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?
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 think you hit it right on the head. Fedora can do this, because that's what it's for. It avoids getting trapped behind painful changes because of worries that it'll cause short term pain.
Fedora should be all about long term gain, and if RPM 4.6 is a little bit experimental, great. Let's get the bugs out in the open and sort it out.
jh
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
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.
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 ?
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.
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
Use Ubuntu if you are lazy and like free beer
Use Fedora if you like free beer and Free software
Use FreeBSD if you like free beer and dont like GPL
Use OSX if you like to flash $100 bills when you pay for your beer
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!