Reply to post: Re: Upgrades

Re: Upgrades

For most Linux desktop distros you would upgrade to a new version the same way as you would install normal updates. I use Ubuntu (with Unity), and I can continue working while it's doing an upgrade to a new version until I need to reboot once at the end. The only thing you really notice while the upgrade is in progress is that networking is slow because of all the files being hauled in. The reboot after a full upgrade is also takes a bit longer than normal, as I think it's doing some sort of final clean-up then.

There are a few distros that won't upgrade reliably. Fedora is notorious for this, but that however is because they always pack the most bleeding edge stuff available in, so something almost always goes wrong. Fedora is only for people who insist on living dangerously though, it's definitely not for the average computer user. It's intended for people who are working on software that will go into the next version of Red Hat. It also has a very short support life (roughly one year).

Red Hat servers require a complete re-install, but that has to do with the working patterns of their customer base. Enterprise users with large server farms prefer to go through a test, image, roll-out cycle rather than upgrading individual servers. The they want to run a common master image so that they can buy a new server and just stick that image on it and know that they have exactly the same thing as all their other servers (as opposed to whatever has accumulated from multiple upgrades over the life of an older server).

Mint is *supposed* to be able to be upgradable, but due to bugs and limited testing they have had a long history of upgrade failures. If you just want a desktop that works without headaches, stick with the major desktop distros with large support teams - Ubuntu, Debian, and Suse. In the case of Ubuntu, stick with Unity, rather than the less common (on Ubuntu) desktops like KDE, XFCE, Gnome, etc. There's nothing inherently wrong with KDE, XFCE, or Gnome, but on Ubuntu they are not put out by official paid Ubuntu development team and they don't get the same degree of integration work and testing that Unity does. They also have a much, much smaller user base (on Ubuntu) than Unity does, so they don't get the same amount of usage from which to find problems.

If you go on a forum like this one, you will get a lot of posts from people who try to one-up each other by recommending the very latest and most obscure distro/desktop combination they can think of to show how avant garde they are. If you are new to Linux, you would be hard put to do better than Ubuntu with Unity even if the "in" crowd claim it makes you look stodgy. Personally, I just want to use my computer, and Ubuntu is very polished and complete.