[GNC] Installing 3.11 in Windows

[Kalpesh Patel]

------ Original Message ------
Received: Thu, 03 Aug 2023 10:55:21 AM EDT
From: "Stan Brown (using GC 2.6.19)" <stan+gc at fastmail.fm>
To: GnuCash User List <gnucash-user at gnucash.org>Cc: Kalpesh Patel <kalpesh.patel at usa.net>
Subject: Re: [GNC] Installing 3.11 in Windows

> On 2023-08-03 07:04, Kalpesh Patel wrote:
> > Stan - if you have modern system then there should be enough
> > resources to install VirtualBox to install OS instances and specific
> > versions of GNC on each instance. That should isolate your
> > functional 2.6.19 from others without stepping on each other. If you
> > are somewhat knowledgeable of development side then you can use
> > Vagrant (Open Source from Hashi Corp -
> > https://developer.hashicorp.com/vagrant/intro) and bring down
> > fully-built vanilla OS "box" from Vagrant Cloud
> > (https://app.vagrantup.com/boxes/search) of your choice to use for
> > conversion.
> 
> Thanks for the idea, but I'm unwilling to download a fully functional
> operating system to put on a PC that I use for hours each day. Maybe I'm
> being paranoid, but it just seems too easy to put spyware in such a VM.
> I have no particular reason to think they did that, but in computing
> it's best to consider not what you expect to go wrong but what could
> possibly go wrong. Yes, I know the website says "open source", but
> vetting a whole OS is a massive undertaking and who's going to do that?
>

Fair point. Hence caveat that you "are somewhat knowledgeable of development side" which also entails you are able to sandbox development environment -- not a light undertaking.

> 
> I do have one VirtualBox VM on my desktop PC now. It's running a copy of
> Windows 10 that I installed from an ISO downloaded from Microsoft.com.
> No Internet, no USB, and the only file sharing is with one data
> directory on the host machine. The only application the VM runs is GC
> 4.13, which was the latest available last winter when I set up the VM.
> I'm on the board of a small nonprofit, and I use it to do their
> bookkeeping, though I would like to move their data file to my real
> machines. (My personal accounting is still at GC 2.6.19 on my desktop
> and laptop.)
>

Why not just clone that VM and call it a day? No fiddling, no nothing! 
What you can do is subsequent clone with progressive upgrade - take clone of current one (call it v1 clone), and upgrade in the v1 clone to latest in that major version. After the upgrade, clone the upgraded v1 clone (call it v2 clone). Now do the same thing with v2 clone, i.e. upgrade it to next latest release. Rinse and repeat ... until you get to where you want to be. Then you can destroy other interim ones if not needed and/or test to your hearts content until real live one is upgraded.

> 
> But telling you why I'm reluctant to use Vagrant has given me an idea. I
> don't need to set up multiple VMs, but rather snapshots of one VM. On
> the virtual machine, I can:
> 1. Snapshot the nonprofit's current setup as it already exists with GC
> 4.13 on the VM.
> 2. Uninstall GC 4.13 and install 2.6.21. Copy my personal 2.6.19 file,
> with reports and settings, to the VM. Check and repair under 2.6.21,
> verify that everything is okay, then freeze a snapshot.
> 3. Upgrade the VM to 3.11, check and repair, test, snapshot.
> 4. Ditto for 4.x, testing both my personal accounts file and the
> nonprofit's file. (I'll have to think of a clear but simple naming
> convention to distinguish personal saved reports from the nonprofit's
> saved reports.)
> 5. Ditto for 5.x, checking both data files.
> 5. Finally, on the real machine, uninstall 2.6.19 and install 5.x, copy
> both data files plus reports and settings from the VM, and heave a big
> sigh of relief.
> 

Snapshots grow as more changes are made and there are performance penalty related to it, especially if they are nested which would be the case here. From my past experience in virtualization world, IMHO, snapshots are not efficient, especially for long term testing. Snapshots excel when taking current copy and then restoring back that copy if things go sideways but not to run as an actual live VM off of it. Run a clone -- clone cost more in terms of hard drive space but from performance perspective it is much better trade off. 
 
> Stan Brown
> Tehachapi, CA, USA
> https://BrownMath.com