On Wed, 2012-08-08 at 10:05 +0100, Pete Biggs wrote:
On Tue, 2012-08-07 at 13:24 -0600, Brian A Anderson wrote:<Begin editorial mode> The key things that I learned here are; 1. the two different versions of Evolution had two different mailbox styles. 2. The two versions of Evolution were not compatible. 3. the evolution of Evolution had abandoned those with older systems. Cynical but apparently true.I don't think that's entirely true or fair. Did you give Evolution a chance to upgrade your data structure?
Yes, the user posted about their success/failure using backup-and-restore to this list. backup-and-restore is pretty well known to not work across multiple major releases.
i.e. did you start Evolution with the old files in their original place rather than trying to do it through the backup files?
Yes; or at least I believe the poster said that.
Backwards compatibility is very important.
To a point; but the user is jumping across many major releases. It is unreasonable to expect it to work well, IMNSHO. This is like jumping from Microsoft Access 97 to Microsoft Access 2010; it 'works', but a fair amount of remediation is required. Oh, gawd.. now I'm having flash-backs... Evolution 2.24 is *old* [circa 2008]. Especially in Evolution time where things seems to sit stagnant at the 2.2x level for a long time and then pulsed forward through 2.3x and now on to the [vastly improved] 3.2 and 3.4 era. But the user did publish notes, so kudos. Might be useful to someone else later on.
Evolution is probably one of the best applications I know for upgrading internal storage formats - it is quick, unfussy and accurate.
Yep.
Some versions may not offer a real reason to migrate. I for one don't want to become a slave to updates like Windows users are a slave to updates.But you *must* install updates for any operating system - they fix bugs and, most importantly, they fix security holes. It just simply should not be optional to install updates.
The user certainly doesn't need to rush to update; too many LINUX users are addicted to the next-greatest-patch which is an attitude that seriously impedes real world productivity [hey, let me update first thing Monday morning and break my desktop!]. 'Immediate update' also provides no pragmatic upside [let's be honest - *most* security fixes are pretty obscure and only effect boxes using particular applications/services in a particular configuration]. I apply updates once a month; and I typically upgrade my distro a full month after a release [plus a month worth of updates]. This has provided me with a very smooth ride. I try to recommend this policy, but immediately after I say this most users are subscribing to a factory repository and doing a "zypper up"... sigh. :)
In that case, with all due respect, why are you using Fedora! If you want stability, then use a RHEL clone such as CentOS or ScientificLinux - they will guarantee support for about 5 years after EoL of a particular version - but you still have to install updates.
Agree. If long-term is what the user is looking for then Fedora is a mismatched choice. Fedora *is* the distro of latest-and-greatest [which is not a criticism, but maybe that is not where the user wants to be].
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part