When Ubuntu can't even upgrade without hassles,how can we rate Ubuntu over Windows ?

[cyneuron]

Hello there

I just downloaded Ubuntu Gutsy (7.10).

I searched through forum about upgrade problems people are facing with Ubuntu Gutsy. I must admit i really got scared.... So many people ending up with unstable system after upgrade......

I decided to go for clean install....But that's not the solution.....

Nobody can afford to reinstall his/her operating system every 6 months Ubuntu latest update is released...

I must site example of Vista here. Though Vista is such a major change from windows xp, still almost nobody ended up with an unstable system after upgrading XP with vista. Then why is this the case with Ubuntu ?

I love Ubuntu, i just love it....But the questions which has been haunting me is that, "when Ubuntu can't even upgrade itself to latest release without any hassles, how can we persuade a windows user about the greatness of Ubuntu over windows xp ?

How can we assure the non-geek user that Ubuntu will work, just work flawlessly (like mac people say, It just works), when such an essential component, i.e., upgrading of an operating system, is struck with so many problems ?

[n3tfury]

rating an OS over another OS is purely subjective anyway. depending on your hardware, your mileage may vary.

[23meg]

Upgrades do work almost all the time, unless your system is half-broken to begin with. Things like flawed automated installation scripts and third party repositories with bad quality packages are the reasons behind most failed upgrades; for the most part it's not a problem inherent to Ubuntu itself.

What we should do if we want more people to have success with upgrades is educate users better on proper usage and maintenance practices.

Besides, looking at support forums will always give you a skewed impression of the ratio of successes to failures, because typically you only hear from people who are having problems.

[Dark Aspect]

Nobody can afford to reinstall his/her operating system every 6 months Ubuntu latest update is released...
I agree with that part,I got an unstable system after I did the network install.I still think Linux is better then Windows though.I am going to try upgrading off the alternate CD next time.

Although it would be idea to use rewritable DVDs for backups between upgrades,thats what I do.Then once that backup has become out dated just write over it again.

[cyneuron]

rating an OS over another OS is purely subjective anyway. depending on your hardware, your mileage may vary.

i am not talking about performance here.....its about upgrading issue which i think is too vital for any OS be it Windows, or Linux....

[Old Pink]

Windows doesn't always upgrade smoothly.

On my desktop I've upgraded from:
Dapper, to Edgy, to Feisty, to Gutsy, without one single problem.

On my laptop, I've upgraded from:
Feisty, to Gutsy, with my only problem being my battery isn't recognized in the new kernel, but that's more my hardware, and I just boot the old kernel.

There are bound to be some problems. Not all upgrades can go smoothly, chances are yours will. And whatever happens, you're very unlikely to loose your data, it can often be recovered simply by booting a Live CD and mounting the drive with the corrupt installation.

Most of the time, I bet the upgrade failures are the fault of the people upgrading, not Ubuntu.

[n3tfury]

i am not talking about performance here.....its about upgrading issue which i think is too vital for any OS be it Windows, or Linux....

neither was i.

[Depressed Man]

From what I've read, it seems upgrades usually fail when you've modified your system a bit to much (like the core items) and use alot of 3rd party repos. For those with somewhat vanilla installations it seems to work fine.

Like a big problem is users with Compiz Fusion in Feisty when upgrading to Gutsy get broken CF which require a reinstallation of CF.

No surprise that it's the same for Windows too. I've had modified Windows systems fail at an upgrade on me too.

[cyneuron]

I also think that installing softwares from unofficial ubuntu debs must be a source of problem people face during upgrading....


But i have tried it and seen people with well maintained Ubuntu system,with softwares from Ubuntu repos only, getting screwd up after upgrade......

Hardware issues shouldn't cause a trouble, as you can't expect a hardware, which was working fine, to start malfunctioning in latest verison of Ubuntu... That should not be an excuse for this...


Its true that you don't loose data, as most of time /home partition is seperate...... but all settings do get screwed up..... and the user has no option other than opting for clean install.....

[x0as]

Windows updates certainly do go smoothly, even upgrading from xp sp1 to sp2 caused problems for loads of people.


Nobody can afford to reinstall his/her operating system every 6 months Ubuntu latest update is released...

Nobody has to, either stay with 7.04 or use a distro with longer release cycles.

[seshomaru samma]

Hello there



I must site example of Vista here. Though Vista is such a major change from windows xp, still almost nobody ended up with an unstable system after upgrading XP with vista. Then why is this the case with Ubuntu ?

I
I'm not sure if that is the case
here (http://forums.cnet.com/5208-12546_102-0.html?forumID=133&threadID=231537&messageID=2391710) is an example
I believe that the vast majority of Vista users (I estimate 99%) bought it pre-installed.
Having said that, Ubuntu should improve its the upgrading process. Perhaps it should add a warning that upgrade will not be successful if certain 3rd party programmes were used. I'm not an expert but from reading the forums it seems that using automatic installation scripts and proprietary drivers can stand in the way of a good upgrade.

[mybunche]

If everything works there's no need to upgrade, I'm still on 6.10 and has been running perfectly for one year. I plan to keep for the full 18 months. But then again, I've tried the 7.10 LiveCD and everything works for me even the graphical effects, very nice. I'm tempted to install, but I'm forcing myself to wait another 6 months.

But your right. Just can't have any hassles with the upgrade process. It will turn people away, not a good advertisement. I don't know the reasons why the upgrade fails for some people because it has worked for many others. I'm sure they are working on this problem though.

[cyneuron]

Nobody has to, either stay with 7.04 or use a distro with longer release cycles.

use older version (though with long support) of OS because installing new one might pose problem to you ....

Is this really a good answer to all the discussion going on.....

[daynah]

(Is this a commonly asked question? It is discussed every 6 months, though not in between...)

Cyn, you read over the forums and noticed many problems through the upgrade process. Well... yes! This is a place that people go for support. I had a wonderfully simple upgrade on one computer, a wonderfully simple clean install (dual booting with Vista!) on another. But every person that has a simple upgrade is not going to make a post about that... Nope, we're going to go on and enjoy our Ubuntu.

It's the problems that are going to get posted, that's the nature of the beast. The ratio of correct upgrades here is not proportional to the ratio of correct upgrades in the wild.

And like others have posted, it is the people who have had fine upgrades from Breezy up (that'd be me!) and never had a problem (that'd be me!) that are rating Ubuntu over Windows. Dad, seeing my supreme success installed Ubuntu Feisty a few months ago and we found out that he, a music lover, can't get any sound and there really is no fix and suddenly I realized that some of "you people" who post complaints aren't making this stuff up, these problems with no solutions.

It's an operating system made by average Joes in their spare time. They have full time jobs, they come home, and then they do this. Windows is an operating system that has employees that do this all the time. The amazing thing is not that "zomg Ubuntu is TOTALLY BETTER kekekke!"

The amazing thing is that Ubuntu, without paying people to build it, can do nearly everything Windows can, with all of Microsoft's resources. David and Goliath, that's the amazing thing.

[shad0w_walker]

I suggest a very simple and common sense thing which should be applied to alot of things in life:

Wait.

The upgrade is still going to be there in a couple of weeks and in that time all major issues will be resolved. If you are impatient enough to rush to the front of the line and get the latest and greatest prepare for unexpected things. I want the latest and greatest so I run from Tribe 3 of the next release a couple of days after its available.

There are way too many system configurations and people who have screwed up system files to cover every single possible configuration.

[x0as]

use older version (though with long support) of OS because installing new one might pose problem to you ....

Is this really a good answer to all the discussion going on.....

Its the route alot of xp users have taken, staying with xp rather than upgrading to vista & the problems vista causes. Nobody is forcing you to upgrade.

[cyneuron]

(Is this a commonly asked question? It is discussed every 6 months, though not in between...)

Cyn, you read over the forums and noticed many problems through the upgrade process. Well... yes! This is a place that people go for support. I had a wonderfully simple upgrade on one computer, a wonderfully simple clean install (dual booting with Vista!) on another. But every person that has a simple upgrade is not going to make a post about that... Nope, we're going to go on and enjoy our Ubuntu.

It's the problems that are going to get posted, that's the nature of the beast. The ratio of correct upgrades here is not proportional to the ratio of correct upgrades in the wild.

And like others have posted, it is the people who have had fine upgrades from Breezy up (that'd be me!) and never had a problem (that'd be me!) that are rating Ubuntu over Windows. Dad, seeing my supreme success installed Ubuntu Feisty a few months ago and we found out that he, a music lover, can't get any sound and there really is no fix and suddenly I realized that some of "you people" who post complaints aren't making this stuff up, these problems with no solutions.

It's an operating system made by average Joes in their spare time. They have full time jobs, they come home, and then they do this. Windows is an operating system that has employees that do this all the time. The amazing thing is not that "zomg Ubuntu is TOTALLY BETTER kekekke!"

The amazing thing is that Ubuntu, without paying people to build it, can do nearly everything Windows can, with all of Microsoft's resources. David and Goliath, that's the amazing thing.

agreed that ratio of successful to problematic upgrades is definitely high, but there gotta be reasons for problematic upgrades even for clean & stable & well maintained systems, and these upgrade faliures must be due to inherent problems in upgrade process and need to be explored.... (or at least demand for the requirement for refining Ubuntu upgrade process to deal with such problems of client system......

& please, i am not talking Windows vs Linux thing.... just gave example of vista for a little comparison.....please don't transform it into one....

this issue is grave even in a world without Windows....

and seshomaru samma, i agree these automated scripts like Automatix & easyubuntu, are big culprits..... i have always hated them.... but they are also the lifeline of Linux noobs.....

i would rather like to know what do people think about issue and possible solution & ideas you people have about this issu....

[cyneuron]

Its the route alot of xp users have taken, staying with xp rather than upgrading to vista & the problems vista causes. Nobody is forcing you to upgrade.

thats because Vista sucks big time in front of XP.....and not even 10 % of existing XP users have hardware capable enough to run Vista....

And here with Ubuntu 7.10, its entirely different......every updated release has better performance than previous....which every user should get as much & as soon as possible.....

[bonzodog]

I just did the network upgrade from feisty on my laptop to gutsy. It was in an almost vanilla state, although, I had modified the font rendering. But, the upgrade was flawless. Everything still worked.

[aysiu]

This was the smoothest upgrade I've ever had, and I've been using Ubuntu since 5.04 (Hoary).

People who are worried should stick with the LTSes and upgrade every two or three years instead of once every six months. They could also use Debian, which is solid as a rock and upgrades only once every few years.

[sefs]

I updated from the Alternate CD (I always do) The first attempt Beagle kept crashing the upgrade process, alternative attempts where I just wanted to upgrade using the CD also failed, so i was force to click yes where they ask me if to also pull in updates from the web to combine with the cd. Only that way worked for me.

It was suggested that I should have upgrade my update manger from the feisty proposed repos before updating to gutsy. I never have those specific repos enabled. But I did not try this method as the upgrade had already gone thru well when I decided to say yes pull in updates from the inet as well to combine with the alternate cd. The only problem left that I can see now is that gutsy broke the wireless rt73 serialmonkey stuff.

[sayuki288]

if your upgrade failed there might be something wrong :(

probably with you :lolflag:

[argie]

I have upgraded from Breezy to Dapper, with few problems, and that's on an automatixed install. I have upgraded from Windows 98 to Windows XP, and had a bad time.

I do not need any restricted drivers on Linux for the computer on which I did this. Depends on your hardware, I suppose. Ah well.

[mybunche]

It's good to hear some on this thread have good upgrade/install stories. They do get drowned out. Nevertheless we must find out what causes the problems so as many people as possible can experience Ubuntu the way it should be.

[cyneuron]

It's good to hear some on this thread have good upgrade/install stories. They do get drowned out. Nevertheless we must find out what causes the problems so as many people as possible can experience Ubuntu the way it should be.

thats what is needed bro....

foremost among these should be to not to install softwares from unofficial Ubuntu repositories, specially indicated for Linux noobs....

guides & tutorials about installing the latest softwares from such sources are so easily available on internet (most of the time intended for experts only, but used most of the time by new users to Linux,as they are too prompting), but new users must understand the possible consequences & their inability to handle the problems....

[screaminj3sus]

Have you ever tried upgrading windows without a clean install?? *shudders* so many things go wrong. I haven't used ubuntu's upgrade method yet, I decided to go for a clean install.

[cyneuron]

sorry for you to know but i have never encountered any problem in windows update ever......i do same stuff on my computer illetrate friends notebooks also.... never happened....(not to be misunderstood something as me praising xp unnecessarily)

[kamaboko]

I never upgrade Windows OS's; always do a fresh install. The frustation with Ubuntu is that a new release every six months is typically full of "gotchas" (e.g., wifi no longer works, video card issues, sound issues ,etc.). Ubuntu is nice once it's running and everything works well, but it's like going through a Windows 95 experience every six months.

[SunnyRabbiera]

well I personally have had a relatively smooth ride personally with ubuntu, despite a big bump with Feisty...

[cogadh]

There are several things you can do to ease upgrade woes:

Don't use third party repos. For an average user this is no big deal, the official repositories already give you everything you need. For more advanced and "power" users, this is very unreasonable. Fortunately, those users should be knowledgeable enough to deal with any issues brought on by the upgrade.
Upgrade via the alternate install disk. I never trust the repositories to be stable enough to do a network upgrade, especially in the first few days after a release. Too many users are trying to hit the repos and the mirrors all at the same time, the chances of a network failure of some kind is way too high. Upgrading from the alternate install CD is incredibly painless, smooth and stable by comparison.
Keep your / and /home directories on separate partitions. The /home directories are generally not touched by an upgrade (except for an occasional config file). If you keep your /home directories on a separate partition from / and the upgrade gets hosed, at least you won't lose any of your personal data and you can still do a clean install without formatting that partition.
Back up your system. I resisting the urge to say "duh" on this one. This a "Computer 101" suggestion, no one should attempt any kind of upgrade without first backing up the system. I actually create a disk image onto an external hard drive before starting the upgrade. If the upgrade fails, I just re-apply the image and try to fix whatever was wrong with the original system (9 times out of 10, that is where the problem will lie), then re-attempt the upgrade.

I have followed these steps since I started using Ubuntu and I have had mostly painless upgrades every time. Any problems I have encountered have always turned out to be either resolved by one of these steps or caused by not following one of them.

[jviscosi]

I must site example of Vista here. Though Vista is such a major change from windows xp, still almost nobody ended up with an unstable system after upgrading XP with vista.

Hmm ... let's ask GoogleFight ...



Results on Google :
vista upgrade fail
4,040,000 results
gutsy upgrade fail
566,000 results

Results on Google :
vista upgrade unstable
335,000 results
gutsy upgrade unstable
55,900 results
Granted there are lots more Windows users than Linux users and they've had a lot more time to attempt the upgrade. Still, I doubt a large percentage of Windows users have upgraded to Vista as opposed to just getting it on new machines. Anyway, the results suggest that saying "almost nobody" had a problem upgrading to Vista is an overstatement.

I will state for the record though that I had to fix my video driver after upgrading to Gutsy (I only had 800x600 at first). That and various other tweaks took about an hour of my time. The rest of the upgrade was just clicking "OK" in response to various prompts.

[hanzomon4]

^This has nothing to do with windows, K?



There are several things you can do to ease upgrade woes:

Don't use third party repos. For an average user this is no big deal, the official repositories already give you everything you need. For more advanced and "power" users, this is very unreasonable. Fortunately, those users should be knowledgeable enough to deal with any issues brought on by the upgrade.
Upgrade via the alternate install disk. I never trust the repositories to be stable enough to do a network upgrade, especially in the first few days after a release. Too many users are trying to hit the repos and the mirrors all at the same time, the chances of a network failure of some kind is way too high. Upgrading from the alternate install CD is incredibly painless, smooth and stable by comparison.
Keep your / and /home directories on separate partitions. The /home directories are generally not touched by an upgrade (except for an occasional config file). If you keep your /home directories on a separate partition from / and the upgrade gets hosed, at least you won't lose any of your personal data and you can still do a clean install without formatting that partition.
Back up your system. I resisting the urge to say "duh" on this one. This a "Computer 101" suggestion, no one should attempt any kind of upgrade without first backing up the system. I actually create a disk image onto an external hard drive before starting the upgrade. If the upgrade fails, I just re-apply the image and try to fix whatever was wrong with the original system (9 times out of 10, that is where the problem will lie), then re-attempt the upgrade.

I have followed these steps since I started using Ubuntu and I have had mostly painless upgrades every time. Any problems I have encountered have always turned out to be either resolved by one of these steps or caused by not following one of them.

Great suggestions!!!

[Depressed Man]

Hardware issues shouldn't cause a trouble, as you can't expect a hardware, which was working fine, to start malfunctioning in latest verison of Ubuntu... That should not be an excuse for this...



I agree, hardware regressions really are irritating.

[Rhapsody]

Nobody can afford to reinstall his/her operating system every 6 months Ubuntu latest update is released...
Why not? No, really, assuming you have separate root and home partitions (and you should) a full reinstall only results in you losing some packages, which you can reinstall in next to no time if you know which ones you had (and you should know, because you'll have installed them in the first place).


I must site example of Vista here. Though Vista is such a major change from windows xp,
Hahahahahahahahaha!

Oh wait, you were being serious, let me laugh harder.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!


still almost nobody ended up with an unstable system after upgrading XP with vista. Then why is this the case with Ubuntu ?
I get the impression you're basing this conclusion based on seeing more broken Ubuntu installs than broken Vista installs reported on this forum.

I'll give you a second to figure out what's up with this picture.


I love Ubuntu, i just love it....But the questions which has been haunting me is that, "when Ubuntu can't even upgrade itself to latest release without any hassles, how can we persuade a windows user about the greatness of Ubuntu over windows xp ?
You typically can. Any problems I've had while upgrading have been my own fault. Aside from that, all upgrades have been smooth and pain-free. I attribute this to me not using Automatix or upgrade scripts. I keep to the officially recommended methods.

[Flying caveman]

Well, Windows doesn't even have an upgrade feature. If it did, i'd be afraid to use it, I don't think I've ever installed a Windows service pack or hotfix without it breaking something else. My upgrade went flawlessly. Keep in mind that I was not forced to do an upgrade, I just wanted to see what it looked like. I'm still running 6.06 on a few other computers, and all the software that was on my computer still works the same as it did since 5.10. :-({|=:-({|= Go and use Vista then, I don't care. You get what you pay for.

[Mr. Picklesworth]

Firstly, my upgrades have all gone fine. That's one system from Edgy -> Feisty devel -> Gutsy devel, with intermittent problems (as we get with devel releases) but no lasting issues. It continues to be an excellent, though underpowered, desktop / web server hybrid. The other one started with Feisty and moved to Gutsy's final alpha, near the beta stage quite happily.

Additionally, while Windows' upgrades go well, few people do those types of installations with Windows because of its infamous habit of becoming exponentially slower, weirder and less stable as it ages. (My Windows install has recently developed the peculiar habit of Explorer's desktop background disappearing and reappearing a minute after being started). Windows seems to have a built in intelligence which manufactures glitches on its own.
Thus, most Windows upgrades are migrating personal data but deleting old software and Windows settings. (In the case of poorly built software that stores settings in the wrong place - which is surprisingly common - this means losing personal data). This is done not because Upgrade doesn't work, but because by the time the upgrade would be run, there is an obvious need to (as the saying goes) Reinstall Windows. With Ubuntu, we don't seem to experience that same problem ;)


However, there are problems even I have with the upgrade process:

The fact that the name of the default wallpaper cannot be changed between releases (its filename is warty-final-ubuntu.png, and has been since, err, Warty) is a sign of a problem, with not nearly enough care being put into the upgrade process. I have never asked, but I believe the reason is so people using the defaults automatically transition to the new defaults. There is a lot of room for Improvement, not just in cleanups, but in the realm of sanity. While a lot of GNOME, Ubuntu, Debian and Linux feels fantastically tidy, cool and smart from a system design perspective, other chunks feel like ten inches of hacks painted over recycled tracing paper, ready to peel off at any moment. The good news is that we have all the infrastructure necessary to make this work. It's just that nobody, so far, seems to have put together the pieces.

Updates to defaults can be fixed using default gconf keys (for example, /desktop/gnome/background/picture_filename) that are updated with packages. This includes changing default and installed wallpapers; if the wallpaper is set to its default value, the magic of gconf will have it automatically change over to the new default. Scripts can be run with updates, so those can all be changed smoothly.

The updater should tell the user a lot more than it does now, to avoid compatibility issues and redundancy. For example, a startling number of people have not figured out that Gutsy uses Tracker as its default search engine, not Beagle! (Which is a bit of a shame in that Beagle has an awesome searching algorithm, but a good thing in terms of indexing, which is what happens most of the time anyway).
What should happen is the update process should have an information window appear, saying that Tracker has been installed, asking the user if he wants to keep or remove Beagle.



On a different thought, I look forward to how well the next upgrade will go for people, assuming the Automatix team really has cleaned that thing up...

[Belyel]

Like many previous posters have stated, Windows doesn't exactly "upgrade" like Ubuntu does. Even if you consider a new OS release an "upgrade," the problems encounterd with a windows 'upgrade' are, in my experience, much much much worse than anything I've experienced with Ubuntu. Upgrading from dapper to edgy on my laptop hosed my setup, but only because I had so much customized on it, most either built from source or from 3rd party repos. However, it took me only about one day to recover my machine, and I didn't even have to reinstall.
Edgy to feisty went flawlessly, I only had to reinstall my video card drivers using envy on both my systems (one nvida, one ati). When I upgraded from win2k to winxp-pro on my desktop, I had to reinstall drivers for almost every piece of hardware in my system. Add that to all the software that no longer worked, and it was a collosal pain in my neck. When I wiped and reinstalled xp, I lost everything on my windows part. When I have to wipe/reinstally ubuntu (actually have only done so once), I just wipe and install root partition, when I load it up again, there are all my documents in /home! wow, what a concept.
When upgrading from XP to sp2 my entire system was borked because of bad software from ms. When I finally upgraded from XP to vista, my entire windows part was borked because 70% of my hardware wasn't supported or even recognized by vista. Even things that didn't require drivers in XP now magically didn't work in vista. When I upgrade versions in Ubuntu (which is 100% totally optional by the way), I may have to resinstall a driver or two, but at least I have a workign system when the upgrade is done.

[Snowcat]

Just wanted to share my own, maybe a bit odd, experiences. I have upgraded my laptop all the way from Hoary to the current Gutsy, and believe it or not - it is still working, and in good shape.

I am, however, quite used to getting a whole load of error messages on each upgrade, usually coupled with X crashing, Update-Manager showing broken packages and a variety of features that suddenly stop working (this last upgrade to Gutsy was probably the worst. I actually considered doing a fresh install [-X).
So far I have always managed to fix these problems and have a fully-functional system (except the latest from Gutsy: no battery detected. I'm confident that it will be solved in the near future, though).

So, at least for me, it DOES work, every time, but it IS an experience that no newbie will ever be able to accept.

Oh, and I can't say I have much experience with Windows upgrades, but I'm so used to just reinstalling it (Have done so at least once a year on my father's computer for the past five years), that I find it hard to believe that anyone would bother to upgrade:KS.

[PartisanEntity]

Well I still have not been able to upgrade to Gutsy because the upgrade process seems to hang, quite a few people (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=580852) are having this problem.

The last time I upgraded, from Edgy to Feisty, all went well. Not sure if the problem is on my end, judging by the amount of people who have same issues I think at the moment there might be something with the upgrade tool.

[bruce89]

Since when can you do an in-place Windows upgrade?

All my Ubuntu upgrades have gone well, as I don't use any external repositries. (if you do, remove them and their packages before upgrading)

[Dimitriid]

Upgrades do work almost all the time, unless your system is half-broken to begin with.

I disagree. Its good that you like the distro but this can actively mislead people: upgrading from distro to distro for example is far from perfect on a system that was otherwise quite stable. Your statement to me is just wishful thinking if you look at all the threads about Gutsy.

That being said, Yes Ubuntu upgrades are infinitely superior to Windows for example, no problem was as major as some of the problems service packs from MS introduced and the mere fact that most versions are able to upgrade seamlessly if you compare it to say, XP --> Vista is remarkable.

But I'd advise people not to believe everything will be nice and clean on Ubuntu, far from it. In many cases upgrade distro won't even work for no apparent reason.

[Spike-X]

if your upgrade failed there might be something wrong :(

probably with you :lolflag:

No need for that.

[Spike-X]

& please, i am not talking Windows vs Linux thing.... just gave example of vista for a little comparison.....please don't transform it into one....



The thread title "...how can we rate Ubuntu over Window(s)" does make it seem like a Windows vs Linux thing, though.

[popch]

The very topic smacks of not really knowing the issues at hand.

Upgrading Ubuntu from one release to the next usually went very smoothly for me. I acknowledge that there have been some issues for other people. I also acknowledge that I preferred a fresh install this time for two of my laptops at this time. One had some broken applications I wanted to redo from scratch, the other one had windows only.

However, I have some experience migrating and maintaining PCs with Windows. The effort of keeping a Windows environment keeping in a useful working state exceeds the effort of migrating an Ubuntu installation from time to time by far.

Your experience might not be the same, but mine is conclusive.

[23meg]

I disagree. Its good that you like the distro but this can actively mislead people: upgrading from distro to distro for example is far from perfect on a system that was otherwise quite stable.

It's not about me liking the distro. What I refer to as "half-broken" are installations where libraries shared by many apps and/or configuration files have been replaced by unsupported third party repositories and/or automated installation scripts. There's no sure way to guarantee successful upgrades when that is the case. And owners of such installations, who are often non-technical users, can very well think that their system is "stable", until an exception occurs.


Your statement to me is just wishful thinking if you look at all the threads about Gutsy.

As I said, looking at support requests made by people having problems isn't an accurate way to judge the overall success level of a feature.


But I'd advise people not to believe everything will be nice and clean on Ubuntu, far from it.

I'm not saying everything is guaranteed to be perfect; I'd actually be against anyone saying it. My point is that the situation with the core supported software, as long as people stick to it whenever possible, isn't as bad as the OP and others are describing.

An important point to note is that with Ubuntu covering more and more use cases for common customizations (https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/common-customizations) with each release, the probability of breakage due to those customizations can be expected to go down.

[bruce89]

It's not about me liking the distro. What I refer to as "half-broken" are installations where libraries shared by many apps and/or configuration files have been replaced by unsupported third party repositories and/or automated installation scripts. There's no sure way to guarantee successful upgrades when that is the case. And owners of such installations, who are often non-technical users, can very well think that their system is "stable", until an exception occurs.

Indeed, then the blame it on Ubuntu instead of their questionable repository management.


As I said, looking at support requests made by people having problems isn't an accurate way to judge the overall success level of a feature.

What about Firefox's inclusion in Ubuntu considering the number of bugs (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/firefox/) it has? (613 ATM)

[whistlerspa]

As a longtime user of Ubuntu [from 5.04] this discussion of instability is making me very cautious about upgrading.

I've made many tweaks and setting changes to my 7.04 desktop and because I have an ATI video card [a known bug - listed in Release Notes] and I use 3rd party repositories it makes me extremely nervous about taking the plunge.

After the last 7.04 install [clean], as my attempts at a network upgrade from 6.10 went haywire, I had a lot of trouble with my Radeon 9600 video card to get open GL stable enough to play games. I don't really want to spend time twice a year fixing and tweaking my computers, I have better things to do - like just using and enjoying the software packages that I use. I prefer to have a stable desktop that works is my decision.

So even though I'm currently downloading both 7.10 desktop and Alternate CDs [noting the comments about avoiding network upgrades - and in view of my last experience], in case I have a change of heart, I doubt that I'll use them for now unless I install 7.10 to a new machine.

Perhaps twice a year for releases is just too ambitious. Maybe once a year with a really stable and rock steady release would be a better option. It's still way ahead of what Micro$haft do.

I agree with the comments that say a reliable upgrade option is vital these days because we tend to have so much software and customisation of our machines. A clean install every time is just too tedious.

[Dimitriid]

An important point to note is that with Ubuntu covering more and more use cases for common customizations with each release, the probability of breakage due to those customizations can be expected to go down.

It can go down as long as the total amount of customizations does not go up in a bigger proportion, which is likely if the adoption rate grows as well.

I am not trying to make it look like its really bad ( aside from my personal rants and frustrations ) but I just don't think you can expect users to "stick with official stuff", specially new Linux users exploring for the first time and coming off a windows experience.

The reason to debate this to me its because it CAN get infinitely better: like you said simply adding "unofficial" repositories and packages to apt will remain a liability on the system, so there needs to be a separate package systems scheme: one for what should be considered "core" updates ( this should include many applications that because of their nature are likely to interfere with upgrades or security issues if installed by the users ) and a separate package manager for third party repositories, external *.deb packages and one that automatically handles source code too.

Adding packages on the main or core package manager should require similar configuration to the current one but should almost never be used by most people.

[bruce89]

At least there's now a GUI tool for upgrading, in the old days you had to replace words in /etc/apt/sources.list and do
sudo aptitude update && sudo aptitude dist-upgrade Mabye it's too easy these days.

[23meg]

What about Firefox's inclusion in Ubuntu considering the number of bugs (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/firefox/) it has? (613 ATM)

Sure, the mere number of bug reports (not bugs, which is different) also says nothing.

[bruce89]

Perhaps twice a year for releases is just too ambitious. Maybe once a year with a really stable and rock steady release would be a better option. It's still way ahead of what Micro$haft do..

Ubuntu isn't stable, Debian is.

Seriously, Ubuntu's 6 month release cycle is to keep up with GNOME, which is also 6 months.

[whistlerspa]

Oh and is there a Powerbook G4 version of 7.10 or plans for one ?- couldn't see it on the download page.

[bruce89]

Oh and is there a Powerbook G4 version of 7.10 or plans for one ?- couldn't see it on the download page.

http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/ports/releases/7.10/release/

PowerPC support was dropped with Feisty, but it is now maintained by the community, hence it being in "ports".

[23meg]

It can go down as long as the total amount of customizations does not go up in a bigger proportion, which is likely if the adoption rate grows as well.

I don't think it will go up in any proportion that can be correlated with the adoption rate. Tens of thousands of users don't tweak their systems with tens of thousands of ways that cause breakage; they typically hear about and get their customizations from certain known places, which cause breakage in certain ways. Common customizations will always remain common to some degree, regardless of the numbers. This is of course oversimplified, but you get the idea.


I just don't think you can expect users to "stick with official stuff", specially new Linux users exploring for the first time and coming off a windows experience.

To be more precise, I'm saying that non-technical people should stick with official stuff whenever it's not absolutely necessary not to do so, and that when they need third party stuff, they should resort to well known and trusted sources (the Launchpad PPA system should help to an extent), and that we should educate users about the importance of the above.


The reason to debate this to me its because it CAN get infinitely better: like you said simply adding "unofficial" repositories and packages to apt will remain a liability on the system, so there needs to be a separate package systems scheme: one for what should be considered "core" updates ( this should include many applications that because of their nature are likely to interfere with upgrades or security issues if installed by the users ) and a separate package manager for third party repositories, external *.deb packages and one that automatically handles source code too.

Adding packages on the main or core package manager should require similar configuration to the current one but should almost never be used by most people.

Sure, the existing system can be improved. I don't think separate package managers are the way to go, but similar ideas often get discussed on the development mailing lists, and based on what I've seen so far, I'm confident that a good solution will be reached.

[LanDan]

if you want to upgrade your OS to the latest everytime without any problems or pre-thought, i would suggest to buy a playstation.

otherwise if you want to upgrade to a next version you need to know what you are doing and especially what you did and this goes for any OS, you are still dealing with computer science here after all.

[kamaboko]

if you want to upgrade your OS to the latest everytime without any problems or pre-thought, i would suggest to buy a playstation.

otherwise if you want to upgrade to a next version you need to know what you are doing and especially what you did and this goes for any OS, you are still dealing with computer science here after all.

I wouldn't classify installing an OS and various drivers as "computer science".

[popch]

I wouldn't classify installing an OS and various drivers as "computer science".

True. I would not classify the replacement of the engine in my car as 'automobile science'. Still, it would be an endeavour which was somewhat beyond the capabilities of most drivers. As it should be,

[LanDan]

I wouldn't classify installing an OS and various drivers as "computer science".

i'm not sayng it is, i'm saying you are dealing with it.

[woedend]

this is a lesson if nothing else, for the end user at least, in not putting all of your eggs in one basket. An OS should be more independent than user files and settings than windows allows, as many 'borks' seem only fixable by reformat/reinstall. Whats one to do with 1 fat windows partition with all of their data on it? Partition your hd accordingly, backup user settings, and fresh install every 6 months. System can be back to as before in hours. There are far too many variables in an OS and a computer to make every upgrade 100% successful.

[LanDan]

i can do a fresh install in 10 minutes, but it does take a lot of planning in advance.

maybe the topic starter was right, who ever told him that upgrading could never give you any hassle was wrong and maybe the current way to organise this for the end user to make it a brainless idea needs to be reconsidered

(altough i'm impressed how they automate it the way they do it now)

[Tux Aubrey]

What we should do if we want more people to have success with upgrades is educate users better on proper usage and maintenance practices.

+1

My name is Aubrey. I haven't used a "Third Party Installation Script" since Edgy and the upgrade from Feisty to Gutsy on my laptop was as smooth as silk. I did have an awful time going from Feisty to Edgy and hence I have gone cold turkey on the scripts and learned to do things nice n proper. I'd like to apologize to anyone I ever encouraged to use these scripts.

Now for step 7!

[whistlerspa]

http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/ports/releases/7.10/release/

PowerPC support was dropped with Feisty, but it is now maintained by the community, hence it being in "ports".

Thanks for That am downloading it now.:)

[cyneuron]

Wow...lots of responses....

its pretty clear people have mixed responses....with most getting upgrades completed but almost everybody speaks of having few troubles after upgrades, like xorg problem, driver issues etc....which they have fixed on their own within few hours....

Well, thats good but i think you are not imagining the situation where people don't have this much knowledge to make thing correct on their own. Lotta people are computer illiterate, & they are the one who rely on Windows OS & Mac because MOST OF TIME (though not always) Windows & Mac updates & upgrades JUST WORK for them without troubles {now don't bash me on this....i am not praising windows or mac...but you will agree to this}.

These people just know how to use their computer to do their work...they are not geek or knowledgeable enough to tackle such problems....& the problem would be even more severe in Business where people just don't have time to face these issues every time they upgrade, They can't afford to make a new fresh install every time an update is released...

{i am not one of them, but i have windows & mac users all around me, & i have realized with time that computer instability problems with upgrades is a major distraction for them to opt Linux/Ubuntu}

and believe me, these people form major chunk who are still to switch to Linux...and if want to make them switch to Ubuntu, we gotta make sure that such an essential thing like upgrading should work without any troubles....because people like you and me will solve the problems, by searching on Internet or other way like forums, but those people won't be able to do so because either they don't have time, or they are just can't do stuff like that....

I strongly think, that update process should be immune to configuration & tweaking of client system....and as it is not right now, then there gotta be some work to be done here.....

few problems you people highlighted:

1. problems due to automated scripts...(These things gotta be discouraged strongly)

2. software installation from unofficial repos.

3. extreme tweaking of system...

4. upgrading over network rather than alternate install cd.

finally i want to say, Ubuntu has great maturity & stability as a system, while installing, & working, but lots of efforts are needed to be put in to make upgrade smooth and more responsive to client system....


& this isn't a Windows vs Linux thing per se, but you got to have something to compare with, & Windows & Mac are the only two alternative prevalent enough to be compared with....don't know about BSD....

as i said previously also, this problem is grave in its own dimensions, even in a world without Windows....

[aysiu]

Well, thats good but i think you are not imagining the situation where people don't have this much knowlege to make thing correct on their own, Lotta people are computer illetrate, & they are the one who rely on Windows OS & Mac because MOST OF TIME (though not always) Windows & Mac updates & upgrades JUST WORK for them without troubles {now don't bash me on this....i am not praising windows or mac...but you will agree to this}. I don't think so.

Read this:
My wife "dist-upgraded" to Tiger and it messed up her user profile... (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=80341)

[tyggna1]

I must site example of Vista here. Though Vista is such a major change from windows xp, still almost nobody ended up with an unstable system after upgrading XP with vista. Then why is this the case with Ubuntu ?


I work at a call center, and fix computers for at least 6 hours a day. "almost nobody" is about 4 out of every 5 calls for me. Every 10 of those, Vista has completely destroyed their hard drive (has to do with it's fundamental change in bootup). I get angry call after angry call of people saying, "why do I have to be Microsoft's guinea pig?"

Just yesterday, I had a girl call in who, during the process of upgrading to Vista, the attempt to upgrade completely trashed a gigabyte stick of RAM.

Worst I've had/seen with Gutsy Gibbon is that two programs I liked didn't work right away--but I fixed one of them in two hours, and the other one will be fixed when I can get around to it.

Vista's got it's problems.

[siimo]

Repeat after me:

No one is forcing me to upgrade every six months. Each and every ubuntu release is supposed for 1 and half years on the desktop, longer for LTS releases.

[Incense]

I'm sure it is hard for noobs to resist the upgrade when Digg, the ubuntu web site, and the forums have been going crazy over gutsy for the past month or so. Yeah you don't HAVE to install the upgrade, but I would think it's pretty hard to resist. My desktop still runs 6.06, and it runs it very well. I have not found a reason to upgrade it. It is a bit funny though, even though it's not even a year-and-a-half old, people act like it's ancient.

Ubuntu upgrades are really well done, some of the best I've seen. I tried to update openSUSE 10.2 to 10.3..... yeah, that didn't work very well.

Oh, and the reason you only hear about the upgrades gone bad, are the same reasons you don't call the police to say they are doing a good job, you only call when there is something wrong, same goes for support forums.

[thx11381974]

Repeat after me:

No one is forcing me to upgrade every six months. Each and every ubuntu release is supposed for 1 and half years on the desktop, longer for LTS releases.

So what dose that solve?The upgrade only fails once evey year and half or so.

I had one machine upgrade fine the other failed. Credit for the success of the first or blame for the failure of the other are not mine. Both are for the Ubuntu developers. It sounds like it worked good for most, failing still for far too many. Ubuntu is still an immature OS, I think we can expect each new release to go progressively smoother. On the other hand maybe a six month release cycle is just too fast.

[J-Morris]

Well, I'm a new user of ubuntu, and I was quiet satisfied until this new upgrade. I switched very recently. I was using the BETA and it worked perfectly. I upgraded a little while ago and I don't have any audio anymore. I had a longer reply typed, but the bottom line is that "upgrades" shouldn't take my music away from me. I probably won't be upgrading again.

[bruce89]

My desktop still runs 6.06, and it runs it very well. I have not found a reason to upgrade it. It is a bit funny though, even though it's not even a year-and-a-half old, people act like it's ancient.

1.5 years is a long time in Free Software. Ubuntu has been around for only 3 years.

[kamaboko]

Every 10 of those, Vista has completely destroyed their hard drive (has to do with it's fundamental change in bootup).
Just yesterday, I had a girl call in who, during the process of upgrading to Vista, the attempt to upgrade completely trashed a gigabyte stick of RAM.


I'm gonna call BS on this one. Please explain to me (in detail) how an OS destroys hardware whereby it makes it completely non-functional (e.g., a brick). In particular, a stick of ram. Don't you think that if one in every ten copies of Vista physically destroyed hardware it would make the news?

[whistlerspa]

Thanks for That am downloading it now.:)

However there seems to be something seriously wrong with this disk - first run seemed to corrupt my Mac HDD and then after repair and retry the monitor turned some very strange colours when I tried to boot the disk into live.

I won't try again I think.:(

[southernman]

@ the OP, I am going to have to call BS to nearly every letter you typed.

How long have you been using Ubuntu... of any GNU/Linux OS prior to your posting your findings here?

Your points are, for the most part, based off of someone elses experience. You are lumping the whole of it, to those people that reported their problems here. While some of the people that have flawless upgrades do indeed post about their success... the vast majority don't. They just continue on their merry way. So your not so scientific methods are flawed

You say it isn't a Ubuntu vs Windows thing, right? Yet, that's the title of your thread, in more words than that.

Did I attempt an upgrade this round?... NO, I didn't. I opted to do a clean install. While I did have problems with it, none of them can be directly related to Ubuntu as they were caused by ill handling hardware issues from my ASUS motherboard (the same issues I had with Feisty). BTW, I only had two issues to overcome. I myself, am far from a GNU/Linux guru... with only < than a years seat time! ;)

[whistlerspa]

I'm gonna call BS on this one. Please explain to me (in detail) how an OS destroys hardware whereby it makes it completely non-functional (e.g., a brick). In particular, a stick of ram. Don't you think that if one in every ten copies of Vista physically destroyed hardware it would make the news?

Quite possibly - but I've seen memory sticks rendered useless and needing reformatting after swapping from one OS to another e.g. between OSX, Linux and Window$.

[Dimitriid]

I haven't gotten customers with memory boards totaled because of Vista ( I work a callcenter too, so I have at this point something like 320 hours taking tech support calls for a computer manufacturer ). What I do know is that our company did changed the BIOS for Vista because of new "features". Basically customers were never directed to upgrade the bios themselves and the "ready for vista" notebooks and the notebooks with vista preinstalled already had the new "for vista" BIOS installed.

Now bear in mind that, computer manufacturers almost never follow Microsoft installing procedure and use proprietary third party programs to create an OS image and deploy it to the HDD. This means that some computer manufacturers could be also trying to deploy a bios update for the new vista "features" ( I keep quoting because I really haven't been able to find out exactly what the changes to the bios are ).

Under those circumstances, its possible that their versions of vista are trying to update the bios, possibly failing, possibly changing the timings on the memory, possibly not even setting them to something the boards can work on, you get the picture.

In which case a "Vista Upgrade" could possibly end up damaging RAM. So I wouldn't go out and say that it can't happen.

[salsafyren]

I have a lot of breakage when upgrading from one release to another.

This is not only caused by using 3rd party repos, it is also caused by the lack of quality in Ubuntu. I came to this conclusion because I get breakage even from clean installs.

Now, Debian has some of the same issues as well. Woody couldn't be easily upgraded to Sarge etc. The issues are however not as big as they are in Ubuntu. That's my experience.

I think the whole problem lies in that the OS is not separated from the applications. I long for an OS that you can install, keep for about 3 years and still get new programs for. This is possible with Windows, not MacOSX and not Linux.

Maybe klik2 will be able to provide this functionality, since a program is distributed as one file and doesn't mess up the package system.

[LanDan]

[QUOTE=salsafyren;3588697

I think the whole problem lies in that the OS is not separated from the applications. I long for an OS that you can install, keep for about 3 years and still get new programs for. This is possible with Windows, not MacOSX and not Linux.

Maybe klik2 will be able to provide this functionality, since a program is distributed as one file and doesn't mess up the package system.[/QUOTE]

there's only 1 OS that can do just that, FreeBSD

[zugu]

I have a lot of breakage when upgrading from one release to another.

This is not only caused by using 3rd party repos, it is also caused by the lack of quality in Ubuntu. I came to this conclusion because I get breakage even from clean installs.

Now, Debian has some of the same issues as well. Woody couldn't be easily upgraded to Sarge etc. The issues are however not as big as they are in Ubuntu. That's my experience.

I think the whole problem lies in that the OS is not separated from the applications. I long for an OS that you can install, keep for about 3 years and still get new programs for. This is possible with Windows, not MacOSX and not Linux.

Maybe klik2 will be able to provide this functionality, since a program is distributed as one file and doesn't mess up the package system.

I can't even remember the number of times I have been frustrated by the same things you mentioned. Really, after reading your post I immediately checked out your nickname, just to make sure it wasn't me who posted while asleep.

There has been a lot of debate about your issue and the only conclusion is that nothing will change in the "Ubuntu way" for at least the foreseeable future.

FreeBSD, Windows, OS X and maybe PC-BSD are the only stable alternatives we have right now. And I really tried to like Ubuntu.

[gn2]

My own 7.10 upgrade experience is that my Desktop PC upgraded itsself using Update Manager without hitch.
It has Automatix and other "non-Ubuntu" stuff on it.

My laptop however turned into a slow running useless slug with 7.10, so bad that I had to wipe it and re-install 7.04.
It is "Ubuntu only" with no Automatix etc.

So was the upgrade to 7.10 a success?

Yes and no.

[pdlethbridge]

At this time I'm thinking about going back to feisty until the bugs are worked out of gutsy. Right now synaptic isn't working correctly, as I can't change any settings or repositories without the program freezing. Also the nvidia settings change to 800 x 600 from 1024 x 768 when I reboot. Yes, small problems, but not ones I like. I agree, success upgrading to gutsy? yes and no.

[Linuturk]

I've never had windows upgrade cleanly.

That doesn't even begin to talk about how often you have to reinstall Windows to maintain a stable and usable system.

[Erik Trybom]

Regardless whose fault upgrading problems actually is - Ubuntu's, the user's or some script makers' - would it be possible for the Ubuntu devs to do something about it?

Let's say user A has script B installed that has been known to cause troubles when upgrading from Edgy to Feisty. Perhaps the installer could then automatically check for the presence of script B and if necessary uninstall it before continuing the installation process?

Considering most users do upgrade their systems every six months, this is problem that I don't mind using hacks to solve.

[cogadh]

It would be impossible for the devs to program the installer to detect every possible install script there is out there. Automatix isn't the only one; I've actually written some simple ones for my own personal use and you could probably find one for pretty much any software out there that is not part of the repos. Sure they could limit it to known culprits, but the devs have always said from the start do not use install scripts, only install through officially supported methods (the repos, deb packages). Since the use of scripts is a "use at your own risk" thing and Ubuntu/Canonical have officially stated don't do it, why should they program their installer to account for it?

I would compare it to Windows XP users who modify the uxtheme.dll to accept non MS themes or change the tcpip.sys to accept more than 10 connections; after doing that, certain updates won't install and, in the case of the uxtheme.dll, service packs will fail completely. No one has asked MS to correct their updates and service packs to account for these situations, because it is understood by the user that they are doing something that is not supported and not recommended. Why in the world would we expect Ubuntu to be any different?

[Dimitriid]

I think the whole problem lies in that the OS is not separated from the applications. I long for an OS that you can install, keep for about 3 years and still get new programs for. This is possible with Windows, not MacOSX and not Linux.

Thats not true, this is Possible with Arch Linux, their "versions" are nothing but snapshots and the whole system is constantly upgraded. Since it is an "expert" distro ( I disagree, simply having the wiki beginners guide will get you going pretty fast ) its not as popular but you'd get support and help if you are patient. Ive been hard on Ubuntu but I think the main reason is that ive been spoiled by Arch's rolling release system.

[salsafyren]

Thats not true, this is Possible with Arch Linux, their "versions" are nothing but snapshots and the whole system is constantly upgraded. Since it is an "expert" distro ( I disagree, simply having the wiki beginners guide will get you going pretty fast ) its not as popular but you'd get support and help if you are patient. Ive been hard on Ubuntu but I think the main reason is that ive been spoiled by Arch's rolling release system.

No, that's not possible with arch.

With Arch you are upgrading the OS and apps all the time, just like debian testing or debian unstable.

I meant an OS (kernel, X, Gnome) stable, not touched for a long time and then apps to fit on top. This should be possible but nobody is doing it because they are all hooked on the distro mentality.

[jviscosi]

Lotta people are computer illiterate, & they are the one who rely on Windows OS & Mac because MOST OF TIME (though not always) Windows & Mac updates & upgrades JUST WORK for them without troubles {now don't bash me on this....i am not praising windows or mac...but you will agree to this}.

But these people in general don't upgrade their operating systems; they buy a new computer with a newer OS on it, or else they pay someone else to do the upgrade for them. My father ran Windows 98 until this summer when I migrated him to a Mac while I was home visiting. My brother ran Windows 95(!) on an old machine I had given him until he got a new computer with Vista earlier this year. My myriad cousins, who all call me for computer help, have never upgraded their operating systems. Clients of the company I work for have our techs go out to their houses to install upgrades (and to untangle their Windows systems when they get all bunged up with spyware or whatever). If Windows upgrades were painless and easy, Cox and Best Buy and Circuit City wouldn't be advertising that they'll do them for you.


the problem would be even more severe in Business where people just don't have time to face these issues every time they upgrade, They can't afford to make a new fresh install every time an update is released...

End users in a business of any sort of size don't install their own upgrades; that's what IT departments are for. Businesses tend to be change-averse and that's why they have been so slow to embrace Vista. In many cases they have planned maintenance schedules and Vista won't start trickling into their organizations until they start installing a new generation of workstations for their employees. (FWIW, I've worked in IT since before the days of Windows 95, and I can count the number of Windows business upgrades I've done on one hand. Now, counting the number of Windows reinstalls, that would require a whole bunch of hands ...)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the upgrade experience in Ubuntu is perfect (if it were I wouldn't have had 800x600 resolution after going to Gutsy), but it's certainly not any worse than the upgrade experience in Windows. Even with the issues I had, my computer was operational with a functioning GUI while I worked on fixing stuff.

I've never done a Mac upgrade, but my wife is making noises that she wants Leopard, so there might be one in my future ... I've heard they tend to go smoothly so we'll see.

[LanDan]

lol ;)

i think ubuntu made it so easy that most people think its just another security upgrade

[misfitpierce]

So your clear your title is unlogical... Keep in mind that when I upgraded to Vista I got a blue screen of death as their called. Windows can be just as crummy. In the software world nothing is perfect but dont subject them to one another. If you like windows... like it. If you like Ubuntu... like it. Choice is yours.

[rookie_paul]

I think Cyneuon hit a good point. Ubuntu still needs to become even more non-geek-friendly. (X)Ubuntu shares my laptop with Windows since June. I upgraded (i.e., hit the upgrade button in Update Manager) from Edgy to Feisty, then from Feisty to Gutsy and had few problems that I managed to resolve. However, to be honest, if I were a little more newbie (or a little less stubborn), I would have given up and got back to Windows. On the other hand, as a linux novice, I found Ubuntu less difficult than expected.
So, it's still a long way to a non-geek-friendly system, but many steps have been done.

[Wiebelhaus]

I've worked on PC's for 5 years professionally (means getting paid to do it because I know what I'm doing) I'm going to drop the shocker here:


Windows can't upgrade without problems and in some cases can't upgrade at all.


I can say this because I"ve worked on over 3,000 PC's this year alone.

[luvdemheels]

I second sx66gns.

[LanDan]

i 3rd that

i did not 3000 maybe but more then enough.

anybody here who could?

[p_quarles]

I've worked on PC's for 5 years professionally (means getting paid to do it because I know what I'm doing) I'm going to drop the shocker here:


Windows can't upgrade without problems and in some cases can't upgrade at all.


I can say this because I"ve worked on over 3,000 PC's this year alone.
Yep. And I'm willing to bet that most of the people complaining about the problems with upgrading have never actually tried to upgrade Windows (and service packs don't count).

I'm sure this has already been said (didn't read the whole thread), but you really don't need to upgrade before the distribution's end-of-life. 7.04 will be supported for an entire year from now -- this means that if you don't like to tinker with your system (i.e., breaking stuff and figuring out how to fix it) and don't have a specific need for some new function in 7.10, you have no reason to upgrade.

[Ireclan]

See, I always do a clean install, to avoid these upgrade problems (plus I'm on dial-up). Do I think there will be a future in which upgrades, rather than clean installs, can be done with relative success? Yes. But that future is not now. And the ONLY way that future will ever come is if people who can keep TESTING the upgrade function, and giving the developers feedback. That sucks, I know, but that's just the way it is. It's open source software. This means that YOU have to be the guinea pig.

Of course, if you don't like this, you could always go back to Windows. But I don't believe that upgrades are without there problems on that platform either. They probably meet with more success, but that's because you can't customize things as much. In Linux, you can customize things more, but that also means things break more often too. In Windows, you can't customize things as much, but that means more standardization and an easier time upgrading. It's as simple as that.

[Wiebelhaus]

See, I always do a clean install, to avoid these upgrade problems (plus I'm on dial-up). Do I think there will be a future in which upgrades, rather than clean installs, can be done with relative success? Yes. But that future is not now. And the ONLY way that future will ever come is if people who can keep TESTING the upgrade function, and giving the developers feedback. That sucks, I know, but that's just the way it is. It's open source software. This means that YOU have to be the guinea pig.

Of course, if you don't like this, you could always go back to Windows. But I don't believe that upgrades are without there problems on that platform either. They probably meet with more success, but that's because you can't customize things as much. In Linux, you can customize things more, but that also means things break more often too. In Windows, you can't customize things as much, but that means more standardization and an easier time upgrading. It's as simple as that.

Aye , I always recommend a clean install of winblows to , Cause everytime I qoute someone the cost for an upgrade the damn thing blows the hell up and gets melted PCB board entrails all over my clean tech bench.

[thx11381974]

Upgrading from 7.40 to 7.10 is little more than a service pack. No I take that back it's the same. Microsoft pulls off both version upgrades and service pack upgrades better than Ubuntu. Their's no reason to pretend this isn't true the real questions are. Has it gotten better than the last upgrade? Will the next upgrade go better than this one?

[popch]

Microsoft pulls off both version upgrades and service pack upgrades better than Ubuntu. Their's no reason to pretend this isn't true

There's no reason to pretend it is true, either. What do you base your assertion on?

[LanDan]

Upgrading from 7.40 to 7.10 is little more than a service pack. No I take that back it's the same. Microsoft pulls off both version upgrades and service pack upgrades better than Ubuntu. Their's no reason to pretend this isn't true the real questions are. Has it gotten better than the last upgrade? Will the next upgrade go better than this one?

you mean Aero will be included in XP SP4?

[gn2]

See, I always do a clean install, to avoid these upgrade problems.

No guarantee, my laptop was clean installed with 7.10 and ran so slow I have had to re-install 7.04 which runs just fine.

[thx11381974]

There's no reason to pretend it is true, either. What do you base your assertion on?

I base it on Windows having about a billion users just about all of them installing upgrades and service packs successfully. Ubuntu has much higher failure rate that's just being honest. Windows has been around for decades Ubuntu has not. I'm sure they'll do better with each release. Pretending Linux is better than windows in every way hurts Linux It doesn't help. The Linux community has to be honest about it's flaws, and never blame the user for the software's shortcomings.

[LanDan]

I base it on Windows having about a billion users just about all of them installing upgrades and service packs successfully. Ubuntu has much higher failure rate that's just being honest. Windows has been around for decades Ubuntu has not. I'm sure they'll do better with each release. Pretending Linux is better than windows in every way hurts Linux It doesn't help. The Linux community has to be honest about it's flaws, and never blame the user for the software's shortcomings.

IT IS NOT A SERVICE PACK!!

sorry to scream here, i really do. the comming upgrade to Gnome 2.20.1 2.20.2 and 2.20.3 THAT is a serviecpack

feisty to gutsy is version upgrade like XP to Vista

[cogadh]

I base it on Windows having about a billion users just about all of them installing upgrades and service packs successfully.
Considering the are less than 700 million PCs in the world and not all of them run Windows, you're stats are a little off. Not to mention, the average user doesn't upgrade their Windows OS. If they are going to get a new version of Windows, they usually get it with a new PC purchase. As has already been said, updates and service pack installations are not the same as upgrading to a new version.

[popch]

I base it on Windows having about a billion users just about all of them installing upgrades and service packs successfully.

If you believe that, I can sell you the Golden Gate Bridge and the Statue of Liberty for a very attractive price, let's say about 250k apiece.

What makes you think that even a small portion of those users installs upgrades and service packs? Where I work, e.g., some 5000 users have their PCs maintained by a professional IT staff. Minor updates are deployed and monitored on regular schedule; service packs are rolled out several months after they are published, after much inhouse testing. Usually, service packs are not deployed as 'upgrades' but by fresh installs of the OS with the applications. We usually succeed by meticuously testing each application against the patched OS, and thus we prevent many nasty surprises.

And yes, some of the employees try and bring us our private PCs in order to get the service packs installed.

[salsafyren]

I base it on Windows having about a billion users just about all of them installing upgrades and service packs successfully. Ubuntu has much higher failure rate that's just being honest. Windows has been around for decades Ubuntu has not. I'm sure they'll do better with each release. Pretending Linux is better than windows in every way hurts Linux It doesn't help. The Linux community has to be honest about it's flaws, and never blame the user for the software's shortcomings.

Nice to see a mature and thoughtful response.

Yes, I agree that it does help to be honest about the shortcomings of Ubuntu. That's why I don't "convert" anybody to Linux. They need to ask for it and take responsibility.

Desktop Linux has come a long way but it needs constructive criticism not only fan boys shouting how great it is.

The repository system is really great but it only works in a really controlled environment. The upgrade failures are a testament to this. We need something better.

[thx11381974]

"newsmaker Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer got Microsoft its first billion customers. It's Will Poole's job to get the next billion."



http://www.news.com/At-Microsoft,-seeking-the-next-billion-computer-users/2008-1014_3-6212609.html

[thx11381974]

Nice to see a mature and thoughtful response.

Yes, I agree that it does help to be honest about the shortcomings of Ubuntu. That's why I don't "convert" anybody to Linux. They need to ask for it and take responsibility.

Desktop Linux has come a long way but it needs constructive criticism not only fan boys shouting how great it is.

The repository system is really great but it only works in a really controlled environment. The upgrade failures are a testament to this. We need something better.

Thank you

I agree

[p_quarles]

Desktop Linux has come a long way but it needs constructive criticism not only fan boys shouting how great it is.
I don't think anyone here is rejecting constructive criticism. Rather, I see people who work with Windows systems professionally pointing out that, no, it's actually not easier to do a version upgrade on Windows than it is in Linux.

Major software changes can mess up your system. This is not unique to Linux, and pointing this out does not make anyone a "fanboy."

[salsafyren]

I don't think anyone here is rejecting constructive criticism. Rather, I see people who work with Windows systems professionally pointing out that, no, it's actually not easier to do a version upgrade on Windows than it is in Linux.

Major software changes can mess up your system. This is not unique to Linux, and pointing this out does not make anyone a "fanboy."

Sorry, that line wasn't meant for this thread but for those that blindly follows Ubuntu and calls everything else crap.

I'm not saying Windows is much better than Ubuntu. Let's raise our standards, shall we not? :-)

[popch]

I'm not saying Windows is much better than Ubuntu. Let's raise our standards, shall we not? :-)

The OP did say that Windows was better than Ubuntu, at least with respect to ease of upgrade. OP Implied that many users did upgrade their Windows installations by themselves, and that most were succesful doing so. OP also implied that many users tried to upgrade their Ubuntu by themselves and failed doing so.

Since OP does not show any signs of actually knowing how most Windows installations are maintained and upgraded, this thread seems a bit on the futile side.

However, this does not mean that Ubuntu and its upgrades could not or should not be improved. Improvement (as opposed to mere change) is always welcome. If you mean that by 'raising our standards', that's fine with me.

[siimo]

It is usually a good idea to let the dust settle and let some random bugs be fixed before upgrading. Say around the end of December would be a good time to upgrade via apt or upgrade manager.

[jazz1]

I'll get back to you on these OS comparisons after I install OSX Leopard on Friday :lolflag:

[cogadh]

"newsmaker Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer got Microsoft its first billion customers. It's Will Poole's job to get the next billion."



http://www.news.com/At-Microsoft,-seeking-the-next-billion-computer-users/2008-1014_3-6212609.html

Did you even read the article? They are talking about increasing Windows to a billion user install base by 2015. Today, there aren't even a billion PCs in the world, but market research suggests that the number of PCs in the world will roughly double to 1.2 billion by the year 2012 (based on 2005 stats). That puts the current number of PCs in the world at somewhere between 600 and 700 million units, with Windows holding somewhere around 95-98% of that market.

[thx11381974]

No I didn't. I've seen the billion figurer a few places if it's off it really doesn't change anything 98% is 98%. I know people that couldn't connect a dvd player, who have upgraded to xp & installed service packs. Truthfully don't know anyone who had much of a problem with it. I've had a 50% failure with Ubuntu.

I tell people not to upgrade to Vista as it's a steaming turd.

[eph1973]

I downloaded and burned the live CD for Gusty for both the i386 and the amd64 architecture. Neither CD worked "out of the box" with my Broadcom Wireless card. Therefore, I am going to wait to give time for the updates to work out the major wrinkles before going for a clean install with Gusty. Do I think that my Broadcom card will work "out of the box" then? Absolutely not. I am almost sure of it. Because of the proprietary drivers. And that's pretty much the crux of anyone's problem with a clean install/upgrade. It doesn't matter which distro you use, if the OS has problems communicating with your hardware, you will have problems.

Microsoft, as long as I have known their products (about 15 years or so now), have always demanded that hardware conform to their OS. Whereas it seems that Linux is willing to do what it can to make your hardware work with it (vis i vis ndiswrapper et al). It seems to me, that if you wish to have a smooth upgrade, you will either need A) all of your hardware to be natively supported by the new distribution, or B) be aware of those pieces of hardware that you will need to pay attention to (such as my Broadcom wireless card). If you do a little preparation before hand, and maybe even (cue the dramatic music) a little research, you should have an upgrade, that given a minimal amount of time works well for your system.

If you had hardware that Microsoft did not natively support for some reason, let me assure you that you would have just as many if not more issues with getting it to work with an upgrade. Those issues are not as bad as 10 years ago, but then again, neither are the issues with hardware compatibility with Linux distributions.