Slashdot Mirror
Fedora 10 Released
ekimd writes "Fedora 10, aka 'Cambridge,' was released today. Some of the major features include: 'wireless connection sharing enables ad hoc network sharing, better setup and use of printers through improved management tools, virtualization storage provisioning for local and remote connections now simplified, SecTool is a new security audit and intrusion detection system.' Versions of major software include: Gnome 2.24, Eclipse 3.4 and RPM 4.6. A features list can be found here."
Reader Nate2 suggests LinuxFormat's detailed look at the new release, and adds a few more details about the software it contains: the release includes "a new graphical boot-up sequence, OpenOffice.org 3, many improvements to sound support via PulseAudio and other updates."
The improved sound support is welcome. I just feel that my previous experience with yum was that it was clunky on older hardware and a bit slow next to Synaptic and apt-get on the same machine. Slicking up the interfaces is nice and the inclusion of OpenOffice 3 is very cool though. Good luck Fedora maybe I will try them out instead of Ubuntu next time I decide to upgrade my OS.
ACK
Does it come with easy access to the "restricted" repositories?
That is the thing that makes Ubuntu so easy. You just take a check mark off the evil restricted repositories and you can download all those evil codecs that let you play video on your Linux box.
Oh and those evil closed source video drivers as well.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
I remember having fun installing Fedora 9 on my PS3. I'd never used linux before (I know, I know, I'll hand in my geek card at the next meeting...) and I figured it'd be more interesting to get a distro NOT designed for the PS3 to run properly than one that was (Such as YDL).
But for those "in the know", would this distro feature any changes/improvements with regards to the PS3? Or is it still "unofficially" supported and thus will be about the same?
RPM 4.6 is an RC, not a stable release. I have to say it's a somewhat bold move. RPM is the heart of the distro. It is even more important than the kernel.
As a Fedora supporter I for one welcome the move.
Now cue the RPM haters.
Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
Not (really) released just yet; none of the mirrors are working.
10:40 am Eastern
It's never been difficult to add Dag and Livna, but it's now even easier: http://rpmfusion.org/ I really liked the polish of Fedora 9, it was a huge step up from 8. Hopefully Fedora 10 continues in that direction.
The wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead.
on my dell mini 9, boots much faster than f9
Have a squat over at the hobo house.
Palm trees and 8
I expect this one will be better still.
(No I don't work for Red Hat.)
...but unfortunately I'm still compiling the latest Gentoo!
This dom0 was rather important for me. I am still running FC8 for that reason. I guess xen virtualization is slowly disappearing. Kvm I presume will be the way to go eventually...
Is there a web site that compares distros? I look at the release list for FC10 and I don't see much compared to how Ubuntu is, but there is a lot of techy stuff under the hood also on that list that causes me to wonder what is good "inside" of Ubuntu, versus FC10.
This is my sig.
I was hoping that by "porn" the AC parent meant "screenshots of the new OS." But that's not what AC meant: AC meant "porn." Whoever modded this NSFW link +1 Informative should never get mod points again.
When I did an upgrade install from F8 to F9 last year, it trashed many things, most importantly, the software updater. The upgrade install wanted to use that new one (I can't remember but it was a 0.x release) and the updates wouldn't work. I couldn't get YUM working again. I ended up reformatting and installing F8 clean. But wait! There's more. After waiting a few months, I did the upgrade install again from f8 to f9. It worked fine. After installing from DVD, I did the update, and everything worked. I wonder if the packages that were updated after install fixed a few things since my first attempt.
Anyway, I'll wait for the experts have a crack at it and post the fixes on fedora forums before I even attempt it.
P.S. I tried moving to Ubuntu, but I didn' like it. I like fedora - I used to be a Slackware guy too.
There is very, very little that can change the behavior of yum on older hardware. Since it uses quite a bit of memory, your problems with that may be due to broken memory. Run memtest for a while.
Cutting edge, baby! (Why are standard components taking this long to get written?)
The dev team did away with rhgb (replaced by plymouth) and used readahead to achieve faster (30 seconds was the target) boot times (details here). Plymouth relies on kernel modesetting support to get its graphical goodness, which unfortunately is only supported well on ATI chips.
df -h
Any word on whether Red Hat Enterprise 6 will be based on this release or Fedora 9?
Why should I use this new Fedora instead of Ubuntu or OS X or FreeBSD, etc.?
What a shitty summary (par for the course, I know, I know).
obviously no deficiencies vs. no obvious deficiencies
I object to naming the release "Cambridge". It is difficult enough as it is to explain to Americans that there is not only Cambridge, Massachusetts but also a Cambridge, England (with an 800-year old university) in honour of which Cambridge, Massachusetts was given its name. Now you also have to explain that you are not talking about a linux distribution...
I've always found yum to use a ridiculous amount of resources on my setups. Whenever I install something on my tiny P4 server it will drain so much memory that the computer can't do anything else at the same time. I had a copy of debian on it in the past and I could run apt upgrades and still work in another terminal just fine. Yum does have some pros over apt but they sure aren't speed and efficiency.
Fedora and Ubuntu are aimed at different audiences and/or "market" segments. Ubuntu is a great "just works" distro, whereas Fedora is much nicer for tweakers.
Both have little things the other lacks, or work slightly differently in some ways.
I say use the one you prefer.
My Linux boxes tend to have an uptime of over 90 days or more, depending on whether or not power is stable.
The new version of rpm (4.6) shipped with Fedora 10 claims that it can handle packages over 2GB now. Does anyone have packages that big?
I am using Fedora from the first version on ...
I have a server, that still runs Fedora core 1:
[messner@Server messner]$ cat /etc/*-release
Fedora Core release 1 (Yarrow)
Fedora Core release 1 (Yarrow)
[messner@Server messner]$ date
Tue Nov 25 18:16:34 CET 2008
I will shut it down this month .... now it can go to rest ....
Sometimes Fedora wasn't so polished as it should be, the first versions were very problematic, documentation and community were scarce ... sometimes it was hardly usable for me, because I am not an expert.
But it got better and better with each release. Number 9 was excellent, first class ... I think number 7 was the first one, that really rocked, but No. 9 rocks ...
I am downloading number 10 now. I know it will be good. It is getting better and better with each release.
Your confused, there is no such bug in Linux and hasn't ever been (or at least since 1997 when I first used it). There is/was a Windows bug/feature in which uptime is stored as a DWORD so the maximum value can only be 4294967295 or 47.9 days. Maybe this causes some Windows applications to bring down the whole system ?
There is been a bug in the Linux kernel that makes computers reboot every 47.9 days. This bug has been around for nearly 15 years!
I think you've misspelled "Windows NT" as "Linux".
I don't think that Linux can claim to be ready for the desktop (nor the server for that matter) until its development process is streamlined. As it is, the development priorities are set at the whims of one person.
I think you've misspelled "Windows" as "Linux".
--
Linux violates 235 Microsoft patents.
I think you've misspelled "inspires" as "violates".
Yum does have some pros over apt but they sure aren't speed and efficiency.
Good god, like what? I haven't found *anything* yum does better than apt.
I just don't get this level of hate against yum. It's approaching ridiculous levels now.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
Plugins, namely. One of the coolest ones is Presto. But like I said, what use is it if I can't even run it on my server without adding more ram?
Problem is when Fedora first jumped off everyone tried it then formed an opinion based on 5 years ago. Most of these opinions spider across slashdot by people who haven't installed fedora since F2. When i was running Fedora a simple yum update command would finish in about 3-5 seconds. I'm also using a p4/2gb.
From the yum FAQ:
How is the speed of yum compared to APT-RPM?
yum automatically checks the repository every time you perform a command, except when run in shell mode, while APT only checks it when you run 'apt-get update' manually. This causes it to appear slower than it is. If you want yum to run from cache instead of checking the repositories, run 'yum -C '. See the man page for details.
yum now uses sqlite for its back-end database by default. This results in an edge in speed over older versions of yum. Beginning with Fedora Core 4, yum contains significant improvements that make it faster and more capable than older versions.
In general to posters. If you haven't installed an OS in 5 years would you mind not commenting on it unless you state when you used it. People out there get the impression nobody fixed yum when it was fixed 7-8 versions ago.
-- "of course thats just my opinion, I could be wrong." --Dennis Miller
Anyone else got a kernel oops when running the liveCD under VirtualBox?
The state you are in while your HEAD is detached... - wait, what?
My Linux based email server is currently sitting at 55 days uptime. Before that, it was up for over a year without a reboot. Only reason I rebooted it 55 days ago was to physically move it from one building to another.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
I've never really understood why Yum performance is really all that make or break important. I for one spend more time using the software installed than installing it. Maybe I'm doing something wrong but I don't spend all day every day installing and removing software.
If I use OpenOffice a lot and notice that it's significantly slower on one distro in particular, that would be more of a deciding factor than how long it took to install OpenOffice.
I want this account deleted.
DISCLAIMER: this was supposed to be funny, not flamebait, you ignorant OTHER-DISTRO LUSERS!
You'd think that linux would have solved the "having to physically move the box" problem by now, sheesh
well it is free porn with no ads, no evil JS ... so I would say that's pretty informative in a way, though the current moderation of offtopic is much more appropriate.
This is useful for users trying out indic scripts. http://budurl.com/w3vt - screen shot.
drpoodle@xxxxxxx% uptime
21:09:04 up 83 days, 12:44, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.05, 0.05
'nuff said.
Linux will never be ready for the desktop (or server) if you can't move it from one building to another without rebooting!
Viva Vista!
;)
that's more of a hardware fault than a software fault, and a decent UPS would have probably solved it depending on how far it had to be moved.
Blazing Spiders
I know it causes WinXp32 to have issues with connecting to the internet after that point is reached. It shows as connected but cannot pull data through the modem until a restart.
There is a way. There was even a Seifeild episode about it with a frogger game.
There is been a bug in the Linux kernel that makes computers reboot every 47.9 days. This bug has been around for nearly 15 years!
I don't think that Linux can claim to be ready for the desktop (nor the server for that matter) until its development process is streamlined. As it is, the development priorities are set at the whims of one person.
I'm not sure if you're a troll, or just retarded... I think you're confusing this real bug with something that rattled loose in your thick skull...
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/216641
I think you've misspelled "Windows NT" as "Linux".
This bug actually applies to Win 9x, rather than to NT[1]. I'm led to believe that the reason is that MS used an int as a millisecond counter in VMM[2]. At 49.7* days, the int wraps, and Windows panics.
The bug was not discovered until 1999. Reportedly, that's how long it took for someone to convince Microsoft that they actually managed to keep Windows up for 49.7 days.
* Yes, the number is 49.7, not 47.9.
[1] Windows may crash after 49.7 days[3]
[2] Windows crash after 49.7 days, Automatically... Do you know?
[3] That's right: it's cited, bitches!
Good god, like what? I haven't found *anything* yum does better than apt.
Off the top of my head, it can install packages based on filenames or "provides" if you don't know the package name. It can also install a local package and resolve dependencies from repositories. apt can't do any of those things.
My Linux laptop can move from one building to another without rebooting.
Now with that trivial criterion met, we can declare that it's officially the Year of Linux on the Desktop! w00t!
The person that is the anti-Twitter sock puppet.
next time I decide to upgrade my OS.
Alternatively, if you use an OS which guarantees clean upgrades, such as Debian, one of the BSDs, or IIRC Gentoo, then "upgrade" is simply a shell command you issue.
I admin an FC8 cluster and run Debian at home. I still hate yum. When the owner of the cluster decides to upgrade to F10, I will try yum again and see if I like it, i.e. if it has finally sped up a bit. I have tried it on every FC version between 2 and 8 now and hated it on all of them (yes, even with -C). But I'm sure they'll get it right someday. :)
Fair's fair, I noticed that the search heuristics improved around FC4 or FC5. I used to hate those as well, now they're fine.
Yes, yes, I believe it's gone... PLAID!
All distros make one good visible update: the arwork!
Lets -hope- pulse audio is better in FC 10. In Fedora Core 9 I had to uninstall pulse audio completely to get any audio to work. (cheap PCI sound card in use). Not that system sounds work at all, mind you, even today, for me, in FC9.
I'm not a debian zealot but in defense of apt I have to say that all these features that you mentioned seem pretty much useless to me.
Useless as in: I have never needed anything like that in my 8 years on various linux distros (deb, rpm, gentoo), not even once.
The only feature that seems at least theoretically useful would be the last one. I could imagine using that when testing a package that I rolled myself, but in reality you just set up a local package mirror for that which you need anyways when you get serious into package building.
In summary I find overall performance of the tools *much* more important than such esoteric features. I curse every time I have to use emerge on a gentoo box ("Calculating dependencies" anyone?) and it's one of the secondary reasons why I'm slowly moving away from that distro.
I once carried my HP Vectra running Slackware to a new location in a plastic tub along with a running UPS. It was a short journey, but still strange to see the tub sitting on the floor with the computer disk access light flashing and not a drop cord in sight.
This can be done with any OS of course. But I never cared to try it.
Yes, Linux is fun.
You'd be shocked to learn how many nerds spend all their time installing and re-installing and endlessly installing different distros. Time to live: Two weeks. Tops.
If you just want to get the fucking work done I'd suggest FreeBSD or Slackware.
Has anyone tried the 64-bit version? I am currently running 64-bit versions of BlueWhite64, Sabayon and Mandriva and they all work pretty well, especially the BlueWhite64. I was wondering how Fedora compares with these on 64-bit.
And it's also hate based on yum's early implementations. It really has gotten much faster.
One thing that they did a few fedora versions back is switch from xml based meta data to gzipped sqllite files. Sped things up immensely.
I guess some people just like to criticize whatever it is that competes with the thing they're using.
"If they have both, tell them we use Linux. And if they have that, tell them the computers are down." -Dave Chapelle
The bug you speak of was in either Win95 or Win98...I forget which. I have had Linux systems running non-stop for over a year on a UPS without a re-boot.
Only boring people are ever bored.
I had previously tried the Alpha, and it crashed this machine. The Live CD ran great on my lady's old machine, however.
Now that I'm using it in the real world, the more I play, the more impressed I am:
I'm going to keep playing and bringing it back to 9's level. Awesome! I love release days!
Leela: "Is all the work done by children?" Alien: "No, not the whipping."
Disclaimer: this post is not intended to be a troll. I've been using Unix since about 89, have been a Linux fanboy, although probably not so much anymore, am currently using regularly Fedora, Centos, Suse, Ubuntu and Debian at home and/or at work, and I still kinda enjoy Linux.
However I've upgraded my home box from FC8 to FC9 a few months ago and would like to submit and share a few gripes about FC9, or possibly KDE4, or possibly "Linux for the desktop" in general, not sure which one, only because I need to know whether I am the only one (aka is there something wrong with me ?):
- Dolphin ??? Well I sincerely feel sorry for the guys who developped that. Is this a joke ? Is this a toy app like the little turning turtle in I don't remember which language for the kids ? When I saw it at first I couldn't believe it. Truely. You can't even deinstall it !
Talking about Linux for the desktop: which Linux app does compare, even remotely, to something like Directory Opus ? I use Krusader sometimes on FC9, but most of the time I revert immediately to command prompt. Try right-clicking on "Actions" or whatever in krusader, just to be presented with a screen-long list of meaningless and/or unappropriate actions, none of which seems to work (eg extracting a file from a zip archive)
- A correct image viewer ? I have tried everything I could on Linux and have given up. I use qiv to watch my porn now.
Talking about Linux for the desktop: which Linux app does compare, even remotely, to something like XnView ?
- A correct movie player ? Something like Media Player Classic ? I use mplayer from the command line, anything else "just doesn't work correctly" (tm).
- KDE 4.1 ? What is it with this pannel, is it an exercise in acrobatics ? And those "settings" windows with one, possibly two check boxes ? Not even possible to save a session anymore ? And I waited for 4.1 to come out before migrating because 4.0 was supposed to be bad ! Well it must have been really bad. I still regularly "yum update" in the hope that my desktop will resuscitate but I think I have to admit it's gone now. They really meant it to be this way !
- Wine ? Has anybody been able to install anything meaningful with it ? Like TOAD ? From what I understand Wine is ok to run notepad and that's mostly it.
- X11 ? I was using X11R6 in 93/94 on a Sparc. This was 15 years ago. Lately I tried using a remote screen through a 1Mb/s Internet connection. Forget it. This has nothing to do with bandwidth. I guess X11 is exchanging so many messages between client and server that the network *latency* makes it unusable.
I know there is nothing to complain about, Linux is free, people are spending their free time on it, if I want a nice desktop I can write it myself and so on. And I don't complain. I still use Fedora and am too lazy to install something else at home, I thought and am still thinking about going to Debian with Gnome perhaps, but well...
However when I hear people talking about Linux on the Desktop I'm really surpised. Are we living in the same universe ? Have you ever tried a correctly configured Windows system ? (NLited/Vlited to remove IE/WMP/whatever then Klite Codec Pack + Media Player Classic + Winamp + XnView + Directory Opus + Opera) How can you dream about competing with that with a Linux system ?
Linux is really nice when controling a remote server through Putty. It's nice also for developpement. But for your grandma ? For an average user ? Forget it. Until some big company pours millions and millions of dollars to put together a sound, coherent desktop environment and port the necessary applications it will remain as far as I can tell a pipe dream.
I feel bad in writing that, because I know many people invest lots of time and efforts into Linux, and I don't want to hurt anybody's feelings, and I also now that Windows is great mostly because you can have all the apps you want without paying for them and this is wrong, however that's sincerely what I think and I'd like to know how other people feel about it.
Grunt grunt grunt. Troll troll.
Actually, you can move Linux (or any other OS) from one building to another without rebooting. This is provided you have a VMWare ESX cluster, utilizing shared storage, with separate ESX hosts already in different buildings, and high availability services running.
Bill, is that you?
Very funny. Please stop trolling. Please.
"Linux will never be ready for the desktop (or server) if you can't move it from one building to another without rebooting!"
Handcart + fully charged UPS + wifi connection = profit!
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
features that you mentioned seem pretty much useless to me.
That's probably because you don't have them. You've built a workflow around the tools you have; that's what people do.
I'm a consultant, so I work on a lot of hosts that were set up by someone else. They aren't going to have my own personal repositories set up on them, so working with packages that aren't in a repository is essential to me.
Using "provides" is non-trivial, too. Consider that if you install the Lightning extension to Thunderbird on a current (32 bit) machine, it won't work. Why? Well:
$ ldd .thunderbird/*/extensions/*/components/*.so | grep 'not found' /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.5 => not found
They built against an old version of libstdc++. We'll need that:
# yum install libstdc++.so.5
How else would I know that the library is provided by compat-libstdc++-33? Or that libcucul.so.0 is provided by a package named libcaca?
The same is true of perl. If I download a script and it complains that it can't find Date/Format.pm, I can ask yum to get it:
# yum install 'perl(Date::Format)'
How else would I know that Date/Format.pm is in perl-TimeDate rather than perl-DateTime or perl-Date-Simple?
If you live entirely within the repository, then apt is fine. If you ever want to use something that's not there yet, yum is a much superior tool.
Anything specific you don't like? Not that /. is a bugtracking system, but...
ustr: Managed string API with ave. 44% overhead over strdup(), for 0-20B
Well, I agree with your assertion ("people built workflows with what they have") but I think the workflow you describe below is not an example for how those features can be useful but rather a textbook example of how these features can lure you into shooting yourself into the foot by taking perceived "shortcuts" that turn into a big mess - sometimes only minutes later.
If you regularly need to install custom packages on remote hosts then the straightforward solution would be to setup a public package mirror. It isn't much work, you have to do it only once and it removes all these nasty dependency problems from your on-site workflow. Carrying around bare RPMs (or DEBs fwiw) on an USB-stick, unless those are completely self-contained, is a non-starter in first place.
Yum bandaids a problem for you here that you created yourself in first place. Or, to turn your initial assertion around: People build workflows with what they have and yum supports a broken workflow here that wouldn't have been feasible deb.
Furthermore, when working with a package manager you should never have to know that a file by the name 'libstdc++.so.5' even exists on your system. The moment that this information is exposed to the user the package manager has failed to do its job. It is one of its primary purposes to hide these nasty details from the user, after all.
Different story, same problem. Ever heard of CPAN? It's generally a bad idea to install perl- (/python-/ruby-, whatever) modules from a distro repository in order to satisfy a dependency for a file that is not *also* in the distro repository. This is a bit of common sense that most people learn the hard way sooner or later. Yum doesn't do you a favor by supporting this workflow.
Now you sound a bit like Darth Vader, advertising the dark side. ;-)
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by living "within" or "outside" the repository (disconnected operation, custom packages?) but reality is that the two examples you provided are, again, textbook examples for how people slowly screw up their linux boxes over time by mixing repository stuff with non-repository stuff and introducing cross-dependencies between the two.
The chain breaks as soon as you attempt to install a CPAN module via yum that is not in yum. Then you go and install it via CPAN, because you need it now. Later that same module finally *does* make it into the yum repos and it gets pulled onto your machine via some tertiary dependency during the installation of something completely different. Days later you not
If you regularly need to install custom packages on remote hosts then the straightforward solution would be to setup a public package mirror. It isn't much work, you have to do it only once and it removes all these nasty dependency problems from your on-site workflow.
No, it doesn't "remove" the dependency problems at all. Yum and apt will both have to resolve the dependencies to install the package. Creating a repository only solves a problem that exists with apt and doesn't with yum.
In other words: I think you see this as a nasty dependency problem because it would be on a system using apt. On systems using yum, there is no nasty dependency problem.
Furthermore, when working with a package manager you should never have to know that a file by the name 'libstdc++.so.5' even exists on your system. The moment that this information is exposed to the user the package manager has failed to do its job. It is one of its primary purposes to hide these nasty details from the user, after all.
That's a fine sentiment, but it ignores the reality that people want to, and will install software that doesn't come from a vendor with a package repository. Lightning comes as an XPI for thunderbird, and if there's a dependency issue (not one reported by a package, but by a library that's not available), yum provides the tools to resolve it much more easily than apt. Other customers might run Mathematica or some other package that wasn't packaged conveniently. When that happens, you will see the name of the library that's required which you don't have, and will have to resolve the problem. Package managers can't hide that from you, but they can provide you the tools you need to handle it without a struggle.
Different story, same problem. Ever heard of CPAN? It's generally a bad idea to install perl- (/python-/ruby-, whatever) modules from a distro repository in order to satisfy a dependency for a file that is not *also* in the distro repository.
That's a ridiculous assertion with no argument to back it up. You actually made a more convincing argument for the opposite: you shouldn't install modules from CPAN to satisfy a dependency that is provided by your distribution's repository. You really want to use the distribution's packages whenever possible, and yum does a better job of resolving dependencies for scripts and programs that aren't in a repository.
Now you sound a bit like Darth Vader, advertising the dark side. ;-)
If you think that yum is "the dark side", then you're probably not open to considering alternative points of view. You claimed not to be a zealot, but you're sure starting to sound like one.
The question to which I was responding was (paraphrased): "What advantages does yum have over apt?" I've answered that by pointing out capabilities that yum has which apt does not, and situations where they are useful. You haven't pointed out equivalent functionality in apt, or shown that I'm wrong. Instead you've argued that I shouldn't use the additional features of yum. Would you say that's a fair assessment of this conversation?
From my perspective, apt forces you to work with only packages that are in a repository. Yum will do that, and also help you work with packages that you received from a vendor who doesn't have a repository, and with scripts and programs that weren't packaged to begin with. I think that's a strong advantage, despite the fact that I agree with you and prefer not to install software without packaging it. If you disagree, consider this: Do you think that it would be an advantage to modify dpkg and rpm so that they were only usable by apt/yum? It would force administrators to do things "the right way", by packaging all of their software and putting it in repositories. Do you think administrators would favor that policy?
They were written. Here's the definition of better in case it wasn't clear to you before now.
bet-ter
-adjective, compar. of good with best as superl.
1. of superior quality or excellence: a better coat; a better speech.
3. of superior suitability, advisability, desirability, acceptableness, etc.; preferable: a better time for action.
8. to a greater degree; more completely or thoroughly: He knows the way better than we do. I probably know him better than anyone else.
10. to increase the good qualities of; make better; improve: to better the lot of the suburban commuter.
11. to improve upon; surpass; exceed: We have bettered last year's production record.
scott