Fedora Core 6 Preview

fedora's problem... by joe+155 · 2006-06-23 20:17 · Score: 3, Insightful

I started to use fedora a few months ago and really like it. The main problem I find with it is they seem too willing to update too quickly. I was speaking on a forum about the problems I was having (Kernel update 2107 had real problems) I was told "core 5 is very new, it will get more stable over the coming months"... I kind'a feel like they should make core 5 as stable and as good as it can be and keep it going for about a year or two from when it is completely setled. The only reason that I am a little worried is I'm pretty sure yum will update me to core 6 automatically if i forget to "--exclude" everytime I do a update

Still, it is a really lovely distro (I know it sounds like I slagged it off)... but give it a go : D

--
*''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''

Re:fedora's problem... by Alioth · 2006-06-23 20:54 · Score: 5, Informative

Fedora is really for those who want to be on the bleeding edge.
If you want a Redhattish distro that is NOT bleeding edge, try CentOS 4.3 (which is built from Red Hat Enterprise 4.3) or the other RHEL descendents like WBEL. CentOS is very solid - but it does not tend to have the bleeding edge stuff (and it will remain supported for years).

--
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Re:fedora's problem... by smoker2 · 2006-06-23 21:28 · Score: 4, Informative

The only reason that I am a little worried is I'm pretty sure yum will update me to core 6 automatically if i forget to "--exclude" everytime I do a update
No it won't.
yum works by checking for updates to your current version.
ie. the contents of your /etc/yum.repos.d/fedora.repo read:

#baseurl=http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/f edora/linux/core/$releasever/$basearch/os/
the key term here being $releasever which means it only checks within your current release.
The only way to make yum upgrade to a newer core version is to download and install the newer version kernel, reboot into that kernel, then tell yum to update. I have used that approach to go progressively from FC2 to FC3 to FC4.
HTH.
Re:fedora's problem... by Homology · 2006-06-23 21:33 · Score: 4, Informative

it's not the bleeding edge that bothers me, infact I like it with the software, but I want a stable base for it
Fedora Core is more or less beta testing of software that may eventually end up in Red Hat Enterprise. So by the time a new, say kernel, feature is part of Red Hat Enterprise, then it has been widely tested in Fedora. This means that Fedora is not very stable, but many (most?) Fedora users find this very acceptable.
If you want to have a stable base, then you should use another Linux distro or one of the *BSD.
Re:fedora's problem... by Znork · 2006-06-23 21:35 · Score: 3, Informative

Fedora is an early integrator of many things; as those things sometimes havent had as many testers yet, you're bound to run into some issues. As some features get integrated into the base of the system, for example, Xen, you cant get a super-stable base either.

Dont worry tho, yum update shouldnt upgrade you, you'd have to run yum _upgrade_ for that, as far as I know. Live upgrades of that sort are not recommended tho.
Re:fedora's problem... by A+Masquerade · 2006-06-24 00:28 · Score: 4, Informative

The only way to make yum upgrade to a newer core version is to download and install the newer version kernel, reboot into that kernel, then tell yum to update.

Actually updating has zilch to do with the kernel. You can normally do an online update by manually updating (with the rpm command) the fedora-release packagae, and then using yum to update from there.

However this is not the recommended route, and things may be more complex than this (for example requiring you to update yum, rpm and associated packages first). The kernel does not normally need to be updated first, and you run a greater risk of ending up with an unbootable machine if you do so.

There are normally howtos on upgrading using yum available - Seth Vidal typically has notes in his blogs about doing so.

However the recommended and supported upgrade route is to boot from a the new version installation image, and then use anaconda to upgrade - that can do more invasive updates like the udev changes, which are much easier to do with your system being offline.
Re:fedora's problem... by hughesjr · 2006-06-24 10:30 · Score: 3, Insightful

Well ... you could use RHEL ... but how ethical is it? I mean ... there is Gnome and KDE from other open source people, and Samba too. And OpenOffice.org is developed by someone else. Hmmm, what about Firefox, Seamonkey, the Kernel. I just don't know about the RH stuff, they just seem to be riding the backs of other developers. ------------ HOW STUPID DOES THAT SOUND .... :-) pretty stupid, right? So stop whining about CentOS ... CentOS is GPL, and is not doing anything that 100 other distro maintainers are not doing. GPL is GPL ...

Re:Does Fedora still matters? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-06-23 20:42 · Score: 3, Informative

Ubuntu? It's years behind Fedora in case of security... *sigh*

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Security/Features
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-hardened/ 2006-June/000150.html

patented codec support? by prockcore · 2006-06-23 20:45 · Score: 3, Interesting

Do I still need to jump through ridiculous hoops to get mp3 support in rhythmbox and get *any* support in totem?

Out of the box, Totem can't play *anything*.. completely useless.

At least make it like Ubuntu, where I can add a repository that has all the stuff they can't ship in the box.

Re:patented codec support? by Alioth · 2006-06-23 20:58 · Score: 5, Informative

No, you've not had to jump through ridiculous hoops since at least Fedora Core 2, probably earlier. There _is_ just a repo you can add - it's called the Livna repository. It contains all the 'patented' codec support (sound, video, DVD playing etc.) as well as proprietary video card drivers from nvidia and ATi.

See http://rpm.livna.org/

The ridiculous hoop you have to jump through is to simply type:

rpm -ivh http://rpm.livna.org/livna-release-5.rpm

and you've added the Livna repository. All the stuff in Livna now appears in GUI software installer (Applications -> Add and Remove Software) as well as on the command line (using 'yum'). Couldn't be simpler. Livna is an essential repository for a home user of Fedora Core.

--
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Re:patented codec support? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-06-23 22:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

I think distros that disallow MP3 playback out of the box are being over zealous for 4 reasons:

1. All software violates patents
2. The patent holder says that FLOSS players are ok.
3. The patents are only valid in the US and Japan
4. The point is moot in 3 years anyway when the patent expires. So, there's no time to popularize ogg if that's what they're attempting.

I'm all for keeping things 100% FLOSS, but as long as a piece of software has source code and is freely licenced then personally I don't care if it violates patents. Its one thing being forced by law not to use MP3 playback, but voluntarily removing it preemptively...isn't that a little like jumping off a cliff to avoid getting pushed off?
Re:patented codec support? by thebrid · 2006-06-23 23:20 · Score: 5, Informative

1. All software violates patents

There are so many software patents nowadays, I'm sure it's impossible to write all but the simplest software without treading on somebody's patent. But to suggest that distro owners should knowingly violate patents is kind of negligent.

The patents are only valid in the US and Japan

I know they're slightly biased, but on the MP3 Licensing web site, there's an extensive list of patents which have been granted in an equally extensive list of countries.

The point is moot in 3 years anyway when the patent expires. So, there's no time to popularize ogg if that's what they're attempting.

Again, I'd refer you to the MP3 Licensing web page. If you assume a patent duration of 20 years from filing, the first patents may have begun to expire but there's still quite a number of years to go until all the ones necessary to implement a full-featured decoder will have expired.

I'm all for keeping things 100% FLOSS, but as long as a piece of software has source code and is freely licenced then personally I don't care if it violates patents. Its one thing being forced by law not to use MP3 playback, but voluntarily removing it preemptively...isn't that a little like jumping off a cliff to avoid getting pushed off?

Apparently quite a number of the big free distros have legal teams who would disagree with you. From what I've used, neither Fedora nor Ubuntu include MP3 playback support and it's precisely for this reason. It's OK you advocating violating patents but these distros are made by non-profit organisations who have a lot to lose if they come on the wrong end of a patent lawsuit. At least they make the effort to make MP3 support available. If you want MP3 support, either pay for a commercial distro or quit whining and take the 2 minutes to install support for your distro. As you say, one day all these patents will have expired and even the free distros will be able to ship with MP3 support out of the box.

Of course, most Linux distros ship with support for 2 excellent audio formats out of the box: Ogg Vorbis and FLAC, both of which are better than MP3. Ogg Vorbis is a lossy CODEC which provides better quality than MP3 at a lower bitrate. FLAC is the lossless CODEC and provides CD quality with 30-60% compression. Neither contain any patents that we know of (that in itself is important) and both work great on Windows too.

Red Hat's view of Fedora by Builder · 2006-06-23 21:00 · Score: 3, Informative

Red Hat view (or at least did when I was in Raleigh last September) FC as an incubator for RHEL.

I discussed the release frequency and period of support, and they were pretty unsympathetic to the user's point of view. Their requirement is fast turnaround of new releases to ensure a strong test of new technologies / versions of new packages.

This has some upsides, like the multipathing support in RHEL4, Update 3 which means we can finally do away with Veritas on most of our machines. But it can suck for the user.

Evolutionary rather than revolutionary by Anonymous Coward · 2006-06-23 21:28 · Score: 3, Interesting

As someone whose been using Fedora since Core 1, this release seems more evolutionary. Even without major changes between releases, the accumulated bug fixes contribute to a desktop that 'works' better and has the functionality I need. We all remember the bad old days of manually mounting your USB peripherals.. well now I have suspend, easy networking (thanks to NetworkManager) and useful stuff like Beagle to play with, so thats quite good progress. This release will be worthwhile just to get the latest of everything, and it looks as if some nice eye-candy will be ready in GNOME 2.16.

I personally would like to see a general reduction in memory usage in GNOME and various apps; it's been moving in the right direction, I hope it stays that way. I believe there is an effort to remove various deprecated libraries to help here.

But it could be a lot easier.... by MarkByers · 2006-06-23 23:30 · Score: 5, Insightful

The ridiculous hoop you have to jump through is to simply type:

rpm -ivh http://rpm.livna.org/livna-release-5.rpm

Why do I have to type something at the command line to get basic multimedia support? Can't they just make a button during the install that you can press to get 'illegal' software. The button could read:

'I want to play mp3 files and I don't care if it's illegal. I take full responsibility for my actions.'

or:

'Software patents don't apply in my country, give me an mp3 player already!'

Why do they make you use the command line? It doesn't make sense.

--
I'll probably be modded down for this...

Re:But it could be a lot easier.... by quintesse · 2006-06-24 00:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

Because I'm sure a judge would agree with you completely that only putting a button to the illegal downloads would absolve the distro makers completely in case anyone decides to sue them. Besides, I like Fedora exactly for that attitude, they have their principals and they stick to them even though it might hurt them at times.

And if entering one line on a console scares you maybe Linux is not for you. And I'm not being elitist here or anything, but it's just that you will be confrontend with a shell at some time during your Linux usage. The same way that for Windows you will be confronted with driver downloads (Why doesn't Microsoft give me a big button "Install latest nVidia drivers, I know what I'm doing").
Re:But it could be a lot easier.... by Alioth · 2006-06-24 03:24 · Score: 3, Interesting

If you really need to do it via the GUI, just point your browser at http://rpm.livna.org/livna-release-5.rpm - Firefox as installed on FC5 understands by default what program needs to handle RPM packages.

I'm sure the Fedora team has thought of putting some 'install illegal codecs' button somewhere in the GUI, but RedHat's lawyers probably say it's a very bad idea. If Livna does it all independently then RedHat can easily claim clean hands and get the case dismissed if Fraunhofer tries to sue them. It might be harder to get the suit dismissed if they do as you suggest, and that means lots of money - a patent holder's lawyer would be able to argue that it is tantamount to Microsoft putting a link on the GUI to the Pirate Bay in Windows.

--
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows

Re:Does Fedora still matters? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-06-23 23:48 · Score: 3, Interesting

At least Ubuntu is moving in this direction. Consider also that Ubuntu is only what, 2 or 3 years old? And Fedora has the benefit of running upstream of a commercial linux distro where features like this are considered important. Ubuntu has been working backwards, hitting the desktop market first and only just now breaking into the server market.

With 1/5th the age of a distro that gets to exchange features back and forth with a commercial, enterprise linux if a few security features is all that you can complain about that's not too shabby. And according to it's creator Ubuntu will NEVER leave us hanging by commercializing and forking off into a crappier, less stable, free derivitive.

Besides, linux distros have not been including the technologies you link to for "years" and even if they have... Ubuntu is years behind simply by chronology yet still has managed to beat out fedora by making a professional desktop ready linux in a fraction of the time. Try to keep a little perspective and save your sour grapes *sighs* for apples vs. apples comparisons. Ubuntu is a baby in the distro market compared to redhat/fedora.

Re:I have only one question by HuguesT · 2006-06-24 00:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

Throwing my mod points away to respond to this :

I run FC5 at home and Ubuntu, Debian and Mandrake at work. Read this series of reviews of the latest Ubuntu release (6.06), they are not all positive. A significant number say Drake was rushed and not on par with the previous release.

I have tried many distros out there, everyone has their favourite, and in particular Ubuntu is quite good, but there is no clear winner. Most people I read tend to base their impression of Linux on the latest distro they've tried. Usually this shows some improvement over the one they had tried earlier and (incorrectlly) conclude this is due to the distribution being "just better".

In fact the whole of Linux is progressing at a rapid pace. Both Fedora and Ubuntu have quick and frequent release schedules, a large professional and dedicated team, and as a result they are quite solid, but the same is true of many distros out there. I've come to realize that by and large innovations by one distribution quickly permeate all. See the good work of Debian with apt, that of Ubuntu with their automounter and RH's work with sponsoring Gnome and SELinux.

Ubuntu and FC have different, incompatible aims. Ubuntu is not a testing ground for RHEL, they show little interest with SELinux for instance, whereas this is of strategic importance for FC. However strangely perhaps they cover much of the same ground as far as the end-user is concerned.

Saying that one particular distro among the big ones does something "much better" than any other is misinformed. Because of the nature of FOSS, none holds any permanent advantage over the others, as long as they all continue their development efforts.

Re:Installing on a USB hard drive? by Ankou · 2006-06-24 00:54 · Score: 4, Informative

Maby not the easiest way but I have been doing it since fedora 3:

Insert Fedora core cd #1 and turn on your computer. Boot to the cd.

When the boot screen comes up, type "expert" and hit enter. That will allow you to install to the usb drive. Install as normal, and make sure you install grub to the MBR.

Now, shut down. Boot up with Fedora disk 1 in the cd drive. at the boot screen, type: "linux rescue", and answer the questions about language when they come up. when it asks you if you want it to search for the installation, click "skip this step", and you will be brought to a shell.

mount /dev/sda2 /mnt/source
mount /dev/sda1 /mnt/source/boot
chroot /mnt/source

Next, create the initrd, with the usb driver included:

mkinitrd --preload=ehci-hcd --preload=usb-storage --preload=scsi_mod --preload=sd_mod /boot/initrd.img kernelversion

Now, you have to edit your grub.conf:

nano /boot/grub/grub.conf

put the new initrd file name "initrd.img" in place of whats there. save and exit nano. reboot and it should work

of course your bios needs to be able to boot off usb devices. Hope that helps.

Fedora + KDE !=Genuine KDE by nighty5 · 2006-06-24 01:30 · Score: 3, Interesting

Redhat hacks KDE beyond the feel and proper use of KDE. Fedora replaces a lot of QT applets with GTK ones to perform a lot of functions. KDEsu is a prime example although there is others.

If you are a KDE fan, than you're being shortchanged if you run Fedora or Redhat products.

SuSE used to be a great product, but 10.1 had so many problems I've lost confidence.

Give Mandrake, Gentoo, Kubuntu a try.

Re:Help a noob day: by Kiaser+Wilhelm+II · 2006-06-24 03:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

That is not RPM's fault. Ubuntu/Debian are not any different. If you download a .deb of something and it has dependencies on packages you don't have installed, you will encounter the same problems. You may have heard of "apt" for Debian based distributions. There is also "yum" for RPM.

Knowledge is power.

--
Lord High Crapflooder The Right Honourable Vlad Craig Esther McDavenpherson III
Destroyer of Mercatur.Net

Google Trends for Fedora and other distributions by Snowhare · 2006-06-24 05:59 · Score: 3, Interesting

Based on http://www.google.com/trends?q=ubuntu%2C+fedora+%7 C+fc5+%7C+fc4+%7C+fc3%2C+RHEL+%7C+redhat+%7C+red+h at%2C++suse%2C+debian&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all at Google Trends, my belief is that RH and Fedora are losing ground while Ubuntu is making a serious run at becoming the most popular distribution.

I'm still using FC5 on my desktop for now, largely because I found it the simplest to 'extend' with non-vendor apps and drivers (such as the proprietary ATI drivers and the intense multimedia support available via the Livna repository to replace the frankly useless sound and video "support" in the vanilla FC5). I am fairly likely to stick with it either until FC7 or until Ubuntu reaches the critical mass where most app and driver vendors explicitly support it as a preferred distro.

On behalf of Artie Lange... by talksinmaths · 2006-06-24 08:11 · Score: 4, Funny

...let me reply to some of the posts here:

Did they put the "Install Everything" button back in yet? If not, I'm not interested.
Waaah!

New KDE, new Gnome, an updater, and CUPS? Yawn...
Waaaaahh!

I switched to ${ANOTHER_DISTRO} and never looked back.
Waaaaaaaaaahhhh!

If you are a KDE fan, than you're being shortchanged...
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagggghhhh!

I'm REALLY happy with FC5. I don't need FC6.
Waaaah!!! Waaaah!!! Waaaaaaaaaaah!!!

The main problem I find with it is they seem too willing to update too quickly.
Waaaah waaaah waaaah waaaah waaaah!!!!!

Out of the box, Totem can't play *anything*.. completely useless.
Wah wah wah wah wah, wah wah wah, waaaaaaahhh!

Why do I have to type something at the command line to get basic multimedia support? Can't they just make a button...
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGHH HHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[DISCLAIMER: This post is a joke. This post is only a joke. Had this post been intended to deliver actual derision or condescension it would have been supported by bad analogies, the anecdotal 'evidence' of a single user, and/or numerous mentions of other Linux distributions that are not germane to the current discussion. I apologize preemptively if anyone's fragile psyche was offended by this post. Additionally, I don't really have the authority to speak on Artie Lange's behalf.]

--
Don't you have someone you'd die for?

Re:Does Fedora still matters? by LnxAddct · 2006-06-24 08:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

"With 1/5th the age of a distro"

Bullshit. Ubuntu is based off of Debian, and a very large chunk of the things Ubuntu uses were developed at Red Hat. Both are Gnome based distros, using Ubuntu is not easier than using Fedora, but Fedora comes with a lot of additional things that Ubuntu doesn't have. All of these Ubuntu supporters are simply falling right into Mark Shuttleworth's hands by building brand recognition so that his commercial side of tghe business will thrive. Mark Shuttleworth is a marketing genius.
Regards,
Steve

25 of 138 comments (clear)