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.
Palm trees and 8
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.
I expect this one will be better still. (No I don't work for Red Hat.)
As a Fedora user perhaps you (and your many cohorts in the community who are reading this) can offer some input.
I used to use Red Hat and Fedora in olden times. I got to know them really well (I'm even an RHCE). But when FC2 came out it really bothered me. While FC1 was basically an evolution of Red Hat 9, FC2 was way too experimental to be an everyday business or personal OS, and it revealed what Red Hat was going to do with its free OS: turn me into a guniea pig. It was the first Fedora to sport the 2.6 kernel, which was pretty neat, but I found it to be unstable. The next couple releases did nothing to restore my confidence, and I've been a very happy Kubuntu user ever since.
Until now. Kubuntu has always been a slightly shoddy implementation of KDE, but the KDE 4.1 that comes with Intrepid Ibex (Kubuntu 8.10) is really getting on my nerves. It's sluggish - the Desktop takes about a minute to load, even when I turn off X.org's composite effects. And it feels incomplete. Even though I've switched to double-click in KDE, the file selection windows (like the one in which I select an image for my Desktop wallpaper) interpret single-clicks as full selections and promptly close the windows, so I can't preview my wallpaper selection in the right pane. When I installed Gnome, KDE started loading the Gnome network management utility to manage my wireless connection, even though KDE's is also open in the panel right next to it. so I've been using Gnome for the last few days.
I absolutely love KDE 4.1's desktop, panel and other Plasma elements, but I can't stand the experience overall, and while I'm open to the idea that it could be due to issues with KDE 4.1 rather than Kubuntu ... well, when I saw this announcement for Fedora 10 it got me thinking. So how about it? Am I being unfair and blaming KDE 4.1 issues on my distro? Do any KDE users recommend this distro for KDE over others? Has Fedora improved as much as I've heard it has? Has anyone used both Kubuntu and Fedora/KDE, and thus be able to provide a comparison? Because I'm in a serious distro switchin' mood.
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
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'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.
Try upgrading to the latest 9.04 alpha if you're not using it on a critical box. KDE4.1 has been much improved (might even be 4.2... dunno), but there are still lots of random broken packages and such.
That said, KDE4.1 is definitely the issue with Kubuntu. It's still not mature, though it is "stable".
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
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.
According to Red Hat's presentation at SC08 last week, Enterprise 6 will be base on Fedora 11.
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 ?
My package is at least that big.
Oh come on, someone had to say it.
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".
Xen virtualization is still strong, fedora just isn't porting the kernel patches upstream anymore. I believe Novell has a 2.6.27 kernel with xen patches. I would think it to be possible to pull down the kernel source from Fedora, build the config, then pull in suse kernel source, run make oldconfig, and compile your own kernel for fedora using the suse sources. I've never tried it and fully understand that this is an unacceptable option for most fedora users.
I've been following the fedora-xen mailing list and they would still like to put xen back in, but not until it's in the upstream kernel. As stated at the F9 release, they feel it is counterproductive to maintain 2 different kernels, which I can't disagree with them on. The latest news I heard is that they were hoping the 3.4 release of xen to have pv_ops dom0 in the kernel. Wether or not that it's Linus' kernel, they haven't really stated. If fedora is waiting for pv_ops dom0 to make it into Linus' kernel, then I would have to agree that xen will slowly dissapear and KVM will be the way to go. I see that as an uphill battle for the xen team since kvm is already in the kernel.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Docs/Beats/Virtualization for more information on f10 virtualization.
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
Xen as a dom0 is in fact losing favor in the Red Hat world. There are technologies being developed that will allow a KVM host to run Xen guests. It's called "xenner" http://kraxel.fedorapeople.org/xenner/ and is coming along nicely, but not super stable yet.
Virtualization is important to Red Hat, and given how much of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 was focused around virtualization, there is little doubt that existing deployments on Xen won't have a migration path to what RHEL 6 offers. Red Hat hedged their bets by using lib-virt as the api for everything, so that they could change the underlying virt technology without breaking software.
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
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.
You'd think that linux would have solved the "having to physically move the box" problem by now, sheesh
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!
;)
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!
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!
I seriously hope nobody is shipping RPMs with more than 2 GB of executable code, but many applications ship with gigabytes worth of templates, samples, artwork, models, benchmark data sets, maps, etc. Even if you break the contents of an installation DVD into functionally distinct subpackages, you can easily end up with a dozen libraries that are a few hundred KB, a few distinct applications that are tens of megabytes each, and few GB of application data that can't logically be split any further.
There's no failure quite as dissatisfying as a complete and total solution to the wrong problem.