Slashdot Mirror

Basic email and office apps, what more do you need?

I dunno about need, but there's a hell of a lot of stuff that wouild be desirable. I knew Ubuntu wasn't really finished, but I decided to check just how far along it had gotten by installing it a couple of months ago to function as my home network's router. It could do with huge improvement, to say the lease. Here's just a tip of the iceberg:

- There are two separate clipboards, a mouse one and a keyboard one. Middle-click will often paste something different to ctrl-v. In this day and age, I'm sorry, I can't be generous - this is fucking retarded. Fix it, Canonical.
- Sometimes selection copies stuff, sometimes it doesn't. Be consistent. I'd say make it never copy stuff.
- This bug meant that I had to hack an init.d script by adding 'sleep 5', just to get a DHCP server working on the Ubuntu box because of the way dhcp3-server assumes interfaces will be immediately available and NetworkManager makes them available asynchronously. Ubuntu enthusiasts tell me NetworkManager is pretty much only good for wireless, and disable it for wired connections. Utterly pathetic. We desperately need Canonical to get this done - and competently.
- Make up your mind as to what one should use to install packages. There's an add/remove software GUI, but there's also Synaptic Package Manager. Make up your mind, Canonical!!!!!
- Better firewall configuration. I know I've been told a million times that you can't make a GUI for iptables because it's too complex, but I beg to differ - at least you can make a GUI for it that implements a decent swathe of its functionality. No, ufw doesn't cut it, it sucks. Not enough functionality. And how about a firewall that scans app binaries, and gives access on a per-binary basis?

These are just some of the problems I've noticed, off the top of my head. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see Linux be a viable alternative, but it can't beat Windows 7 yet... and TBH I was amazed that some of these problems still existed, given how long Canonical had been at it.

Actually, BFS performance is shitty. No, really shitty.

except when it breaks use cases that just worked for years. The following 'feature' was quite annoying. I'll have to try this out at home. I sort of got it working, but it wasn't what was outlined here (I have NFI how, actually) - too bad it took 3 months to get a real answer. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=505676

"No, they're not being fixed because it's extremely difficult to fix something in ALSA as a result of a piece of software (PA) that is pretending to be ALSA."

Would you please stop drivelling? Also, please stop your one-man King Canute crusade against reality? The crackling / stuttering issues experienced by some people in Fedora 11 and equivalent distros were _all_ cases of kernel driver probelms being exposed by PulseAudio functionality. Dozens of bugs with hundreds of comments in each were filed, which together covered many different instances of this kind of bug. The vast majority of these were fixed, others continue to be fixed as ALSA development goes along.

Take a stroll through https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr&short_desc=crackl&classification=Fedora&product=Fedora&bug_status=CLOSED .

"Examples: My desktop system requires careful balancing of the VIA DXS, PCM and Master sliders to get enough output to drive my speakers and avoid clipping in the digital side of the system."

By all means file a bug. Contrary to your later assertions, we (myself, in co-ordination with Lennart and Jaroslav) have developed a process for reporting this kind of issue in a way which provides the correct information for us to efficiently adjust things so that ALSA exposes an interface to PA which allows it to properly control your volume. Cue celebrations. See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=497966#c1 for instructions.

Let us put this in perspective.

Say, Microsoft gets a bug report which actually covers several distinct bugs. If it then gets closed as "NOTABUG: do a proper bug report, noob!", what do you think the reaction of an average Slashdotter would be?

Yes, users are "dumb" - which is to say, they don't have time to waste on learning how to do bug reports in a perfect way. The fact that this person even bothered to find the bug tracker, and submitted his issues there, rather than just ranting on Slashdot, is already something to be glad for - most users won't bother to do even that. It's not exactly hard for the devs to take that bug report and split it properly; it may be hard for the user, however.

Yes, this is the reality of software development, FOSS or not. Learn to deal with it.

Also, this comment to his bug report is spot-on.

I think it is an absolute disaster, and outlined all the problems I had with it under Fedora 11 at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=506213 and was totally ignored.

If redhat, suse or whoever can offer something similar that is as easy to set up and monitor, they'll certainly help get *nix easier to support as an end user OS.

Not sure about the others but Red Hat does indeed offer this service as the Red Hat Network.

Red Hat is NOT MARKETING TO OPEN SOURCE ENTHUSIASTS.

And neither was Sun. Duh.

Its funny how you keep trying to pull netgear back in to support applying you 'freetard' theory to Sun. I never said one thing about netgear meanwhile you are the one who started the whole discussion about Sun. I guess you must have realized how silly that was since you keep trying to drop the point under debate and make it about something else. You want to fight about netgear? Get the fuck back up the thread and reply to the people talking about netgear.

Oh, all it seems to talk about is how "free" the software makes you. Try to find this on Red Hat's website.

Oh hell, I'll humor you anyway:
http://sources.redhat.com/mission.html "Red Hat believes that software infrastructure should be free"
http://truthhappens.redhat.com/author/tcolin/ "A Better Commons Builds a Better Society"
http://www.redhat.com/magazine/014dec05/features/fedora/ "The community conversation led us to the four Fedora ideals [Fedora is open, free, innovative, and forward-looking]"
There are thousands more where those came from, I just picked a couple from the top of the google search results. So, in summary, FOUND.

Red Hat is NOT MARKETING TO OPEN SOURCE ENTHUSIASTS.

And neither was Sun. Duh.

Its funny how you keep trying to pull netgear back in to support applying you 'freetard' theory to Sun. I never said one thing about netgear meanwhile you are the one who started the whole discussion about Sun. I guess you must have realized how silly that was since you keep trying to drop the point under debate and make it about something else. You want to fight about netgear? Get the fuck back up the thread and reply to the people talking about netgear.

Oh, all it seems to talk about is how "free" the software makes you. Try to find this on Red Hat's website.

Oh hell, I'll humor you anyway:
http://sources.redhat.com/mission.html "Red Hat believes that software infrastructure should be free"
http://truthhappens.redhat.com/author/tcolin/ "A Better Commons Builds a Better Society"
http://www.redhat.com/magazine/014dec05/features/fedora/ "The community conversation led us to the four Fedora ideals [Fedora is open, free, innovative, and forward-looking]"
There are thousands more where those came from, I just picked a couple from the top of the google search results. So, in summary, FOUND.

Red Hat is NOT MARKETING TO OPEN SOURCE ENTHUSIASTS.

And neither was Sun. Duh.

Its funny how you keep trying to pull netgear back in to support applying you 'freetard' theory to Sun. I never said one thing about netgear meanwhile you are the one who started the whole discussion about Sun. I guess you must have realized how silly that was since you keep trying to drop the point under debate and make it about something else. You want to fight about netgear? Get the fuck back up the thread and reply to the people talking about netgear.

Oh, all it seems to talk about is how "free" the software makes you. Try to find this on Red Hat's website.

Oh hell, I'll humor you anyway:
http://sources.redhat.com/mission.html "Red Hat believes that software infrastructure should be free"
http://truthhappens.redhat.com/author/tcolin/ "A Better Commons Builds a Better Society"
http://www.redhat.com/magazine/014dec05/features/fedora/ "The community conversation led us to the four Fedora ideals [Fedora is open, free, innovative, and forward-looking]"
There are thousands more where those came from, I just picked a couple from the top of the google search results. So, in summary, FOUND.

Typical bullshit, indeed:

years - but in terms of managing, reporting on, and distributing updates to hundreds of desktops, there's nothing off the shelf for *nix that comes close

<cough> RHN </cough>

We use it to manage several thousand linux servers that store and process the data that's about to come from one of the LHC detectors. Handles provisioning, RPM updates, etc. And yeah, it'll work with Linux desktops.

Sun blew their load and open sourced everything, even valuable things. They left almost no value in their platform. Red Hat made sure there was no supported free version of RHEL- CentOS being outside of their organization.

And how is that significantly different from Sun? The only way to get support on Solaris to purchase a support contract. And no "freetard" is going to be running other products like Oracle with a support contract on a box without an OS support contract either.

I believe their documentation was openly available, also. Red Hat makes sure to keep their documentation only usable by subscribers.

Nope. http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/

Red Hat simply has a better monetized business model. Sun died the death of a company that "truly believed" in open source while Red Hat kept it real.

That's funny. The real problem with sun is that they did not 'believe' - upper management's philosophy did not trickle down fast enough to the trenches, Sun was schizo instead of fully committed and thus had a lot of difficulty convincing customers that they were honest about their intentions. Red hat "keeps it real" by being fully open - the only thing they keep locked up is their trademarks.

flash doesn't have sectors

Then what are the "erase blocks" that this document about JFFS2 mentions?

Oops. Correct link. (I wish Slashdot would warn about obviously incorrect links.)

Who started up a campaign to end software patents? It wasn't Novell, or Red Hat,

Red Hat has always taken the stance that Software Patents are bad and should die, and I would bet they have done much more to further this goal than the FSF. If only because they are a company, and have much more money.

Erm actually its quite the opposite, windows XP got security patches for years, i doubt you'll find a safe 2.6.8 (~2004) kernel about. Even "slow" distros like debian only backport security fixes for 3 years after that you have to upgrade, or start maintaining your own kernel.

Debian might be slow (historically, they've certainly been...), but this isn't about slowness. This is about maintenance. Red Hat maintains their Red Hat Enterprise Linux releases for seven years, and I'm guessing Novell does something similar.

It is a bit of a shame, but the work is being done.

I'm sure we could use more help, so dig in:

http://wiki.laptop.org/go/F11_for_XO-1

https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-olpc-list

hth,
adric

Yes, than God it does not affect Linux!
https://www.cert.fi/haavoittuvuudet/2008/tcp-vulnerabilities.html

Oops ... well, at least Linux fixed it promptly!

http://kbase.redhat.com/faq/docs/DOC-18730
"Due to upstream's decision not to release updates, Red Hat do not plan to release updates to resolve these issues"

Oops ... well, anyway Windows suck!

Considering you linked the Release Notes, *you* should know what "technology preview" means.

Technology Preview features are currently not supported under Red Hat Enterprise Linux subscription services, may not be functionally complete, and are generally not suitable for production use. However, these features are included as a customer convenience and to provide the feature with wider exposure.

http://www.redhat.com/docs/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/5.4/html/Release_Notes/sect-Release_Notes-Technology_Previews.html

glibc new MALLOC behaviour: The upstream glibc has been changed recently to enable higher scalability across many sockets and cores. This is done by assigning threads their own memory pools and by avoiding locking in some situations. The amount of additional memory used for the memory pools (if any) can be controlled using the environment variables MALLOC_ARENA_TEST and MALLOC_ARENA_MAX.
MALLOC_ARENA_TEST specifies that a test for the number of cores is performed once the number of memory pools reaches this value. MALLOC_ARENA_MAX sets the maximum number of memory pools used, regardless of the number of cores.

The glibc in the RHEL 5.4 release has this functionality integrated as a Technology Preview of the upstream malloc. To enable the per-thread memory pools the environment variable MALLOC_PER_THREAD needs to be set in the environment. This environment variable will become obsolete when this new malloc behaviour becomes default in future releases. Users experiencing contention for the malloc resources could try enabling this option.

http://www.redhat.com/docs/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/5.4/html/Release_Notes/
http://www.redhat.com/docs/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/5.4/html/Technical_Notes/

glibc new MALLOC behaviour: The upstream glibc has been changed recently to enable higher scalability across many sockets and cores. This is done by assigning threads their own memory pools and by avoiding locking in some situations. The amount of additional memory used for the memory pools (if any) can be controlled using the environment variables MALLOC_ARENA_TEST and MALLOC_ARENA_MAX.
MALLOC_ARENA_TEST specifies that a test for the number of cores is performed once the number of memory pools reaches this value. MALLOC_ARENA_MAX sets the maximum number of memory pools used, regardless of the number of cores.

The glibc in the RHEL 5.4 release has this functionality integrated as a Technology Preview of the upstream malloc. To enable the per-thread memory pools the environment variable MALLOC_PER_THREAD needs to be set in the environment. This environment variable will become obsolete when this new malloc behaviour becomes default in future releases. Users experiencing contention for the malloc resources could try enabling this option.

http://www.redhat.com/docs/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/5.4/html/Release_Notes/
http://www.redhat.com/docs/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/5.4/html/Technical_Notes/

From the release notes, specifically: http://www.redhat.com/docs/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/5.4/html/Release_Notes/Filesystems.html yes it does support XFS and FUSE, but they say it's a "technology preview." So who knows what exactly that means.

Just because GPL allows selling commercial software, it doesn't mean that it is very feasible.

I hear that said, yet it happens.
http://ask.slashdot.org/story/09/08/01/169247/The-Ethics-of-Selling-GPLed-Software-For-the-iPhone
http://redhat.com/
http://www.novell.com/linux/

My dear Derleth, something you need to know about me: I am a system administrator.

I have administred/used/installed/maintained: SuSE, Mandrake (now Mandriva), Red Hat, Fedora, Debian, Ubuntu, Slackware, NetBSD, OpenBSD and FreeBSD machines. And I have probably forgotten a couple in the list above (Caldera comes to mind - waaaay before it became SCO).

So, yeah, I have used RPM and .deb based Linux distributions, thank you very much. And, yes, as you guessed, I started way back in 1995, when Slackware was pretty much the only game in town. Debian did not really exist yet and Red Hat was just crappy in those days. Slackware was - and still is - stable and coherent compared to pretty much all other distributions.

And that's just the free UN*X. I have also administered/installed and maintained HP-UX, AIX, Solaris, and Tru64 machines.

Except for the *BSDs and Slackware, frankly, most of them suck. Big time. Which is why I am typing this past 1:00am on a (very early) Sunday morning after spending an entire day installing AIX 5.3 TL8 SP6 servers in a production environment.

Give me Slackware anytime, please. Red Hat is a mess after two upgrades, Debian packages are maintained by a bunch of clueless hippies and n00bies, SuSE just plain sucks (yast meets smit, smit meets yast), Ubuntu is for point-and-click losers. And don't get me started on so-called "professional" UN*X such as AIX, please.

For instance, here is one reason Slackware is superior to all of these lame pieces of fluff: except maybe for Debian, it is the ONLY Linux distribution that won't install an X11 server by default. Here is a hint: you don't need a freaking X11 GUI on a production machine!!

(By the way, never ever mention the name "Gentoo" in front of me unless you really want to get a good ol' whack from my handy clue bat(tm).)

Anyhow, I am sorry if this sounded trollish - don't get me wrong, Red Hat and Debian and Ubuntu and [insert fave distro here] are perfectly acceptable, heck even Solaris or HP-UX are not that bad, but when it comes to simplicity and stability , Slackware is still the best Linux out there.

Slackware sucks. But, as far as I am concerned, it sucks a little bit less than all the others.

Tell me, since when does a press release for Techworld + a front-page /. article count as releasing "quietly"?

When it's actually not an official press release and when a person outside the company submits to /.

They're gearing up to announce it at their summit I would guess...

I am sure the boys in Redmond are not amused.

Microsoft and Red Hat agreed to support each others' operating systems in their virtual environments, so this action is to be expected.

Yes, they expected it just like they expected people to extend Kerebos Authentication and XML filetypes right back at them. Microsoft embraces and extends OTHERS, they don't GET embraced and extended.

Windows Server able to run Linux VMs easily means more people willing to move from Linux to Windows, cause they can virtualize their Linux apps until they've ported them over -- and since they went to all that trouble to pay for Windows server... Might as well keep it.

It doesn't really "work" for Microsoft the other way around, ya know.

I am sure the boys in Redmond are not amused.

Microsoft and Red Hat agreed to support each others' operating systems in their virtual environments, so this action is to be expected.

Microsoft and Apple have versions of their OS that you should never install on a laptop. Linux has distros you should not install on a laptop, as well as some you should.

Linux just isn't ready for the desktop yet.

Translation: I haven't tried it.

the average computer user isn't going to spend months learning how to use a CLI and then hours compiling packages so that they can get a workable graphic interface to check their mail with

I've always thought Ubuntu has very extensive driver support, as do many other distros. Who needs the CLI when there are multiple desktop environments to choose from? How many does Windows have? Oh, right, one...

I'm not the only one who thinks they are user-friendly... Already many big-name vendor laptops are coming out with some form of Linux pre-loaded. Take a look at the HP laptops that are now being offered with Mobile Internet O/S... from the page: " Mobile Internet is a user-friendly, all-inclusive interface built on Linux."

especially not when they already have a Windows machine that does its job perfectly well

haha, good one!

and is backed by a major corporation as opposed to Linux which is only supported by a few unemployed nerds living in their mother's basement somewhere.

Red Hat is a major corporation. It's publicly traded on the NYSE (ticker: RHAT) and doing rather well. You should consider investing. You should also know that Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a fully supported release which offers several high availability service contracts... which is why a lot of US Government systems are now running RHEL. Not to mention it's faster, less expensive, and more secure.

The last thing I want is a level 5 dwarf (haha) providing me my OS.

I don't blame you, I'd want at least a level 12 mage!

It's free to download on the internets!

So's Linux, but people still pay for it.

GFS is proprietary and for internal use only. The only released a paper describing how it works (don't know if that content is enough to rebuild it). I think GFS (global file system) from Redhat and OpenGFS is something differently. Hadoop is what you want. What would we do without the wiki

Redhat seems to do a pretty steady business with a lot of GPL'd code, and while I don't care for their main product lines, you'd think them being listed on the S&P 500 suggest that they're at least doing something right business-wise.

Just because the standard "let's hide the secret sauce" model doesn't work well in the context of using GPL'd code, doesn't mean that a business can't adapt to it.

Our Windows licenses are cheaper than our Redhat licenses

You probably get volume licenses for Windows. If I wanted to pay Redhat, even though I'm not legally required to do so to use Redhat Linux, a 1 year Basic desktop subscription is $80. The cheapest stand alone version, ie not an upgrade, of Windows Vista Amazon lists is Home Basic, which isn't good for much more than browsing the Internet, using e-mail, or viewing photos and costs $110 whereas for a more capable OS you'll pay more.

The longer support you'll get from MS makes it worthwhile but all the activation, spyware, and other things MS requires is what made me switch from a Windows to a Linux and Mac user. And with my Mac I actually get more support from Apple, if needed, than I did from MS. However I've used less support for my Mac in 2 years than I needed in one year for each and every one of the Windows PCs I owned. And I didn't pay any more for it than I would have for a similarly specified Windows PC.

Falcon

Does RedHat really require a separate license for each VM?

RHEL is supported for up to 4 VMs and 2 sockets ('Benefits' tab at the bottom). RHELAP, on the other hand, has no such limitations.

Does RedHat really require a separate license for each VM?

RHEL is supported for up to 4 VMs and 2 sockets ('Benefits' tab at the bottom). RHELAP, on the other hand, has no such limitations.

This is only according to those stricken with Linus's so-called Microsoft-Hater Disease. It is my understanding that both of those companies *and* apple offered to hook them up with stuff and were declined.

It depends on how they offered to "hook them up". Was Apple willing to license the interesting parts of their OS under GPL so that they could make it work on their hardware without depending on a third party? Was Microsoft willing to pay the salaries of several full time developers the way Red Hat did?

Why? Politics. It would be seen as selling out to the other backers--the free software crowd. That would make their Slashdot Karma go down.

Your argument doesn't stand up regarding Intel. They already have good standing in the community, they employ some of the best free software developers in their linux lab, and they already have their own netbook OS in the Maemo project. What's more likely is that AMD just made a better offer than Intel did.

This is only according to those stricken with Linus's so-called Microsoft-Hater Disease. It is my understanding that both of those companies *and* apple offered to hook them up with stuff and were declined.

It depends on how they offered to "hook them up". Was Apple willing to license the interesting parts of their OS under GPL so that they could make it work on their hardware without depending on a third party? Was Microsoft willing to pay the salaries of several full time developers the way Red Hat did?

Why? Politics. It would be seen as selling out to the other backers--the free software crowd. That would make their Slashdot Karma go down.

Your argument doesn't stand up regarding Intel. They already have good standing in the community, they employ some of the best free software developers in their linux lab, and they already have their own netbook OS in the Maemo project. What's more likely is that AMD just made a better offer than Intel did.

...But it is about as far away from FREE Software as it gets.

In fact, is it even technically Open Source either?

From the Red Hat site: "Available for immediate download starting at $80."

Um, 80 != 0, right? So, why would the F/OSS community trumpet this as a "win"?

Yes it is. You can download the sources for free. You can also download a white box clone called CentOS. There is *nothing* that says you can't charge for Open Source.

Sure its free. Download CentOS or the Sources. There is *nothing* that says you can not charge for open source.

...But it is about as far away from FREE Software as it gets.

In fact, is it even technically Open Source either?

From the Red Hat site: "Available for immediate download starting at $80."

Um, 80 != 0, right? So, why would the F/OSS community trumpet this as a "win"?

The site is running Apache on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5, and it looks like Drupal running on PHP. What more do you want?

http://www.redhat.com/spacewalk/

Red Hat also has patents and the wording of the promise is nearly identical to the one of MS, I'm quoting RH:

http://www.redhat.com/legal/patent_policy.html

"""
Our Promise with Respect to Software Patents We Hold ...
Our Promise:

Subject to any qualifications or limitations stated herein, to the extent any party exercises a Patent Right with respect to Open Source/Free Software which reads on any claim of any patent held by Red Hat, Red Hat agrees to refrain from enforcing the infringed patent against such party for such exercise ("Our Promise"). Our Promise does not extend to any software which is not Open Source/Free Software, and any party exercising a Patent Right with respect to non-Open Source/Free Software which reads on any claims of any patent held by Red Hat must obtain a license for the exercise of such rights from Red Hat. Our Promise does not extend to any party who institutes patent litigation against Red Hat with respect to a patent applicable to software (including a cross-claim or counterclaim to a lawsuit). No hardware per se is licensed hereunder.

Each party relying on Our Promise acknowledges that Our Promise is not an assurance that Red Hat's patents are enforceable or that the exercise of rights under Red Hat's patents does not infringe the patent or other intellectual property rights of any other entity. Red Hat disclaims any liability to any party relying on Our Promise for claims brought by any other entity based on infringement of intellectual property rights or otherwise. As a condition to exercising the Patent Rights permitted by Our Promise hereunder, each relying party hereby assumes sole responsibility to secure any other intellectual property rights needed, if any.
"""

They promise not to sue you just like Microsoft. I guess it's perfectly standard legalese then if two companies as far away as MS and RH use the same wording.

Now the RH promise is limited to software with a limited set of licence (they can add to it) while MS one is limited to some implementations of a standard.

I'd say that if a patent troll buys MS we're safe, but if a patent troll buy RH and the FSF needs to publish GPL 3.1 or 4.0 we're screwed since RH promise does not cover future licence.

IANAL

I wonder if Linus Torvalds has a license:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439858

To me when I see Mac OS X, it doesn't feel all that "free" to me, especially since it costs like $130 bucks.

How do you feel when you see Red Hat Enterprise Linux which costs as much as $18,000?

https://www.redhat.com/apps/store/server/

Red Hat does not offer a "free" version of RHEL, though Centos is essentially the same thing. That doesn't change the fact that Red hat is charging massive amounts of money for what is free of cost from others.

Likewise, There are free distributions of apples core OS as well (not the GUI and many of the libraries, but the OS itself is free). It's called Darwin.

In both cases, Apple and Red Hat add value and sell a product without offering a free version. One is GPL, one is BSD.

You were the one that claimed that *BSD's weren't free software. That's not "nit picking". The FSF would violently disagree that the difference is nit picking. I said your entire belief system was a lie because you have this mistaken belief that only GPL software is free software. That is entirely wrong, and the basis for most of your misunderstanding.

The problem is that there are no certifications for linux that actually mean much of anything, unlike the windows world where you have the MS cert. Sure, there are a few companies that offer certs for linux but anyone who knows anything in HR will sneer at them as the meaningless drivel they are.

Er ... https://www.redhat.com/training/

Perhaps he was checking it out in Rawhide? The only reason F11 is being released today and not a week ago was because of a bug in Anaconda ( https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-announce-list/2009-May/msg00011.html ), and the only reason it wasn't released two weeks ago was because of another bug in Anaconda ( https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-announce-list/2009-May/msg00007.html ). If he wasn't affected by either bug there's no reason he couldn't have been testing it for a while now.

Just for context they performed a major rewrite of the storage subsystem in Anaconda this release.

Perhaps he was checking it out in Rawhide? The only reason F11 is being released today and not a week ago was because of a bug in Anaconda ( https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-announce-list/2009-May/msg00011.html ), and the only reason it wasn't released two weeks ago was because of another bug in Anaconda ( https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-announce-list/2009-May/msg00007.html ). If he wasn't affected by either bug there's no reason he couldn't have been testing it for a while now.

Just for context they performed a major rewrite of the storage subsystem in Anaconda this release.

The release announcement is very unprofessional.

Since this release of Fedora will likely power RHEL 6, I was going to forward the release notice to my boss, to see if we could set up some evaluation servers. But then I saw how childish the announcement was, and felt too embarassed to promote Fedora.