Mike wrote: > M. Knisely wrote: > >> I didn't say it wouldn't hose my system. I will say that it will do >> better than the method that Larry mentioned. >> >> Mike K. >> >> Mike wrote: >> >>> M. Knisely wrote: >>> >>>> Please, Please, PLEASE; DO NOT upgrade Ubuntu this way. This is not the >>>> way to do an upgrade. >>>> >>>> Please use: >>>> >>>> gksu "update-manager -c" >>>> >>> This is exactly what *Totally* hosed my system. So much for using the >>> approved method. >>> >>> Mike >>> >>> > > I wouldn't say it's better. Using a boot CD from an ancient install, > along with apt and dpkg is all that recovered my system. Bear in mind I > didn't use the old CD to reinstall only recover/repair a totally hosed > upgrade. > > I am now happily running on Feisty not that it's all that. > > Someday I need to figure out just how Ubuntu has moved away from init. > Upstart is the name. It's supposed to be faster, more flexible, robust. > Can't say that it's been any of those on this machine. > > Wow! Doing away with init is a big deal! It should be done as an "init=" entry at the boot loader. Anything other than that would force a unique kernel build which should be avoided and condemned at all costs. I'm not sure how much faster init should be... It's a pretty light-weight program. Also, how much more flexible does an initial program have to be? I'm not seeing the advantage. I think this could be just one more reason why Ubuntu should be avoided... > Also without init a "boot Linux init=single" drops you into a busybox > shell with very few tools, no devices. I'm sure this is a lack of > knowledge on my part. At least with init I could get to single user > mode and not have to bring up the system from that low of a level. > > Guess it's time to google more and see if I can find more updated info. > > >