On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 11:08 AM, jdow <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Seriously, I'd suggest you do one thing or the other. But I am not going
> to make your decision for you. On one machine (a virtual box machine)
> the transition from 6.0 to 6.1 was painless. (Or let's say no more pain
> than already existed with SELinux.) On the other machine I had an nVidia
> related problem that went away with a kernel update that happened
> automatically. The virtual machine is on 6.x so I catch the upgrades
> when they come. If no serious issues crop up I plan to move the main
> Linux machine up to the next release after it's had a little time
> to settle. But there's just my partner and I and about 20 machines and
> assorted gadgets relying on the Linux machine. The needs for a larger
> production environment will be different. The needs for a single desktop
> user will also be different.
>
> Assess your needs, determine what activities must be supported, determine
> which OSs best support those activities. Then jump in and be prepared to
> bleed a little. In the best possible world, there will be no blood. So
> you'll feel good about that. If you bleed a little, you were emotionally
> prepared already and have plans to cope, one hopes. So you feel good that
> you coped. If you sit around dithering you feel bad all the way around.
Thank you very much for all the suggestions and for now I will opt for
SL6.1 repo until I get more use to with the new system.
Thanks again.
>
> {o.o}
>
> On 2011/09/18 22:16, Tanmoy Chatterjee wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Tanmoy Chatterjee<[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 1:48 PM, jdow<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2011/09/17 01:06, Tanmoy Chatterjee wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 8:19 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia<[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Tanmoy Chatterjee<[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 10:36 PM, Connie Sieh<[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2011, Tanmoy Chatterjee wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is there any difference between Sl6.1 and SL6x repositories? Do I
>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>> to enable only of these two or both?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> sl6x is a symbolic link to the "current" release. So at the moment
>>>>>>>> sl6x
>>>>>>>> points to sl6.1 since sl6.1 is the current release. When we release
>>>>>>>> sl6.2
>>>>>>>> then sl6x will point to sl6.2 .
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So you need to pick 1 . If you pick sl6x you will updated via the
>>>>>>>> yum
>>>>>>>> cron
>>>>>>>> job to the "next" release when it is released.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for the elaboration - so it is a good idea to enable the SL6x
>>>>>>> repositories instead of SL6.1.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's a choice, and it's actually a reasonable one to select 6.1. If
>>>>>> you follow the model of The Upstream Vendor, the "5.0", "5.1", "5.2"
>>>>>> releases are all supposed to upgrade in place, automatically, to get
>>>>>> all current packages. ""6.0" and "6.1" are timestamps for media
>>>>>> releases, and do not represent a different software repository
>>>>>> maintained by them. This avoids the amazing pain some of us had to
>>>>>> deal with for years, back with the original "releases back when their
>>>>>> old "7.0" and "7.2" releases were likely to be incompatible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This way works better, by not trying to split support among so many
>>>>>> sub releases.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Our friendly maintainers at Scientific Linux, understandably, don't
>>>>>> quite follow that, but with their common "5x" repository, and
>>>>>> "rolling" releases, it's pretty close. I really appreciate using that
>>>>>> one or two repositories, instead of having to mix and match from point
>>>>>> releases.
>>>>>
>>>>> Have really got confused after going through your entire post - so I
>>>>> am asking again - is it better to enable SL6X than SL6.1?
>>>>
>>>> At some point you have to accept responsibility for the choice based on
>>>> your specific needs. If you need a stable system with minimal changes
>>>> use 6.1. If you can accept a little additional risk and want product
>>>> updates as they are folded in then select 6.x.
>>>
>>> Actually using Ubuntu 10.04 - I have found automatic upgradation takes
>>> place via update process and without any problem ( i.e from 10.04.1 -
>>> 10.04.2 - 10.04.3).
>>> This method here is different! Now if I enable SL6.1
>>> repositories only - then when the SL6.2 repo gets available - will it
>>> be available through the gui "SL addons> yum..> " or the method is
>>> different ?
>>
>> THANKS FOR ALL THE RESPONSES.
>> But as a novice I would again request to shed some light on this part
>> of my queries.
>>>>
>>>> On my machine here I have two very demanding customers, me and my
>>>> partner.
>>>> I kept it on 6.0 until the VM version I have looked stable with 6.1 and
>>>> there were no complaints. So I moved to 6.1 on the firewall machine. It
>>>> promptly tossed its X11 cookies with either nouveau (which I had setup
>>>> and working on 6.0) and nVidia drivers which I tried in frustration. The
>>>> next kernel update fixed the problem. (I was able to work around it
>>>> since
>>>> I mostly administer from command-line anyway. And "startx" worked if I
>>>> told it to use a display other than the first one.)
>>>>
>>>> So moving from 6.1 to 6.2 MIGHT cause problems that sticking with 6.1
>>>> and security updates only might avoid. But, then, it might not. What
>>>> level of risk are you willing to take, very low or very very low? That
>>>
>>> I can go up until that point when it becomes essential to reinstall
>>> the entire system.
>>> Then the very reason of installing SL ( instead of Fedora or similar
>>> distributions with 6 month release cycle) gets diluted.
>>>>
>>>> is your call to make. You're you and I'm me. We face different demands.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> {^_^} Joanne
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
