Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Fedora 9 "Sulphur" Alpha Released

Posted by kdawson on from the they-really-spell-it-that-way dept.

JonRob writes "The first development snapshot of Fedora 9 (Sulphur) has been released, providing both a KDE and a GNOME live CD. This is the first of three test releases before the final version of Fedora 9 this April. The alpha features many changes including KDE 4 by default, GNOME 2.21.4, support for creation of encrypted partitions and for resizing EXT2/EXT3/NTFS partitions during install, speed improvements to X, the Linux 2.6.24 kernel, and much more."

44 of 62 comments (clear)

  1. The OS of the FUTURE!!! by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 4, Funny

    Fedora 9: Sulphur Alpha
    Isn't this a new show on the SciFi channel?

    --
    This guy's the limit!
  2. I know it's nice to be on the bleeding edge... by thewils · · Score: 1

    ...but can anyone give some good reasons as to why a Fedora 4,5,6,7 and 8 user might migrate to F9 instead of maybe waiting and checking out F10?

    I was checking out the F9 Features only last night and it didn't seem that there was a lot in there that had me salivating like F8 did. There was mention of Firefox 3 but I couldn't ascertain the status of it.

    It's a certain amount of trouble to do the upgrade (I usually do it as a new install), just wondering if it's worth it for me this time round.

    --
    Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
    1. Re:I know it's nice to be on the bleeding edge... by 0racle · · Score: 1

      If I was a Fedora user, I'd be going to 9 for KDE 4.

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    2. Re:I know it's nice to be on the bleeding edge... by cbart387 · · Score: 4, Informative

      For me the quicker starting/stopping of X sounds nice (provided by google since Fedora's server is overloaded right now). An interest of mine is in Operations Research and I typically turn off X when running simulations to remove some of the variability. It'd be nice to have a quicker response from X. I'm not sure if that's on everyone's list though ...

      --
      Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine.
    3. Re:I know it's nice to be on the bleeding edge... by BrianGKUAC · · Score: 1

      ext4, and a much faster load time, perhaps?

      --
      Menus: Linux=function, Windows=vendor, OS X=as little as possible. Makes a statement, don't you think?
  3. Nomen est omen? by iuso · · Score: 1, Informative

    "Sulphur" translates to the Finnish word "rikki", which incidentally also means "broken".

  4. Is this a deliberate naming convention? by ricebowl · · Score: 1

    I realise I'm still very new to Linux, familiarising myself with Ubuntu Server and the desktop variants only recently, but 'sulphur'? The new improved Fedora: 'smells like rotting eggs'? Surely that's not the best name they could've come up with. Mind you, it's an Alpha release so maybe it's simply to prevent accidental downloads...

    1. Re:Is this a deliberate naming convention? by NaCh0 · · Score: 1
      Mind you, it's an Alpha release so maybe it's simply to prevent accidental downloads...

      Bingo!

    2. Re:Is this a deliberate naming convention? by rudlavibizon · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sulfur doesn't smell like rotten eggs, hydrogen-sulfide does

    3. Re:Is this a deliberate naming convention? by MonsterTrimble · · Score: 1

      Sulphur: Sounds cool, smells bad.

      Assume marketing had a hand in it.

      --
      I call it 'The Aristocrats'
    4. Re:Is this a deliberate naming convention? by billius · · Score: 1

      Indeed, Fedora Brimstone would have been a much more metal name...

  5. Encrypted root support in anaconda. by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 5, Informative

    That right there is the NUMBER ONE reason to get it if you have a laptop. It's been a long time coming and it is sorely missed.
    Now you too can reap the benefits of transparent encryption enforced at boot on your portable device, wrapped up in a package that is easy to set up.

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
    1. Re:Encrypted root support in anaconda. by speculatrix · · Score: 1

      suse10.2 - which has been out for eons - they're now on 10.3 - has had point and click encrypted partition creation... along with trivial creation of s/w raid (raid 0, 1 & 5)... so how come everyone else has taken so long to catch up.

      the advanced disk partitioning/formatting tool on suse is a real winner - even my developers (non-linux experts by far) could manage it; I tried ubuntu server only 4 months ago and it truly sucked golf balls through capillary tubes in the disk prep tools.

    2. Re:Encrypted root support in anaconda. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's been trivial to create encrypted partitions in Debian for quite some time. The option has been part of the installation process since Etch. Debian also has the big advantage that it's not Suse.

    3. Re:Encrypted root support in anaconda. by Kjella · · Score: 1

      If you wanted that so badly, why not go with one of the distros that's already delivered that in a release, like Ubuntu (alt cd) or Debian? Easiest setup I've seen in ages. Strangely enough, I haven't found any instructions on how to mount a *second* encrypted drive automagically using either same key or key from root, basicly one key to unlock the whole system. That should be a lot easier but certainly not easy or documented...

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    4. Re:Encrypted root support in anaconda. by speculatrix · · Score: 1

      debian has the big advantage that you save lots of money not buying cutting edge hardware since it won't work on that :-P

  6. Re:Wireless by 1_brown_mouse · · Score: 2, Informative

    I have had no problems with wireless using the ndiswrapper.

    http://ndiswrapper.sourceforge.net/

    The switch on the side of my laptop that turns it on and off has caused me more grief for a while than any driver issue.

  7. filesystems by blackjackshellac · · Score: 1

    I wish they'd add a decent extent based filesystem to their install defaults. I'd love to have xfs in there by default and not have to install a separate module.

    --
    Salut,

    Jacques

    1. Re:filesystems by businessnerd · · Score: 2, Informative

      Generally, xfs and others like reiser are supported by default, but you have to "unlock" them at install time. To do this, when you first boot up the install disk, instead of just hitting Enter to launch that graphical installer (anaconda) you have to type in "linux xfs" or insert another fs of choice in the place of xfs. Not sure why they do this, but it is nice to know that it is available "out of the box".

      --
      "It's not whether you win or lose, it's how drunk you get." -- H. J. Simpson
  8. Whew by macdaddy · · Score: 1

    phew! What's that smell?

  9. Compaq DL380 with Raid by Pop69 · · Score: 1

    Let me know when it will boot after install on one of these, otherwise I'll be sticking with Slack on my servers

    1. Re:Compaq DL380 with Raid by LWATCDR · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why would you use Fedora for a production server?
      Fedora has too short of a supported life for a server. I would recomend CentOS if you want a Red Hat like server install.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    2. Re:Compaq DL380 with Raid by rsax · · Score: 1

      As the other poster pointed out, make your life easier and install CentOS for servers instead of Fedora. I'm using CentOS 5.1 on Proliant DL360s and DL380s, G5 and older. All the HP monitoring software works as long as you modify the /etc/redhat-release file before installing.

    3. Re:Compaq DL380 with Raid by J.Y.Kelly · · Score: 1

      It depends on what you need.

      I'm running around 7 fedora servers performing various functions (web server, databases, svn etc.) and most of them started off with Fedora Core 1 and have done every update (not reinstall) to where they are now (f8).

      I've never had a major OS problem with any of them. I lose about an hour of uptime every 6 months to run the update to the latest version (after testing it on a devel server), and I combine this with some normal housekeeping I'd be doing anyway. I find that these small incremental updates are very convenient and painless.

      People go on about Fedora being cutting edge and therefore unstable - but this is only true to any significant extent for more advanced desktop features. For server functions it's been rock solid.

    4. Re:Compaq DL380 with Raid by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      But what do you gain from using Fedora over CentOS?
      I am not saying that can not use Fedora and have a stable server but why choose it over CentOS?
      CentOS is just fine at running web servers, databases, and SVN. Most databases and Apache produce RPMs for Red Hat Enterpise very early in the update cycle so there is no need for you to not have the latest and greatest if you want. All the tools are pretty much the same for management so why Fedora over CentOS?
      I am long time Suse user but I have to admit that I have really become fond of CentOS for servers. That and I just installed the Latest stable Ubuntu on my desktop and my goodness am I impressed with it. The simplest install I have ever done.
      Now if they could just get GNASH to work as well as Flash I would be ready to jump to 64 bit on my desktop.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    5. Re:Compaq DL380 with Raid by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      I know this is a bit of a radical statment but Linux is Linux.
      I don't find it all that hard to jump from Ubuntu, to OpenSuse, to CentOS.
      Okay yum is a little different than apt-get and both are a little different from Yast but they are just not that hard to move from.
      The difference between Fedora and CentOS are so small that I just don't see the problem but then I like learning new stuff and I am an old fart.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  10. Re:Wireless by blueg3 · · Score: 1

    Depends on what you mean. Will they start providing closed-source or otherwise IP-encumbered drivers? No.

  11. it smells like sulphur by Reverend528 · · Score: 4, Funny

    of course, that's a sign that there are lots of daemons.

    --
    Badass Resumes
  12. I wonder if it'll work on my hardware... by rthille · · Score: 1


    I've been trying different Linux releases since 6 or 7, and I can't get anything to run stable on my VIA EPIA EN-15000G. Memtest86 will run for days with no errors. NetBSD (CURRENT) will run stable for as long as I've kept it up. Linux dies (just locks up hard: ping gets nothing, no response at the console) after a day or two at most, whether or not X is running. I'd _really_ prefer Linux for this box, since I wanted VMWare and to be able to consolidate a few boxes I use for various things. But I can't get Linux stable. Other people have reported their EN-15000G is stable, but not mine for some reason...

    --
    Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    1. Re:I wonder if it'll work on my hardware... by (H)elix1 · · Score: 1

      w00t! I know this one. Had the same problem with my mainboards - the C7 processor is i586, not i686. Try the Ubuntu distros - they will work without any work. Gentoo, RedHat derivatives(Centos, RHEL, OEL) default to i686, which will cause all sorts of weirdness like hard crashes and reboots. If you want to get RH to work, you need to set it up with the correct kernel.

      (Got one of those $60 'google dev kit' mainboards, and was puzzled when gOS (a Ubuntu variant) booted fine, but Gentoo live distro did not. Same deal for my fanless VIA EPIA 5000)

      --
      +++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
    2. Re:I wonder if it'll work on my hardware... by rthille · · Score: 1

      I'm not in front of the machine right now (and it's powered down), but I don't think that's it. I'm pretty sure I tired Ubuntu, at least once, and according to this: http://gentoo-wiki.com/HARDWARE_Epia_CN10000 the C7 is an i686. So does this: http://tinyurl.com/2pmpwy but it seems to indicate that a C3 (the previous VIA processor rev) wasn't an i686.

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
  13. Creating them after the fact is easy in any distro by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 1

    It was getting the installer / boot scripts to support them (and also getting mkinitrd patched) so you can do encrypted root out of the box.

    There's little things about that you have to watch out for... for example, if you decide to use LVM and swap but use a dynamic generated key for encrypting swap, then you have to disable hibernation because resume won't work. Blah blah blah...

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
  14. That's way below what they expect to perform well. by jensend · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've been trying different Linux releases since 6 or 7
    Presumably you mean different Fedora releases since Fedora 6 or 7?

    You'll note that their target machine for X11 2d desktop performance is a 1.7GHz Pentium M with a Radeon 7500, which they say is "not fast and therefore a good target for tuning." I miss the days when you could expect- out of the box- to get good desktop performance on your 400MHz Pentium II and have a ~1.5GB install footprint (or less if you bothered deselecting stuff you didn't need on install). Now endless tweaking and tuning and putzing with stuff is required to get poor (rather than abysmal) performance on something 2-3 times that fast using 2-3 times the space. There's really been about as much proportional bloat in Linux distros since the RH 6.x days as there has been in corresponding Windows versions up to Vista.

  15. Because some of us don't like Ubuntu? by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 1

    It's not the environment is bad, I just don't like rolling APT packages. I was okay with hand-rolling patched mkinitrd's for the last few years but anaconda support here is like delicious gravy to me.

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
  16. Re:That's way below what they expect to perform we by owlman17 · · Score: 1

    I do as a matter of fact, have a 400MHz PII and a ~1.5GB (maybe less than half of that) install footprint, but I'm using LFS. I get to choose the packages that I want. It takes about a day to compile everything (I made scripts to ease the tedium). For those who won't bother, a 5 MB Ubuntu Minimal CD would do, plus a fast connection. Should be just about the same.

  17. Re:That's way below what they expect to perform we by rthille · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I've tried each new Fedora release (and some Suse and Ubuntu) when it comes out. Each one locks up hard. I don't care if it's fast, as it's a replacement for a Cobalt RaQ2+ 250MHz MIPS machine with no X11 installed...I just want it to run, be stable, and run VMWare.

    --
    Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
  18. 9? Sulfur? by bmo · · Score: 3, Funny

    I thought Fluorine was 9. Sulfur is 16, last I checked.

    --
    BMO

  19. Re:torrent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    does anyone know where the torrent can be found? Here: http://fedoraproject.org/get-prerelease
  20. Re:What did they break now? by idontgno · · Score: 1

    would sound like rants, yet, the only people I know using Fedora are using it "unwillingly:" because their companies run RHEL, because their partners are using RHEL, because they need need to be compatible to RHEL, etc. I know nobody who uses Fedora because s/he likes it.

    So why aren't they running CentOS? It is RHEL without the trademarks and the promises-on-paper you don't get anyways if you're running Fedora, and as far as my experience goes it's production-grade. You're not RH's guinea pig like you'd be with Fedora.

    People who are running Fedora because they want a solid server experience are mislead. The real reason to run Fedora is because you want to help out on the forefront, pioneering the good stuff that may eventually show up in RHEL (and CentOS).

    On the other hand, pioneers tend to wind up face-down in the desert with arrows in their backs...

    --
    Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  21. Re:That's way below what they expect to perform we by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

    > You'll note that their target machine for X11 2d desktop
    > performance is a ...

    Nope, the link merely notes that their reference machine for _testing_ an enhancement to X is a ...

  22. Longest lifetime? by Kludge · · Score: 1

    RHEL 3 = red hat 9?
    RHEL 4 = fedora 3
    RHEL 5 = fedora 6
    RHEL 6 = fedora ?

    If I'm right, that last number will be a 9. If you install alpha now, you'll have all the latest stuff and a really long support life time.

    1. Re:Longest lifetime? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      But the latest stuff is not always the best stuff.

      The idea behind RHEL and CentOS and frankly Debian is to provide the most stable platform. For production servers uptime is everything. The ideal situation would be if you never had to update your server at all. That of course just doesn't happen. There will always be security fixes and bug fixes but many new features are just not that important.
      To give you a real world example. At my office we use a Postgres Database server to run our call queue. We have a program that keeps track of all our incoming support calls and out going support calls. Right now it does what we need and is fast.
      Postgres just came out with a brand new version. It looks great and has some really nice features. The thing is I don't need those features until I write a new version of our phone software. Postgres keeps updating the older version of the postgres server software with bug and security fixes for just that reason. I don't need to jump to a new major release until I want to.
      This is typical of servers. Your example is kind of misleading. I think that Fedora 3 is no longer supported with updates, RHEL4 is.
      For a home system Fedora is great. For a small office? Why not if you want it. But CentOS has the same cost as Fedora and a much longer support life.
      Yea it may be "boring" but frankly boring is good for a server.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  23. Re:What did they break now? by zrq · · Score: 1

    I know nobody who uses Fedora because s/he likes it.

    I use Fedora on all my machines, servers, desktops and laptops, and like it a lot.

    Glad to make your acquaintance, now you know at least one person who uses Fedora because they like it.

  24. You are missing the point by Kludge · · Score: 1

    I think that Fedora 3 is no longer supported with updates, RHEL4 is. You seem to have missed the point entirely.
    All Fedora 3 packages work on RHEL4. RHEL4 packages work on Fedora 3.
    They are the same thing. RHEL4 is just an updated version of Fedora 3.
    If you installed Fedora 3, you can just set yum to update from RHEL4/CentOS4/ScientificLinux4 servers.