Slashdot Mirror
Fedora 9 a Bit Behind the Curve On Installation
bsk_cw writes "Today, many Linux users are getting blasé about the ease with which they can install Linux. Possibly, they've been spoiled by distributions such as Ubuntu, which is actually easier to install than Windows. Unfortunately, Fedora 9, the latest version of this community edition of Red Hat, was a bit too much of a blast from the past for Computerworld's James Turner." (Except for bits about the installation, the review is actually quite positive.)
Imagine what Fedora 9 would have done to UbuntuDupe's hard drive!!
"actually easier to install than Windows" (!!)
I'm not sure what rock he's been living under, but Linux has been a lot easier to install than windows for ages. Ubiquity, Anaconda, Debian-Installer... sure, the old Debian boot-floppies installer was kind of a pain, but when you want to get your OS installed quickly and easily you don't exactly reach for silvers from Microsoft.
Lately I got a bit tired of Wine's partial support for Steam so I've been trying to get some kind of Windows installed on my system to run some games. It's been a comic horror show of 0000007B this, 80070241 that, swapping out different optical drives and dumbing down BIOS settings to try to get either the XP or Vista installer to not bluescreen or otherwise give up on life trying to copy data from the installation media.
Thankfully, when I need a sane, easy OS to regroup and try to find out what the cryptic hex codes barfed out by Microsoft's fragile-as-glass, no-system-logs-provided installers, I only have to reach for one of my Linux discs to get things up straight away.
And let's face it... if your goal is to quickly get a quality browser, IM client, office suite, and some basic development tools installed, you're going to have an easier time popping in an Ubuntu disc to get there even if Windows is preinstalled on the box!
This is something which seems to plague some Linux installs - if I recall correctly, Vector Linux (or was it Puppy?) has a similar problem with re-using swap partitions which are also used by other installed distros.
The fact that the author managed to get things going by telling the installer to repartition the drive seems to confirm this. It is a long time since I tested Fedora, so I have no idea if this problem is common with that distro.Luckily, most users will probably not have multiple distros installed and this should not prove an issue to them.
Kudos to the author for reporting the issue as a bug though - that may help to get this sorted for the next release.
Awful UID - but I have been here ages...
"(Except for bits about the installation, the review is actually quite positive.)"
I must have read a different article (whupps, sorry, it's slashdot, I know I'm not supposed to RTFA, backsliding again, I suppose)
the first page was complaints about the installer, a paragraph or two that's positive about the performance, and then a complaint that you have to buy the enterprise edition for support, because you can't buy support for Fedora...
Didn't do much for me as a review of the new Fedora, and it certainly didn't seem like the rest was "Positive".
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
This is Slashdot, you can't criticize a Linux distro on here. I found this out the hard way today.
Last time I tried Fedora/RedHat I was totally put off by the performance of the package management system. Not only did I experience RPM-hell with dependency shit but it was slow as hell. I mean the package manager would sit there and bring my computer to its knees for a long freaking time.
Not too good if you ask me. But hell who needs Fedora anyway when there are much better distros without that RPM crap.
I have been with fedora since 2003, that was my year of the linux desktop. As always, everything worked out of the box, even in my brand spankin' new HP Pavilion dv6775us laptop, even the webcam. Probably I am one of the lucky bastards though...
Anyway, the only issue I have is the nVidia graphics card. I do not blame Fedora for this though, I blame nVidia. Those asswipes don't give crap about linux users, write crappy drivers, take a long time writing them, and don't give specs. I like watching videos on my machine, but now i have no xvideo extensions available on my graphics driver. Fedora shipped with the latest experimental X Server, something that nVidia is not supporting yet...
I'll go ahead and say: nVidia, you corporate assholes, you lost a costumer. And since I work on retail, I have the power to make you lose many more. Cheers!
Anybody remember THAT installer? There was no "back" option on most of the screens. If you screwed up, you had to start over from scratch.
Here's my favorite quote:
"a 2.6.x kernel is a 2.6.x kernel"
Yeah, right. I think he has no clue about what he's talking of. Even if you take a 2.6.18 kernel that RedHat uses for their RHEL systems, and 2.6.25, there are a lot of differences. To say nothing of the first release of 2.6.
Just pulled it down today via the torrent and got it installed on a Dell Inspiron 600M in a matter of minutes. The previous distro on this machine was Ubuntu 8.0.4 which, though pretty good, works just a little differently than I prefer. However, Ubuntu worked very well on the machine including Compiz, wireless (via ndiswrapper), and even my volume keys. This was the bar that Fedora had to meet.
So far so good. Compiz and wireless work fine. The volume controls don't but I can live with it for now.
Nice things include the on-the-fly res switching of the new X server. Dual head (xinerama) clones my laptop display onto the bigger 1280x1024 display, but it shows up as a portion of a larger desktop. This is the same as in Ubuntu and is annoying. Hopefully I'll figure it out soon.
My other tests were to close the laptop and see how well it hibernates. Works great. Under the Windows XP with recently installed SP3 the laptop sometimes doesn't sleep properly. The screen goes off, but it never throttles down so I've sometimes pulled it out of the laptop bag after getting home and found it super-hot to the touch. But it seems to work in F9 on my few tests.
Those are the only issues I've had so far. It seems fast, looks beautiful, and the app selection is perfect. Price is great too.
Simple fact is that if you think it's hard you are either a Windows user or an idiot or quite probably both.
I guess "installing" Windows involves taking the newly bought HP/Dell out of the box and plugging it in.
For those who don't have DVD write capability.
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
There's also this one. It's not Netcraft, but still.
I expect to burn in flamebait karma hell for this, but as a Fedora user I do find it sad. But not surprising.
$> yum install [package]
:)
$> yum remove [package]
yeah, i can see how your dependedncy hell transpired.
( heres a hint though, after yum works out all the dependencies, enter 'y' or 'n' to accept/reject the dependency resolution yum works out for ya...)
oh, and theres a graphical tool for command line averse.
the much shorter ( and accurate ) response to this A/C would of course be 'bullshit'
Believe it or not, I've had
$> yum install [package]
$> yum remove [package]
fail on RHEL 5.1 x86_64 with some development package where *yum* installed both 32bit and 64bit versions. It couldn't figure out what to do with the remove statement, and I had to use rpm to nuke the packages.
i like the slackware way of installation myself. ubuntu is 'too' user friendly for me in the respect that i dont seem to have any options or choice about the main things that are important to me. i think the only time i've ever had an issue installing linux was my first time installing slackware because i hadnt really used CLI much until that point. but simply reading the docs explained everything and it was a quick success, since installing different distros on different computers i've become a lot more adept at the installation procedures and what users would benefit from and such.
but as far as installing windows goes, i've installed it probably a good 2000 or more times on roughly the same number of different machines and yes, new hardware is a huge bitch with it and can cause the weirdest issues. sure its an old OS now but if they're still selling it, cant they update it with newer drivers and such? and why cant they have a website where you can punch in your key and a serial number or something off your disc and then download the latest and greatest iso? im sure they can come up with some lame drm type thing to prevent the iso from being pirated right? and even if it was, it would still require a key right? so thats not really pirating.. i guess since they moved on to vista theres not going to be much of a chance for that however plus they suck and dont do anything right so i doubt we'll ever see a good installer or anything for windows
also i've noticed trying to install winxp over top of linux hangs and the drive needs to be wiped first or it just will not work... lame
I know Fedora is not the easiest to install, but instead, let's look at the other side of the matter.
Being a Fedora user myself, I walked through the install process in about ten minutes (excl. the time of merely waiting for file extraction/copying). And everything worked fine.
Installing Fedora is not a click-through. For new users it may appear to be more intimidating than it actually is. But don't forget the old practice of RTFM. Fedora has an excellent installation guide available from their wiki. The guide is very readable even for new users. In the doc there are actually things a new user can learn useful knowledge, e.g. the basic ideas of disk partition and logical volume management. A scan through the manual also helps reducing the risk of data loss caused by mis-operation.
Sadly, most new users don't know the value of a manual.
Perhaps that's what Fedora differens from the *buntu families. Fedora is a desktop distro, but meanwhile it is always a testing distro; it isn't even meant to be very stable or user-friendly like the *buntus do. You'll have to be a little tech-aware. If you don't feel like reading through a few man pages to find the answer, then consider something else.
Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
and
Surely if you want an enterprise-grade distro but don't want to pay for it then you go for CentOS, since it's basically unbranded RHEL? Fedora is specifically meant as more cutting edge (as the author mentioned) so why would you want to start a server on it if you're going to move to RHEL?
As for the complaint about lack of support, how many normal users get support with Windows? Most people use friends and family for support or learn it themselves.
I've been installing Fedora and Redhat since 7.3 and never had a problem. The closest I got to install problems was when one version wanted to display the installer at a higher res than my laptop screen. All I did then was a bit of creative navigation.
There was a bug in the installer when using dvd version, so he had to use the text version, no real critisms.
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
"RPM-hell with dependency shit?" You don't think Apt has dependencies too? The only real difference between apt and yum (aside from the fact that yum has a priorities plugin, which I think apt seriously needs) is that yum does have speed issues, but I understand they've improved for this release (haven't had a chance to try it myself).
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
If you are having problems with "yum install {package}" or "yum remove {package}" I would suggest looking very carefully at your repos. I only ever have the default repos enabled and always select a repo with "yum --enablerepo={my_repo} install {package}". Also I would be careful with what repos you use anyway since some can really cause problems.
Personally I have found the "Livna" repo to be the best one to match the default repos. If I cannot install a particular package by default I enable "Livna" then the next repo but as I have said some repos can cause you problems. If that is the case then you may have to use "rpm -e --nodeps {package_that_has_issues}" and this is were the fun starts. You can always try and install later if you really need the package.
As for i386 and x86_64 packages I always suggest trying to use the package that matches the architecture which means for 64bit architecture (most current PC's now) you should try to get rid of i386 packages if you have both the 32bit and 64bit ones. Use "yum erase {package}.i386" to get rid of the i386 package. You may be able to do what I have suggested in the GUI but when you have dependency issues the command line is the best and safest way to go. If you are using RHEL 5.1 (latest is 5.2) then you most likely have a subscription which will give you telephone and email support. If you are paying for this then I would definately suggest using it.
There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
Found on the Pirate Bay.
Unfortunately, most people need a lot more than what is provided by the standard "totally free software only" repositories. We need to be able to play mp3s. We need to be able to play commercial DVDs. We need programs like mplayer, xine or vlc, the Adobe flash plugin, and maybe even a quicktime and/or wmv plugin for firefox. That means adding in different repositories, and that's where the real dependency hell can come into play.
It sure does seem like they made a lot of installer changes and didn't test them enough.
.iso in the home directory, and found it didn't mount /home during the install, causing the installation to die because I had (perhaps unwisely) used the home partition to hold some /var/cache/yum via a relative symlink, a couple of years ago. I tried mounting home and continuing, but it skipped right past the install and claimed it was done, leaving me with a GRUB prompt on reboot. I wound up moving the iso to an external usb disk, reinstalling a couple more times and forcing the boot rewrite, and filing a bug on the condition.
I upgraded from FC8 to FC9 from a
Does anybody else hear the siren call of Ubuntu?
Sorry, it's not that simple. In Fedora 6 (which I consider a broken distribution) all the repositories are disabled by default. The user has to do a lot of research to figure out how to enable them, and it still doesn't work. In the end, I've had to do as much work with yum as I did with manually downloading each RPM - or installing from tarballs, in some cases.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate