Linux

I follow the official upgrade method. Can’t be bothered to mess around with anything more complicated than that. Besides, the devs probably understand the system better than I do, so there has to be a reason why that is the preferred way.

Neither. I use a rolling release distro.

But if I have to use release based distros, I probably would clean install.

Upgrade. It works perfectly fine and when it doesn’t figuring out what’s going on learns me something and several times has resulted in fix commits to the packages.

E: there’s some people saying they do clean installs on Ubuntu. They’re right that ubuntu breaks shit all the time but I’ve solved that by simply not using the bad distros.

Rolling with Gentoo here. Reinstall is not performed even when complete hardware upgrade has been done.

Depends on the distro. On Debian I upgrade cause I know it works well. On Ubuntu I always had issues after an upgrade so I ~~do a clean install~~ don't use Ubuntu anymore.

Clean install on a new computer. Then upgrades until the computer gets retired. Debian at home, Ubuntu server at work.

I like playing with distros and other OSes in VMs, if the thing doesn't have a well defined upgrade procedure it gets ditched pretty soon.

NixOS with impermanence. Every reboot is a fresh install.

Wait for a bugfix release after a major release. Then upgrade.

need moar bugs fixed, just to be safe

upgrades have been working fine here, both linux and windows, for well over a decade.

only if a system is also being repurposed at the time of the 'upgrade', or if i'm changing the connection type of the boot drive (such as from sata to nvme, or switching an older system to ahci mode) do i install 'from scratch'.

Wait for the distro to officially release an upgrade path. Only do a fresh install if it doesn't work.

On Windows however whenever I would get a new pc in which I was prepping for staff(I worked in IT) the first thing I'd do after unboxing it is a wipe of the factory Windows install and do a clean install with the latest ISO from Microsoft.

No bloatware, network managers, anti virus etc nonsense. We had all of our own stuff for that which applied via Group Policy anyway.

I always upgrade as I can't deal with a clean install every so often. This warrants using a distro that does handle this well, though*. Which, thankfully, isn't a big deal as most distros support this anyways.

rpm-ostree upgrade

is enough on uBlue, as system release upgrades are automatically staged and just like normal updates.

rpm-ostree rebase may be needed on Fedora Atomic

Use a well versioned package manager guys.

Upgrade. Have been upgrading my main machine since 2014.

It depends. For Fedora I just do a in place upgrade. However once in a blue moon I do a reinstall.

make a backup

Pffftt... coward.

/s

I almost always prefer clean installation when possible, while making sure to backup important content from highly accessed folders like Desktop, Downloads and Documents (on Windows), for example.

It depends on the distro. Some of them have some shitty ass upgrade process and it breaks shit, and others are just awesome. I personally use a rolling release so I don't have to worry about upgrades. I do get some issues here and there with some big upgrades, but nothing really major. I've only had to reinstall twice in the last 2.5 years.

NixOS.

Upgrade. Don't wanna mess with restoring/preserving data and configs.

I don't think I've ever made a "clean upgrade" on Linux. I've done the opposite though, that is, bring an old install over to a new computer.

This is actually a question I'd like some opinions on!

I have a ton of headless servers running Debian that I just replace the sources.list for an upgrade. I imagine things are much more complicated when switches like X11 to Wayland happen, so all desktop environments get a wipe/install instead... But maybe I'm just making a lot of work for myself doing that!

I upgrade Fedora from one version to another as doing a clean install would be a lot of work. Maybe I’m just too much of a rookie, but I don’t see the advantages of a clean install.

Even if I installed Fedora on a new computer, I’d just use my clonezilla backup if possible. But I haven’t tried it so I don’t know if this would work.

Fedora, I usually wait 1-2 weeks for the last bugs to be found+fixed and extensions to catch up, and then just upgrade in-place. Haven't had a major upgrade problem for years now, it's mostly as smooth as any other offline update. And I don't feel like I have to reinstall the OS every few years on Linux either.

The only time I don't do a regular upgrade is for Windows Server. Too much weird shit happens. I like to keep my servers running clean.

It depends on how many versions I am away from the latest, and how much I've messed with the distro.

Usually I stay on an Ubuntu LTS and upgrade from LTS to LTS when that upgrade path is ready. I upgraded from 20.04 to 22.04 this way.

But this time I wanted Pipewire in 24.04, and didn't want to wait for a 22.04 to 24.04 upgrade to be ready. I'm using a bluetooth headset and Pulseaudio is pretty terrible at switching headset profiles. Between not wanting to upgrade an upgraded install, and having messed with Pulseaudio quite a bit trying to get it working, I went ahead and clean installed 24.04 and moved some configs over.

I always clean install. I have my stuff backed up properly. I’ll go through and make a checklist of frequently used software so I can start off on the right foot. I like that new fresh smell of free space.

I backup and then upgrade through the mechanism provided. Why? Lazy. I should take the time to set up a NAS and run most of /home from that, but never have been motivated enough to try it.

I usually let myself lag behind on Fedora to wait until the kinks have been worked out. I just jumped from 38 to 40 in an upgrade and totally regret it. Python is screwed up in distrobox and making problems, but I can roll back too.

I upgrade when it's a distro that releases new versions regularly (for example Fedora with two releases per year). I obviously also upgrade rolling distributions.

Why? Because it's less work and I haven't had many problems with it.

I usually clean install long-term distros like RHEL (or RHEL-based). These don't always have a good upgrade path and I usually only use them on servers.

I usually roll on desktop/laptop and upgrade on headless. Just seems most practical.

I'm using a rolling release at the moment, but when I used a more stable release, I always did the upgrade (following the official instructions) because it's faster and more convenient.

I learned the hard way to always keep a backup of my important stuff, regardless of the OS.

The only time I redid a clean install was when I accidentally fucked up my entire filesystem's permissions.

Depends on the distro.

On my personal laptop with openSUSE, I have plenty confidence doing all kinds of upgrades and sidegrades (between Leap and Tumbleweed).
The package manager detects conflicts and makes me decide what to do with them. I've never seen the software or distro dependency definitions fuck up, it was always me making a wrong decision.
Well, and if I do make a wrong decision or anything else should go wrong during the upgrade, I can roll back to the BTRFS snapshot before.

On my work laptop, the best I can get is Kubuntu. Apt is much more fickle, since it doesn't have as clear of a concept of what constitutes a conflict, but also what a correct system should look like.
The whole packages feel much more fickle, too, because they've got all these custom patches, so you really don't want to accidentally mix different versions of packages, like might happen in an incomplete upgrade.
And of course, you get one chance at upgrading. If anything goes sideways, you better have your Live USB ready right away.

So, that's why I would prefer to install fresh right away. Of course, my workplace doesn't actually allow me to do that either. They really like to keep me on edge.