limpid Posted January 29, 2013 Administrator Share Posted January 29, 2013 "easy to use" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tegis Posted January 29, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted January 29, 2013 "easy to use" Yeah, because the repositorys in Nix neeeeever **** things up do they? ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted January 29, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted January 29, 2013 (edited) Iirc, on mageia, it's a simple matter of rm -rf /var/run/urpmi/* And urpmi will give you an informative error message if it's a lock issue... Edited January 29, 2013 by leviramsey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted January 29, 2013 Administrator Share Posted January 29, 2013 I've got a laptop at home that's been upgraded through every version of kubuntu since 8.04 without a hiccup. That's 13 full system upgrades, let alone the hundreds of patches. THe screen is just about unusable now, but I keep applying patches and updates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tegis Posted January 29, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted January 29, 2013 So thats patches since 2008 then. Our multiple Server 2003 are still being patched and working (tough I wouldn't put one on a public net with its Swiss cheese security) Regardless, all systems work and all systems **** up on occasion. Keeps me employed. I refuse to nail my flag to a mast of a particular OS, apart from IOS which I hate, they all have their advantages and disadvantages and I use the one that fits the purpose of the task. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 I had that on Win7 once, was a dodgy download. I turned off the services "Windows update" and "Background Intelligent Transfer Service". (They lock files that needs to be removed) I then deleted the folder "SoftwareDistribution" under c:\windows. Then started the two services again and windows re-downloaded the updates and it worked. No harm in trying that Cheers mate. I'll give it a shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted January 30, 2013 Administrator Share Posted January 30, 2013 So thats patches since 2008 then. Our multiple Server 2003 are still being patched and working (tough I wouldn't put one on a public net with its Swiss cheese security) Regardless, all systems work and all systems **** up on occasion. Keeps me employed. I refuse to nail my flag to a mast of a particular OS, apart from IOS which I hate, they all have their advantages and disadvantages and I use the one that fits the purpose of the task. My point was I've done multiple version upgrades on that laptop, not just patches (although admittedly it appears I can't count). I don't equate Windows Server deployments with user deployments though. Windows Server farms are always multiply redundant because the OS is so poor. There is plenty of scope for phased roll-out of patches to avoid issues with poorly tested code.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tegis Posted January 30, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted January 30, 2013 My point was I've done multiple version upgrades on that laptop, not just patches (although admittedly it appears I can't count). I don't equate Windows Server deployments with user deployments though. Windows Server farms are always multiply redundant because the OS is so poor. There is plenty of scope for phased roll-out of patches to avoid issues with poorly tested code.. When it comes to rolling upgrades and system version changes I agree, Nix (the debian based ones in particular) does it eons better. Microsofts solution usually is long support instead. But I do think that the difference between a server and a user deployment is small, the OSes are basically the same, just more options on the server side. That assuming of course that it is a controlled update environment and not just trust Windows update/Ubuntu Update Manager to do the right ting. I dont agree with the "Windows Server farms are always multiply redundant because the OS is so poor." Redundancy goes all over the board if the system is critical in my opinion, regardless of OS and manufacturer. And I'm not accusing you of not being able to count :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tegis Posted January 30, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted January 30, 2013 Bloody hell that vent OT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted February 6, 2013 Moderator Share Posted February 6, 2013 Right, I've read this thread from top to bottom. I am about to upgrade a currently unused 6 year old desktop (Athlon 64 X2 Dual core 5000+ w/ 2Gb RAM & 320Gb HDD) to a new version of windows. It was a decent spec back then and at 2.6Ghz is still functional today. It currently runs XP. Assume all necessary upgrades are made (RAM probably ...), would you recommend I go with windows 7 or windows 8? And no I won't be going down the linux route so the evangelists needn't bother trying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PieFacE Posted February 6, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted February 6, 2013 Right, I've read this thread from top to bottom. I am about to upgrade a currently unused 6 year old desktop (Athlon 64 X2 Dual core 5000+ w/ 2Gb RAM & 320Gb HDD) to a new version of windows. It was a decent spec back then and at 2.6Ghz is still functional today. It currently runs XP. Assume all necessary upgrades are made (RAM probably ...), would you recommend I go with windows 7 or windows 8? And no I won't be going down the linux route so the evangelists needn't bother trying 7. Definitely. I've used both quite a lot, and my experience is that you gain nothing from using 8 on a desktop, apart from being annoyed for a while whilst you get used to it. Whereas 7 is pretty much good to go. I've chosen to stick with 7. Someone more technical may list reasons why 8 is better but from a purely user point of view, I prefer 7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted February 6, 2013 Moderator Share Posted February 6, 2013 That's the assumption I had made. I just wanted someone to come in and say precisely why 8 would be better, in case I had missed it. The only slight concern is that by going for the older O/S, I am not future-proofing myself in case 8 becomes this awesome thing going forward, by virtue of it getting developed/over-engineered and 7 being somewhat left behind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 That's the assumption I had made. I just wanted someone to come in and say precisely why 8 would be better, in case I had missed it. The only slight concern is that by going for the older O/S, I am not future-proofing myself in case 8 becomes this awesome thing going forward, by virtue of it getting developed/over-engineered and 7 being somewhat left behind. There's no risk, any future updates to Win8 will just be to address any stability or security issues that come up. They're not going to go and stick a bunch of extra features in when they can use them to try and sell Win9 in a couple of years. The only benefits of 8 over 7 are an improved task manager, and slightly faster boot times. Windows 7 is definitely the way to go unless you particularly like the look of The Interface Formerly Known as Metro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 Windows 7 is definitely the way to go unless you particularly like the look of The Interface Formerly Known as Metro. What do they call it now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rev Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 It's known as the "Modern UI" because somebody at Microsoft forgot to check whether or not they were able to trademark Metro until 5 minutes before W8 was released. Turns out they had been beaten to it by several years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coda Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 I've got this on my new laptop. I'm a complete Luddite and want Windows 7 back. The things that appear from the sides are really annoying. Is cnet safe to download from? Or is there an easier way to get the old start icon back and stop these things from appearing? Thanks for any help as this is doing my head in. I don't like change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 Does it *have* to be Windows? http://www.ubuntu.com/ Just saying.. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coda Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 Does it *have* to be Windows? http://www.ubuntu.com/ Just saying.. I like the idea of that but I'm too scared to go changing. I just want to switch these damn hovering things off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted May 30, 2013 Administrator Share Posted May 30, 2013 So, Windows 8.1 is bringing back the start button and making it so that you can run more than one app in metro. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 So, Windows 8.1 is bringing back the start button and making it so that you can run more than one app in metro. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts