are not available.

Sorry, I didn't understand you. A "rolling" release will avoid this problem.

-- 
Jordi Sayol
January 02, 2013
Al 02/01/13 19:51, En/na Walter Bright ha escrit:
> On 1/2/2013 10:17 AM, Russel Winder wrote:
>> On Wed, 2013-01-02 at 10:07 -0800, Walter Bright wrote: […]
>>> Yeah, really. sudo apt-get ruby fails on Ubuntu 10.10.
>>
>> Any and all apt-related commands are likely to fail for that version of Ubuntu, it is no longer supported.  Definitely need to stick with LTS version of Ubuntu or keep up to date, should be on 12.10 by now.
> 
> I've been avoiding upgrading Ubuntu, because the last time I did that the installer trashed everything. Lost a day on that one.
> 
> P.S. The Mac is the only machine I've ever been able to upgrade the operating system on that worked without trashing everything and forcing a reinstall from scratch.
> 
> 

Walter, to avoid this problem you can install a "rolling" release like Linux Mint Debian Edition, based on Debian testing.
You just need to keep it upgraded with "mintUpdate" manager (shield on panel). Read the "Update pack info" before.

This month is scheduled to be a new LMDE DVD ISO release.

Regards,
-- 
Jordi Sayol

January 02, 2013
1/2/2013 11:24 PM, Walter Bright пишет:
> On 1/2/2013 11:09 AM, Russel Winder wrote:
>> On Wed, 2013-01-02 at 10:51 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:
>> […]
>>> I've been avoiding upgrading Ubuntu, because the last time I did that
>>> the
>>> installer trashed everything. Lost a day on that one.
>>
>> Just because it happened once doesn't mean it will always happen.
>>
>> Until I abandoned all use of Ubuntu, I had never had an upgrade crash
>> that didn't correct itself on appropriate rerun. You are the only person
>> I know that had a total trashing due to installer fail.
>>
>> Reinstalling from scratch does not take a whole day. 2 hours maybe.
>
> It does when you don't remember what goes in the host file, what you had
> installed, redoing all the ssh keys, etc. It also deleted all my virtual
> boxes, I never did figure out how to get them working again. I simply
> gave up on virtual boxes as more trouble than they're worth.
>

While I've found them to be quite easy to migrate and use. If virtual hard disk can be found/recovered you don't need the settings and other crap as these are re-created in matter of minutes. There are even pre-constructed images of various OS+software stack to be found on the web.

> P.S. I like calendar programs, but on Windows and Ubuntu, upgrading the
> OS inevitably deletes the calendar database. None of those frackin'
> calendar programs ever deign to tell me where they store their frackin'
> database, so I can back it up. I really, really don't understand mail
> and calendar programs that make it difficult to back up the data. I quit
> using Outlook Express because it stored the mail database in a hidden
> directory. WTF? Thunderbird is better, but not much.

On latest Windows OS-es almost everything is in AppData\Roaming + AppData\Roaming in \Users directory. Just copying them over and reinstalling the apps seems to work (I only tried Thunderbird and couple of others though).

-- 
Dmitry Olshansky
January 02, 2013
On 2013-01-02 19:51, Walter Bright wrote:

> I've been avoiding upgrading Ubuntu, because the last time I did that
> the installer trashed everything. Lost a day on that one.

That's what backups are for :)

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
January 02, 2013
On 1/2/2013 12:01 PM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
>> P.S. I like calendar programs, but on Windows and Ubuntu, upgrading the
>> OS inevitably deletes the calendar database. None of those frackin'
>> calendar programs ever deign to tell me where they store their frackin'
>> database, so I can back it up. I really, really don't understand mail
>> and calendar programs that make it difficult to back up the data. I quit
>> using Outlook Express because it stored the mail database in a hidden
>> directory. WTF? Thunderbird is better, but not much.
>
> On latest Windows OS-es almost everything is in AppData\Roaming +
> AppData\Roaming in \Users directory. Just copying them over and reinstalling the
> apps seems to work (I only tried Thunderbird and couple of others though).

Windows has gotten better in this regard, that is true.

But it's still bizarre that, with Thunderbird, you can export/import the address book, but not the mail database.

A welcome improvement would be to have a button to export/import the whole farkin' thing.

Instead, when I installed TB on my laptop, I had to open the account settings on my desktop, and screen by screen, manually copy the data into my laptop TB install. A long and tedious and error-prone process, as there are endless screens and config settings.

January 02, 2013
On 2013-01-02 20:09, Russel Winder wrote:

> I have the opposite experience, Apple hardware seems incapable of
> upgrading operating systems.  Their policy seems to be "you want a new
> operating system, then buy a new piece of hardware from the store."

I've been updating a couple of Macs from 10.6 through 10.7 to 10.8 without any problems. I'm still using an old Macbook that was shipped with 10.4, it's running 10.7 now. Although that has had a couple of reinstalls.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg