should I upgrade fc1 -> fc4?

[sean darcy]

I've got an old server running fc1.  Should I upgrade it 
step-by-step, fc1-fc2-fc3, or just go directly to fc4?

sean

[Stephen Walton]

sean wrote:
> I've got an old server running fc1.  Should I upgrade it step-by-step, 
> fc1-fc2-fc3, or just go directly to fc4?

I have some things which aren't working after an FC3 to FC4 upgrade 
(Gnome always complains about missing volume control elements for one 
thing and won't put the volume control tool on my toolbar).  So I'd 
recommend a straight install of fc4 over the top of fc1.  I did that 
with a couple of servers and it went mostly fine though I should type up 
the notes I have of pitfalls and post them somewhere.

[Arthur Pemberton]

How old is this server? (specs) you might want to stay with a 2.4.x kernel.

On 9/12/05, sean  wrote:
> I've got an old server running fc1. Should I upgrade it
> step-by-step, fc1-fc2-fc3, or just go directly to fc4?
>
> sean
>
> --
> fedora-list mailing list
> [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

[Klaasjan Brand]

On 9/13/05, Arthur Pemberton  wrote:
> How old is this server? (specs) you might want to stay with a 2.4.xkernel.

You certainly don't want to stay with FC1 though... unless you want to run 
an insecure server (or it's on a closed network) or you want to patch all 
security updates manually.

The difference in system "load" between 2.4 and 2.6 is not that big too; 
often, 2.6 even outperforms 2.4.

Klaasjan

[George N. White III]

Quoting Arthur Pemberton :
> How old is this server? (specs) you might want to stay with a 2.4.x kernel.

About the only time you should stay with a 2.4.x kernel is when you have
orphaned hardware that isn't supported in 2.6.  Most older generic hardware is
supported, but some custom hardware interfaces or older RAID cards may use
drivers that haven't been ported to 2.6.x.
> On 9/12/05, sean  wrote:
> > I've got an old server running fc1. Should I upgrade it
> > step-by-step, fc1-fc2-fc3, or just go directly to fc4?

You can't get meaningful advice if you don't give any details about your
requirements.

What are you looking for?  Security updates? Specific applications?
For a stable server, CentOS might be a better choice.

[Aaron Gaudio]

On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 08:53 +0200, Klaasjan Brand wrote:
> On 9/13/05, Arthur Pemberton  wrote:
>         How old is this server? (specs) you might want to stay with a
>         2.4.x kernel.
>
> You certainly don't want to stay with FC1 though... unless you want to
> run an insecure server (or it's on a closed network) or you want to
> patch all security updates manually.

If you go this route, I'd check out http://www.fedoralegacy.com

[sean darcy]

A. G. wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 08:53 +0200, Klaasjan Brand wrote:

............
> If you go this route, I'd check out http://www.fedoralegacy.com

This is spam redirect. the correct url is www.fedoralegacy.org.

sean

[sean darcy]

George White wrote:
> Quoting Arthur Pemberton :
> > How old is this server? (specs) you might want to stay with a 2.4.x kernel.
>
> About the only time you should stay with a 2.4.x kernel is when you have
> orphaned hardware that isn't supported in 2.6.  Most older generic hardware is
> supported, but some custom hardware interfaces or older RAID cards may use
> drivers that haven't been ported to 2.6.x.
> > On 9/12/05, sean  wrote:
> > > I've got an old server running fc1. Should I upgrade it
> > > step-by-step, fc1-fc2-fc3, or just go directly to fc4?
>
> You can't get meaningful advice if you don't give any details about your
> requirements.
>
> What are you looking for?  Security updates? Specific applications?
> For a stable server, CentOS might be a better choice.

Fair enough. This is a 6 year old winchip box that serves as 
a gateway , dchp server and limited file serving.

I'm looking to upgrade for security.

sean

[Rahul Sundaram]

Hi
> Fair enough. This is a 6 year old winchip box that serves as a gateway 
> , dchp server and limited file serving.
>
> I'm looking to upgrade for security.

Fedora Legacy would provide security updates for sometime but several 
important security enhancements including SELinux has been made over the 
recent releases of FC.   A general procedure for upgrades is available 
from 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FAQ#head-258e4efff9879474c4725667cc557e8a0ea3f...

regards
Rahul

[Les Mikesell]

On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 10:10, sean wrote:
> > What are you looking for?  Security updates? Specific applications?
> > For a stable server, CentOS might be a better choice.
>
> Fair enough. This is a 6 year old winchip box that serves as 
> a gateway , dchp server and limited file serving.
>
> I'm looking to upgrade for security.

For the choice between fedora and centos, you should think about
how long you want to wait before doing the _next_ upgrade.  If
you think you'll want the new features of a new fedora version
soon, that's the best choice.  If you don't expect to need new
features and don't want to be bothered with frequent re-installs
or not-supported version level upgrades, go with Centos4 which
feature-wise is at about the same level as FC3 would be but which
will get security and bugfix updates much longer.

[Jdek]

Le lundi 12 septembre 2005 à 22:18 -0400, sean a écrit :
> I've got an old server running fc1.  Should I upgrade it 
> step-by-step, fc1-fc2-fc3, or just go directly to fc4?
>
> sean

Don't try an upgrade. Save all your valuable files on a separate folder
that you will not format during the install process and go for a new
install.
I tried upgrading fc3 to fc4 and I got a lot of mess.
Be sure to re-use the same partition scheme and good luck.
JdK

[Joachim Backes]

On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 20:53 +0200, Jdek wrote:
> Le lundi 12 septembre 2005 à 22:18 -0400, sean a écrit :
> > I've got an old server running fc1.  Should I upgrade it 
> > step-by-step, fc1-fc2-fc3, or just go directly to fc4?
> >
> > sean
>
> Don't try an upgrade. Save all your valuable files on a separate folder
> that you will not format during the install process and go for a new
> install.
> I tried upgrading fc3 to fc4 and I got a lot of mess.
> Be sure to re-use the same partition scheme and good luck.
> JdK

Hi,

got troubles when upgrading from F3 to FC4, but an upgrade FC3->FC4 was
fine on all my machines.
>

[Strong]

On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 20:58 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FAQ#head-258e4efff9879474c4725667cc557e8a0ea3f...

Does anybody know why is there such a link ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (after
(#)-sign)? I do program for web and it's interesting to me, How do they
do such links. :)

OT - Re: should I upgrade fc1 -> fc4?

[Robin Laing]

Strong wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 20:58 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FAQ#head-258e4efff9879474c4725667cc557e8a0ea3f...
>
> Does anybody know why is there such a link ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (after
> (#)-sign)? I do program for web and it's interesting to me, How do they
> do such links. :)

Basic HTML coding.

It is a href to a link in the page.  Look at the source for the page.

The link
<a href="#head-279a5d35446924401d0b32930f4e99038dbc8e79">What software 
can I use to set up my wireless network access?</a>

Points to
<h4 id="head-279a5d35446924401d0b32930f4e99038dbc8e79">What software 
can I use to set up my wireless network access?</h4>

which is further down in the page.