Re: Real need for upgrades?
On 28 Apr 1999, Helge Hafting wrote:
>
> > As I see it, releasing new versions can take place more than twice a
> > year. While ppl are waiting for the next official release, they keep
> > gradually upgrading their systems from the ftp server, so by the time
> > the new release is official, they already have their systems greatly
> > upgraded but they still "re-upgrade" ... and with some packages they
> > downgrade since they already installed from the version after next. Is
> > it all that necessary?
> >
> Usually not!
> Many people simply like to have the latest and greatest. Maintaining
> the system is an interesting hobby. Unlike some other os there is little
> need for "reinstalling" and problem-solving, so the time is spent
> on incremental upgrades. This is usually not *necessary*, as the old
> systems still work well.
>
> Of course there are
> times when upgrading is a good move too. The newer version
> may have a bugfix, a security fix, better performance or new functionality.
> This goes for kernels as well as distributions.
>
I'm no programmer, but I keep up with the stable releases of the kernel. I
find that the 2.2 series seems to be faster when collecting email and also
has some unexpected goodies, e.g. you can now have a non-blinking block
cursor in colour and I can use my Iomega Zip and lp simultaneously, without
the need for modules. I wouldn't have known these things if I hadn't
actually compiled the kernels and tried them out.
Anthony
--
Anthony Campbell - running Linux Debian 2.1 (Windows-free zone)
Book Reviews: www.achc.demon.co.uk/bookreviews/
"The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on..." - Edward Fitzgerald (Rubaiat of Omar Khayyam)
Reply to: