| AnonymousFC3 2004-11-22, 5:51 pm |
| James T:
I wrote "unreliable", meaning it obviously works well on some systems, and
not on others. Probably because we upgrade from different configurations.
Linux is quite a complex piece of software with litterally thousands of
components, and some have to work together.
---
Webster:
1. To be or stand apart; to disagree; to be unlike; to be
distinguished; -- with from.
---
We do not differ, as you state.
We just have different experience, and frankly I have no idea why my upgrade
generated an unstable system. It was just a fact.
After a fresh install, I have again a very stable system.
As an engineer, I am always surprised that people tend to be confused, and
want so badly to generalize "for me it works", to it "always work".
The typical case being the GPS, use in aviation.
In spite of well identified problems of being unreliable, there are some
user who just deny them... because they have not experienced them.
One in a while, the GPS is one mile off !
By the way, I also suggest that you posting is disrespectful, even if this
is not what you meant. Please keep the tone "positive".
BTW: You also admit you had some crashes...
Stating why may have help others: "stupid things: is not a very useful
description.
The freedom of newsgroup may require some self restraint.
Hope we agree on this.
AFC3
---------------------------------
James T wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> AnonymousFC3,
>
> Well, I would have to differ in your claim that FC3 (final) is unstable &
> cannot be ungraded well. I've upgraded several machine, some from RedHat9
> to FC1 to FC2 and now to FC3; while most were installed with FC1 or FC2 &
> then upgraded directly to FC3. All have all been very stable & with very
> very minimal or no problems. The FC2 to FC3 upgrades went very smoothly
> with no errors, excluding the 2 systems noted in my last post.
>
> As to crashing, I've only had my main system crash a few times and that
> was because I was doing stupid things in efforts to test FC limits.
>
> During normal day to day operations on FC1, FC2 or FC3, I've never
> crashed the system.
>
> Granted when I tested FC3 Test1 & Test2, they were on the bit on the buggy
> side. But of course these were test distros & you must expect a package
> here and there to not work or upgrade correctly.
>
> Believe it or not, other then the SELinux issues noted below, I've not had
> a single problems.
>
> Incidentally SELiux was found to be the cause to my original post. I
> discovered this late yesterday night. As previously indicated, the problem
> was with SELinux denying those services permission/access to those libs.
> As soon as I turned off SELinux, by setting SELINUX to 'permissive' in
> file '/etc/selinux/config' and rebooted, the system started up correctly
> & no service startup errors were noted (such as the 3 noted in my previous
> post). As far as I can how see, the system is back to 100% usage &
> stability.
>
> I would like to keep SELinux running, so now may task is to research
> SELinux further to figure out how to register those libs for those 3
> services, so they don't get those permission errors when I reactivate
> SELinux in the near future.
>
> I hope you have better luck with your FC3 setups.
>
> James T.
> turajb@_NOSPAM_hoflink.com
> (remove _NOSPAM_ to email)
>
> On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 23:27:58 -0800, AnonymousFC3 wrote:
>
|