MX Permanent Secure Upgrade Path? [Solved]

[asqwerth]

I think the OP should accept that the devs are recommending fresh install, and have provided tools like:
1) User Installed Packages;
2) the installer being able to preserve /home while installing);

to help with fresh installs.


For now, I believe that the in-place migration/upgrade path provided is going to remain advice that comes with a caution/warning.

If you go that route, you may have to manually do your own troubleshooting. And all the more so if you have additional/third party repos enabled in your system.

For instance, Fedora - pretty big organisation - has official migration/upgrade path from one release to the next. I have used it every 0.5 years from Fedora 21 to Fedora 39. However, there are some years where I have had to try to sort out issues before the upgrade can go fully through. And this happens even though I disable the RPM Fusion [third party] repo before every migration.

Same with Kubuntu, Netrunner and KDE Neon, each of which I had tried to use the provided upgrade path over 3 consecutive releases. There are always some hiccups you have to solve yourself, maybe remove some packages, etc, before the upgrade can go through. And each of these 3 Ubuntu distros [which I used at different times of my life] always fully broke down after the 3rd migration. Bugs and lagginess just made these distros unpleasant to use after the 3rd migration.

[MadMax]

I'm sure the vast majority of new (Debian desktop) users haven't done so since that Chapter 4 Upgrades from Debian 11 (bullseye) is way beyond most users comprehension.

The trick with that Chapter 4 is to know what parts are important for your system and what parts you can skip (as in: most of it ). But yes, for a beginner who expects something like Mint's updater or comes from Windows, the Debian upgrade path isn't easy at all.

For MX I'm pretty happy with the state of things. If you're feeling adventurous you can always go for the inofficial in-place upgrade which works similar to Debian's regular upgrade procedure, but be prepared that it will probably take longer (i.e. troubleshooting something) than just reinstalling it anyway.


EDIT: Fedora's half-yearly upgrade cycle is the reason I dropped it on my systems for good. It works most of the time, but it's still too much of a hassle to do it twice a year in my opinion. I prefer either stable releases with 2+ years of support or full-rolling like Arch.

[asinoro]

Have you ever tried to do a Debian full upgrade from one release to another?
I'm sure the vast majority of new (Debian desktop) users haven't done so since that Chapter 4 Upgrades from Debian 11 (bullseye) is way beyond most users comprehension.

@anticapitalista, you have proved a very good developer with the antiX and in MX contribution, the point of my question is how MX can be more competitive with other Linux OS, since it is very innovative, but it lacks a very important element. If this is possible to happen, an easy permanent and secure upgrade, why not? Maybe I am completely mistaken, and my question is wrong since I am not a developer.

[Eadwine Rose]

Why should we be more competitive? That is not the goal of MX. It's not a race after all :)

[asqwerth]

....

EDIT: Fedora's half-yearly upgrade cycle is the reason I dropped it on my systems for good. It works most of the time, but it's still too much of a hassle to do it twice a year in my opinion. I prefer either stable releases with 2+ years of support or full-rolling like Arch.

It's definitely troublesome but I like to collect distros as a multibooter. My philosophy for Fedora is
1. upgrade 1 release behind, so when F41 is released, I'll migrate to F40.
2. the day the migration path fails and troubleshooting doesn't work, I won't bother with Fedora anymore. No fresh install!

[MadMax]

I suppose if it was "easy" do develop and integrate into MX the devs would have done it already, since yes, it would be a pretty nice tool in the MX toolkit. The "problem" with an upgrade tool like that is probably, that you'd need to develop it every 2 years almost from scratch and hard-code a lot of it, since it had to consider all of Debian's release-specific design changes.

[asqwerth]

And everyone's system is different. I don't see how the devs can guarantee trouble-free in-place upgrade for every user.

[asinoro]

Why should we be more competitive? That is not the goal of MX. It's not a race after all :)

As an honest person, I always say my opinion, which I know sometimes it is not nice! The end Linux user is the one that makes the choice, and distrowatch is an indication!

[anticapitalista]

an easy permanent and secure upgrade, why not

Because it is not possible to guarantee success as there are too many variables to consider.

I actually upgraded antiX on this laptop I'm using from antiX-17 to antiX-19 > antiX-21 and antiX-23.
Each time was not easy as I had to fix various broken packages each time I upgraded.
In the end, I wiped the final upgrade as there were issues I could not fix that was causing boot delays and the desktop was not 'snappy'.
I started with a fresh antiX-23 and now I'm glad I did as the issues were not present.

A point and click UPGADE NOW app would be a disaster IMO

[FullScale4Me]

An in-place major version upgrade of ANY current OS that completes without ANY minor issues is a Unicorn. I've never seen it in my 37 years in IT!

The method outlined here to 'install fresh" and then reinstall the applications that you had on the old system (or as many as possible.), is about the best possible solution... and the devs have thought through and created a very good process to minimize the pain of 'reinstall'. Using the MX User Installed Applications tool can really help cut through most of the pain. And the devs have made the installer save and carry your data and configs to the new install. (as outlined in the MX Install docs)

Reading and working with the install this way... provides one of the best 'upgrades' I have seen for linux.

I agree 110% Well said!

For now, I believe that the in-place migration/upgrade path provided is going to remain advice that comes with a caution/warning.

Agree. IMHO the other distros that do NOT give any such caution are doing a disservice to their newbie users.

...If you're feeling adventurous you can always go for the inofficial in-place upgrade which works similar to Debian's regular upgrade procedure, but be prepared that it will probably take longer (i.e. troubleshooting something) than just reinstalling it anyway...

+1 There is ample evidence to support this in the forum, such as requests for help after an upgrade failure.

With the 'Preserve Home' option in the MX Installer and coupled with the User Installed Packages tool one can get to >95% completion of a fresh install easily WITHOUT the cruft of old files that can/may cause issues.

What's left in that 5%?

• Themeing and backgrounds

• Flatpacks

• Appimages

• Other hand action changes (WiFi logon, VPN, boot options, etc)

Users should have a paper backup of the above list BEFORE starting, regardless of the OS upgrade that was made available.

IMHO the developers of MX Linux have never been in any competition for such an OS as you describe. If a user wants an OS with both guard rails AND training wheels there is always that Linux OS with a name that sounds like candy :-)