Comments on: The risk of upgrades http://www.jonmasters.org/blog/2010/08/21/the-risk-of-upgrades/ World Organi[sz]ation Of Broken Dreams Thu, 01 Dec 2011 20:35:15 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9 hourly 1 By: Mike A. Harris http://www.jonmasters.org/blog/2010/08/21/the-risk-of-upgrades/comment-page-1/#comment-132326 Mike A. Harris Mon, 23 Aug 2010 13:50:54 +0000 http://www.jonmasters.org/blog/?p=775#comment-132326 Wow, I thought I was the only engineer type who felt this way. I run CentOS 5.x on all of my machines for the last 2 years now because I got sick and tired of being forced to upgrade individual packages and the whole system on n machines every time I turned my head. Like you said, there is more to life to computers. Solving daily computer hardware and software issues was all the rage prior to Y2K, but as time has passed on I've found it to be rather annoying. I just want hardware that will work well for 5-10 years and run whatever OS I put on it for as many years unless I voluntarily decide that I want to upgrade for some reason. At the same time, I want to be able to run the software that came with the system, or the latest stable version of things like firefox/thunderbird/openoffice etc. without losing stability/security support for the app or the OS, and without having to rummage through various repositories or roll my own. Every time I turn around, someone is laughing at me and telling me how I should upgrade my OS or hardware to something from this century. Its just not necessary. I'd rather upgrade my guitar rig or bedroom furniture or something else than be a slave to technology. ;o) Wow, I thought I was the only engineer type who felt this way. I run CentOS 5.x on all of my machines for the last 2 years now because I got sick and tired of being forced to upgrade individual packages and the whole system on n machines every time I turned my head. Like you said, there is more to life to computers. Solving daily computer hardware and software issues was all the rage prior to Y2K, but as time has passed on I’ve found it to be rather annoying. I just want hardware that will work well for 5-10 years and run whatever OS I put on it for as many years unless I voluntarily decide that I want to upgrade for some reason. At the same time, I want to be able to run the software that came with the system, or the latest stable version of things like firefox/thunderbird/openoffice etc. without losing stability/security support for the app or the OS, and without having to rummage through various repositories or roll my own.

Every time I turn around, someone is laughing at me and telling me how I should upgrade my OS or hardware to something from this century. Its just not necessary.

I’d rather upgrade my guitar rig or bedroom furniture or something else than be a slave to technology. ;o)

]]> By: Michael http://www.jonmasters.org/blog/2010/08/21/the-risk-of-upgrades/comment-page-1/#comment-132325 Michael Mon, 23 Aug 2010 08:45:20 +0000 http://www.jonmasters.org/blog/?p=775#comment-132325 Well, there is a missing point. The software used by the second class work because someone tested them, and fixed bug. And people who test are those in the first group. So, I think whatever the reason, be it to test or just to be "geeky", people who test and upgrade are required so people who do not want to test don't need to. And so, tested latest and shiny software is a contribution to free software. Well, there is a missing point. The software used by the second class work because someone tested them, and fixed bug. And people who test are those in the first group.

So, I think whatever the reason, be it to test or just to be “geeky”, people who test and upgrade are required so people who do not want to test don’t need to. And so, tested latest and shiny software is a contribution to free software.

]]> By: jorge http://www.jonmasters.org/blog/2010/08/21/the-risk-of-upgrades/comment-page-1/#comment-132312 jorge Sun, 22 Aug 2010 05:21:10 +0000 http://www.jonmasters.org/blog/?p=775#comment-132312 Hi Jon, Thanks for your post, I'm glad that someone else has lived my experience. I used to be one of those "WANT IT NOW OMG NOW NOW NOW" people when I was younger, and then after I got a real job and helped deploy Linux as a sysadmin rather than a hobbyist when I totally flipped into the "Just works, even if there's a few bad bits at least they're well known workarounds; less changes FTW" camp. Thanks to people like you I now work at a Linux company as my job and I'm expected to dogfood almost-sort-of-working-development-releases so I can never enjoy the happiness of a release that's been vetted for years. Thanks for that! :) Hi Jon,

Thanks for your post, I’m glad that someone else has lived my experience. I used to be one of those “WANT IT NOW OMG NOW NOW NOW” people when I was younger, and then after I got a real job and helped deploy Linux as a sysadmin rather than a hobbyist when I totally flipped into the “Just works, even if there’s a few bad bits at least they’re well known workarounds; less changes FTW” camp.

Thanks to people like you I now work at a Linux company as my job and I’m expected to dogfood almost-sort-of-working-development-releases so I can never enjoy the happiness of a release that’s been vetted for years. Thanks for that! :)

]]> By: jcm http://www.jonmasters.org/blog/2010/08/21/the-risk-of-upgrades/comment-page-1/#comment-132311 jcm Sun, 22 Aug 2010 03:15:02 +0000 http://www.jonmasters.org/blog/?p=775#comment-132311 I'm not a Solaris hater (sure, business wise it's death all the way :P), and one thing I like about Windows, Mac, Solaris, insert-os-here is that they are platforms on which you build stuff. Linux is generally all about getting all the bits in your distro, complete with interdependencies, and updating everything together. It sounds good, but only if you're a sweaty nerd in a basement who gets off on that. What we need are more Linux platforms - complete solutions that persist, are treated as fundamental building blocks, etc. Part of me would like to throw away conventional Linux wisdom and divide the system up into the vendor bits and then enforce something far better than /opt (a mere afterthought) for anything but the bare essentials. One day, I'll get annoyed enough to fix it how it should be done. I’m not a Solaris hater (sure, business wise it’s death all the way :P ), and one thing I like about Windows, Mac, Solaris, insert-os-here is that they are platforms on which you build stuff. Linux is generally all about getting all the bits in your distro, complete with interdependencies, and updating everything together. It sounds good, but only if you’re a sweaty nerd in a basement who gets off on that. What we need are more Linux platforms – complete solutions that persist, are treated as fundamental building blocks, etc. Part of me would like to throw away conventional Linux wisdom and divide the system up into the vendor bits and then enforce something far better than /opt (a mere afterthought) for anything but the bare essentials. One day, I’ll get annoyed enough to fix it how it should be done.

]]> By: Chris S http://www.jonmasters.org/blog/2010/08/21/the-risk-of-upgrades/comment-page-1/#comment-132310 Chris S Sat, 21 Aug 2010 19:01:27 +0000 http://www.jonmasters.org/blog/?p=775#comment-132310 Have you looked at Solaris? It might be just what you're after :) Have you looked at Solaris? It might be just what you’re after :)

]]>