Slashdot Mirror


Fedora 11 Is Now Available

rexx mainframe writes "Fedora 11 is now available on BitTorrent. Fedora 11 offers ext4, a 20-second startup, and the latest GNOME, KDE and XFCE releases. Firefox 3.5 and Thunderbird 3's latest pre-releases are available as well. Fedora 11 features Presto, a yum plugin that reduces bandwidth consumption drastically by downloading only binary differences between updates. It also features Openchange for interoperability with Microsoft Exchange. There are new security enhancements, improved and upgraded development tools, and cutting-edge features in areas such as virtualization."

195 comments

  1. It's soo cutting edge by networkconsultant · · Score: 5, Funny

    I hurt myself trying to install it.

    1. Re:It's soo cutting edge by rbrausse · · Score: 5, Funny

      and this is the reason why I use it on my private laptop: I want to know what will hit my servers with Debian stable in 4 years :)

    2. Re:It's soo cutting edge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      its true, last time i had to click a whole 5 times, that two more than a windows install!

    3. Re:It's soo cutting edge by Tim4444 · · Score: 1

      ...that it's illegal in 7 states - and also switzerland apparently

    4. Re:It's soo cutting edge by WillKemp · · Score: 1

      Yeah, i looked into switching my laptop to Centos, but it's so far behind Fedora it just wasn't viable.

    5. Re:It's soo cutting edge by rbrausse · · Score: 1

      RHEL 6 (and the coming CentOS) will be build on Fedora 11 - the next 2-3 years should be easy going with CentOS on newer hardware.

      but generally I prefer some bleeding edge distro on my private hardware - I was with my post before only half-joking and parts of the comment are serious: It is exciting and valuable tohave the possability to use the newest developments in a real-life environment before the stuff is included in stable production-ready products.

      imo one of the most important advantages of OSS

    6. Re:It's soo cutting edge by zr-rifle · · Score: 2, Funny

      I hurt myself trying to install it.

      ...so now it's bleeding edge?

      --
      Hack your mind out of its sandbox.
    7. Re:It's soo cutting edge by WillKemp · · Score: 1

      Yeah, i like having the most advanced software available - and i also like being able to contribute, in a very small way, by posting bug reports occasionally.

    8. Re:It's soo cutting edge by someSnarkyBastard · · Score: 1

      IIRC CentOS is a server OS so stability is favored over being on the bleeding edge, hence older packages.

    9. Re:It's soo cutting edge by mrmeval · · Score: 1

      The preview is a crash monkey. noPulseaudio will not play nice with VLC, mplayer or the scrototem. I can't use the ATI Radeon drivers. I'll put up with it as I will not go back to ubuntu without them restoring long term features. I'll run win7 for 3D games.

      --
      I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
    10. Re:It's soo cutting edge by hdparm · · Score: 1

      No. CentOS is a rebuild of Red Hat Enterprise. RHE is not only server distribution.

  2. Richard, is that you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I TOLD you to keep away from the katana.

  3. Ho ho. by gbarules2999 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I wish I had a spare partition to install this on. The Beta and Preview releases were good, and they seem to be interested in trying a few new things.

    The release announcement makes we wonder, though.

    1. Re:Ho ho. by melted · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's what virtualization is for. I always install a new OS in a VM first. This time around, doing this led me to switching a couple of servers from Fedora to Ubuntu Server.

    2. Re:Ho ho. by gbarules2999 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I wish I could. My main computer's barely powerful enough to run one OS at a time, much less two.

      I know, I know, it's time for an upgrade. You tell my wallet that.

    3. Re:Ho ho. by MSG · · Score: 5, Funny

      Fedora 11 has been out for two hours. You've already downloaded it, evaluated it, and switched some of your servers to a different distribution?

      You work faster than anyone I've ever met. I am humbled by your awesome ability.

    4. Re:Ho ho. by flydpnkrtn · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wait, you were running servers using Fedora? Madness I tell you!

      If you want a RedHat-like OS on a server why not install CentOS?

    5. Re:Ho ho. by erroneus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I am a long time Redhat user. Have used Redhat since 4.2 and continued using it when it changed names to "Fedora." I'll be doing my install of Fedora 11 tonight I hope... too many things to do today. But one thing is certain -- I would never use Fedora to serve as a server. I know there are people who do, and god bless their hearts because they enable whatever they find to be included in with Redhat Enterprise Linux. The reason? No long term support. Ubuntu offers an LTS release every so often while also offering more cutting edge stuff as well. But Fedora is not exactly a cutting edge distro either. It is usually quite stable... people on the cutting edge use Rawhide.

      So with all that said, I use CentOS (and variants) on the server side and Fedora on the desktop. I have used CentOS on the desktop and it's okay, but it's pretty dull by comparison to Fedora for obvious reasons.

      Without long term support, a server will be a lot more work than it needs to be. I recall stepping into a role where the company's web site was hosted on a Fedora 4 server. I was shocked. I got that stuff rectified as soon as possible... Fedora 4 support has long since expired so there was no way to keep it updated. I moved to new hosting and put it all under CentOS. Done and done for years to come. Well, that's not entirely true -- I don't work there any more and I know the outsource company they hired isn't smart enough to manage those servers. (Why is it that almost all IT outsource services are Microsoft partnered and all but refuse anything to do with Linux or Mac OS?)

    6. Re:Ho ho. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think he meant after Ubuntu 9.04 came out...

    7. Re:Ho ho. by Zocalo · · Score: 2, Informative
      Unless you're really fussed about free (speech) software or desperately strapped for hardware resources, you could try the free (beer) version of the VMware ESXi Hypervisor. You don't get all of the nice toys of the paid for version, but it's a pretty neat way of trying out distros when hardware resources are limited and has next to no impact when only running one VM. Some of the main advantages to this:
      • Unless resources are really tight, you can still run multiple OS's side by side should it be helpful to do so
      • You have the fallback of not needed to completely blow away an existing setup until you are happy with the new one
      • Makes it very easy to make every install a clean build
      • Makes it very easy to make every install an upgrade (of a copy) too - what's your preference?

      Having had a few OS installs go wrong and being down a system for a few days, I'm giving some serious thought to doing this on all my personal systems in future, but what would be even better for that would be to get the Hypervisor in the BIOS. At the moment though, that kind of functionality seems to be only available on higher end motherboards aimed at the server market...

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    8. Re:Ho ho. by Maniacal · · Score: 1

      Here here. Ubuntu and Fedora are desktop OS's. Not that they can't run as servers, just why would you. The development and community for those distros are focused on improvements to the desktop. Centos, RedHat, *BSD, Solaris. These are what you want on a server. On the other side of that, I guess it really doesn't matter. That's one of the beauties of Linux. But what good is Slashdot if I can't use it to push my opinions on others :) MG

      --
      MG
    9. Re:Ho ho. by Lendrick · · Score: 1

      Madness?

      THIS IS FEDORAAAAAA!

      *kicks you into a hole*

    10. Re:Ho ho. by dAzED1 · · Score: 1

      why is parent modded "funny?" He's making a legit point. To say, after it being available for 2 hours, that you evaluated the new version and uninstalled it and replaced it with Ubuntu is beyond silly. Hell, 2 hours from now I won't even be finished downloading it, much less evaluating it - and I have a decent pipe I'm pulling from.

    11. Re:Ho ho. by melted · · Score: 1

      Throw more RAM in. It's so cheap these days, I've maxed out the RAM on all of my desktop machines.

      You don't need it to be terribly fast if you just want to evaluate.

    12. Re:Ho ho. by gbarules2999 · · Score: 1

      I'll take a look at it; thanks for the tip.

    13. Re:Ho ho. by melted · · Score: 1

      Calling those two boxes "servers" was probably too generous. They just run headless and do compute work pretty much non-stop, that's why I called them "servers". I use CentOS for internet-facing servers.

    14. Re:Ho ho. by dstyle5 · · Score: 1

      I hope one of the "new things" they've tried is fixing the audio and graphics driver issues 9 and 10 introduced. Fedora 8 worked like a charm for me with my older PC, but installing 9 and 10 was problematic. I couldn't even install 10 until I modded the kernel arguments to use the vesa xdriver. With 10 my audio stutters and hangs during audio/video playback while in 8 using the exact same hardware I had zero issues.

    15. Re:Ho ho. by harryandthehenderson · · Score: 1

      Ubuntu and Fedora are desktop OS's. Not that they can't run as servers, just why would you.

      Ubuntu Server Edition would like to have a word with you.

    16. Re:Ho ho. by Ian+Alexander · · Score: 1

      Perhaps he was checking it out in Rawhide? The only reason F11 is being released today and not a week ago was because of a bug in Anaconda ( https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-announce-list/2009-May/msg00011.html ), and the only reason it wasn't released two weeks ago was because of another bug in Anaconda ( https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-announce-list/2009-May/msg00007.html ). If he wasn't affected by either bug there's no reason he couldn't have been testing it for a while now.

      Just for context they performed a major rewrite of the storage subsystem in Anaconda this release.

    17. Re:Ho ho. by Alain+Williams · · Score: 1

      Why is the parent moderated funny ? It is a true comment. Fedora is only supported for 18 months or so, do you want to reinstall your server in 18 months time ?

    18. Re:Ho ho. by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Fedora 4 support has long since expired so there was no way to keep it updated.

      At that point, it's just a slackware machine. Download the source for new versions of stuff and compile. ;)

    19. Re:Ho ho. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Am I missing something?

      He said he barely has the hardware to run one OS. Doesn't that imply that he lacks a hypervisor capable CPU?

    20. Re:Ho ho. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They support the current and previous releases, which is about 12 months per release.

    21. Re:Ho ho. by networkconsultant · · Score: 1

      My Awsomeness is soo great that Not only have I installed it; evaluated it and sent out my reviews to various magazines; I have also configured it to make me coffee and raise my kids.

    22. Re:Ho ho. by networkconsultant · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Oh I'm OS Agnostic I'll fix whatever ails you as long as your dutch Krugerrand are gold (the greenback is dead because of caustic spending so I'm only taking payment in gold Krugerrand or eqivalent).

    23. Re:Ho ho. by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 1

      2 hours from now I won't even be finished downloading it, much less evaluating it - and I have a decent pipe I'm pulling from.

      How do you define "decent pipe"?
      A single 700MB ISO should take less than 2 minutes on 100Mbps fiber. Usually, it takes a bit longer than that, since the server may not allocate that much bandwidth to a single download, or there is likely to be a bottleneck somewhere else on the route. Still, I get a typical distro ISO in less than 5 minutes - equivalent to about a 20Mbps link. If it's taking 2 hours, there is something wrong - that's only 100kbps throughput.

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    24. Re:Ho ho. by WillKemp · · Score: 1

      Last time i looked, krugerrand were South African. The Dutch use the euro.

    25. Re:Ho ho. by networkconsultant · · Score: 1

      My point is I want gold, I really don't care in which form it comes as long as it's by the Tory ounce, in fact I'll work happily for one ounce per day.

    26. Re:Ho ho. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not a matter to servers, but in Virtualbox, I and many others have not been able to get Desktop Effects(nvidia) or Audio(pulse) working properly, ie at all on Fedora 10 or 11. You could say its a driver problem, which is the standard answer, but Ubuntu 9.04 works upon install. Audio is crystal clear, and Desktop Effects are already enabled.

      http://forums.virtualbox.org/viewforum.php?f=3

    27. Re:Ho ho. by ioshhdflwuegfh · · Score: 1

      why is parent modded "funny?" He's making a legit point. To say, after it being available for 2 hours, that you evaluated the new version and uninstalled it and replaced it with Ubuntu is beyond silly. Hell, 2 hours from now I won't even be finished downloading it, much less evaluating it - and I have a decent pipe I'm pulling from.
      You work faster than anyone I've ever met. I am humbled by your awesome ability.

      Some of us have been cruising on beta for about month or so.

    28. Re:Ho ho. by Maniacal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I researched this question and can't find a good answer. Maybe you or someone else here has one:

      Why would you use Ubuntu Server? Why not just use Debian? CentOS rocks because it gives you a great alternative to an OS you have to pay for. Ubuntu Server gives a free version of a free OS?? Debian is rock solid and has been forever, from what I just read. I can see being a fanboy for Ubuntu because you like brown but what advantages does it bring to the server side?

      --
      MG
    29. Re:Ho ho. by jackspenn · · Score: 1, Troll

      But Fedora is not exactly a cutting edge distro either.

      I have to ask, are you retarded? The best thing about Fedora is that it is bleeding edge, course the worst thing about Fedora is that it is bleeding edge.

      It's kernel updates are like a week behind kernel.org, Linus himself suggests the best way to test kernel releases and provide feedback is to use Fedora.

      Red Hat and Fedora are providing the most updates to Linux, ubuntu's only contribution is naked pictures of boobies and a large collection of brown backgrounds that either say "ubuntu" or have a recycling rip off graphic.

      If you want to push the limits of what OSS has to offer or you want to support a distribution that gives the most back to the OSS community; use Fedora on your home laptop or in a VM. If you want to run a supported Linux server, use RHEL/CentOS. If you are wet walking vagina, then ubuntu is for you.

      --
      Respect the Constitution
    30. Re:Ho ho. by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      For better hardware support of course.

      The version of the kernel running on CentOS is practically ancient at any given point more than six months after release.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    31. Re:Ho ho. by walshy007 · · Score: 1

      Completely agree, it should be noted a lot of people here seem to think fedora is a 'desktop' os in the same way as ubuntu etc etc. I'd argue that it's an os 'for developers, by developers'.

      Since it's so bleeding edge, when things sometimes unnoticably break upstream, they can break with fedora too, if you have a lot of experience it's usually not even an issue though and you can fix it yourself

    32. Re:Ho ho. by dirtyhippie · · Score: 1

      The main thing as far as I can tell (besides from having a few proprietary drivers built in) is that ubuntu server has newer versions of programs than debian stable does (but is still "stable"). If you need the latest version of mysql or php for something, for example, you might consider ubuntu server over compiling it yourself. But server software like that doesn't change as rapidly as desktop stuff, so it's not much of an advantage. Hence why very few people use it. Another big thing is support. My hosting company "supports" ubuntu, but not debian (we decided we'd support ourselves). And some vendors sell with ubuntu support contracts. But the short answer is there is no compelling reason you are missing.

    33. Re:Ho ho. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ubuntu still hasn't figured out what a server is. I can call a a chevy/suzuki aveo a supercar if I want to, it but doesn't make it so.

    34. Re:Ho ho. by Yfrwlf · · Score: 1

      I too am confused. How does VMWare suddenly allow them to run VMs when he just said his machine isn't powerful enough? How is your suggestion helping them and how is it "informative"? Also how is it any different than suggesting VirtualBox or other VM software? Sure, VMWare being bigger I'm sure has more features, but I just don't see how either one is relevant...

      --
      Promote true freedom - support standards and interoperability.
    35. Re:Ho ho. by Trongy · · Score: 1

      Are you not aware that Redhat backport drivers to the RHEL kernels while keeping the kernel major and minor version numbers the same?

      Centos kernels are practically the same as RHEL kernels.

      Redhat released RHEL 4.8 last month and Centos 4.8 is due real soon now. Their ancient 2.6.9 kernel has drivers to support all modern *server* hardware from major vendors. (probably not notebooks, webcams, scanners and other desktop doodads.)

    36. Re:Ho ho. by donaldm · · Score: 2, Informative

      Fedora is only supported for 18 months or so, do you want to reinstall your server in 18 months time ?

      To reinstall a server is silly unless you are performing a disaster recovery. In a commercial environment it is almost impossible to get some firms to approve of an update never mind an upgrade. I know of firms who are still running Redhat 2.1 which is now unsupported even though we have been hounding them about this for the last two years.

      --
      There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
    37. Re:Ho ho. by Errtu76 · · Score: 1

      Some of us have been cruising on beta for about month or so.

      Some even longer from when it was alpha. If you didn't mind a Gig of downloads every week ... and a big chance that stuff breaks horribly (my colleague had to switch from kde to gnome with elinks and mutt to be able to work) :)

    38. Re:Ho ho. by DuckDodgers · · Score: 1

      According to many comments in this Slashdot discussion: http://bsd.slashdot.org/story/09/06/02/0043258/When-VMware-Performance-Fails-Try-BSD-Jails the VMWare ESXi product has very low computer resource requirements.

      So unless gbarules2999 has a computer that can barely run Fedora 10 or (for example) OpenSUSE 11 at all, ESXi might let him run a new version in a VM with acceptable performance.

    39. Re:Ho ho. by ioshhdflwuegfh · · Score: 1

      Respect.

    40. Re:Ho ho. by jsight · · Score: 1

      Why would you use Ubuntu Server? Why not just use Debian?

      Because Debian drops security updates for old versions after about 3 years (variable). LTS Ubuntu server releases are supported for 5 years, every time.

    41. Re:Ho ho. by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      Yes, I understand that perfectly. I've been running RH based machines since 1996. May I rephrase my original as

      The version of the kernel running on RHEL is practically ancient at any given point more than six months after release.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    42. Re:Ho ho. by sjames · · Score: 1

      Why is it that almost all IT outsource services are Microsoft partnered and all but refuse anything to do with Linux or Mac OS?

      Because there are tons of "qualified" Windows admins available for the peanuts they're willing to pay. The Linux (and Mac for that matter) philosophy of a small number of more expensive but well qualified and worth it admins and generally nothing goes wrong doesn't work well with their perpetual crisis to prove they're needed business model.

  4. 20 seconds? Mama mia by Garbad+Ropedink · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A 20 second boot? What happens after that?

    --
    And that was the last Terry Fox run I ever participated in.
    1. Re:20 seconds? Mama mia by gbarules2999 · · Score: 5, Funny

      These boots are made for walkin', and that's just what they'll do...after twenty seconds the boots are gonna walk all over you.

    2. Re:20 seconds? Mama mia by gregg · · Score: 1

      A 20 second boot?

      20 second boot? Bah, seven league boots are where it is at.

    3. Re:20 seconds? Mama mia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GRUB starts loading the Linux kernel.

      Just make sure you don't hit any keys.

    4. Re:20 seconds? Mama mia by recoiledsnake · · Score: 1

      Leaving imprints such as this? http://www.swrtec.de/clinux/gnome-foot.gif

      --
      This space for rent.
    5. Re:20 seconds? Mama mia by networkconsultant · · Score: 1

      Where's the Cron!

    6. Re:20 seconds? Mama mia by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 2, Funny

      It takes 15 minutes to log in.

    7. Re:20 seconds? Mama mia by donaldm · · Score: 1

      A 20 second boot? What happens after that?

      How about a 15 second boot, then a 10 second boot then eventually a zero second boot then we can can go were no man/woman has gone before :)

      --
      There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
    8. Re:20 seconds? Mama mia by donaldm · · Score: 1

      It takes 15 minutes to log in.

      Fedora 10 on my laptop takes about a minute for a full GUI desktop. Prior to that all my applications such as Apache has already started. I can even login via ssh in about 3 seconds from another machine. All up from pressing the power button to logging in to the desktop takes approx 3 minutes and even on commercial blades running Redhat 4 I have found full boot times to be less than 5 minutes.

      --
      There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
    9. Re:20 seconds? Mama mia by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure, but I might have been making a joke... just maybe.

  5. Re:we must keep releasing stuff by viralMeme · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "we must keep releasing stuff and get things moving... and maybe one day, they will see us as a serious contender for a professional OS. good job, Red Hat"

    Yea, KDE 4.2.3 will never be as polished as the commercial Vis, er Windows 7 1/2 Operating System ..

    KDE 4.2.3 KDE 4.3 Beta Gnome 2.26.1

  6. Fedora 11 is now available on BitTorrent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Damn pirates.

    1. Re:Fedora 11 is now available on BitTorrent by sleekware · · Score: 1

      I think it was leaked intentionally in order to promote the product ;)

    2. Re:Fedora 11 is now available on BitTorrent by networkconsultant · · Score: 1

      Yar, I be paid in gold and I'll steal your intellectual property whilst surfing your subnet. :D

  7. No wonder my HTTP download stalled... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It hit slashdot. Dang firewall at works blocks torrents :(

  8. Too many releases! by pablo_max · · Score: 3, Funny

    Seriously, why does linux have so many release cycles. That's one thing I didnt like about Ubuntu. It took me forever to get it running just the way I wanted and by then a new version was out and I had the pressure to upgrade..and of course..I had to set up everything again since invariably, it broke something.
    It's funny how many people here bitched that windows was coming out with Win 7 so soon after vista, but they don't mind that linux seems to release something every couple months depending on the distro. Odd.

    1. Re:Too many releases! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      You are magically and incredibly free *not* to upgrade. If you cant stand the "pressure" get Debian, its better anyway ;-)

    2. Re:Too many releases! by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      Because all a distro release is, is basically a service pack. Everything gets updated in one easily maintained package thats checked (or at least should be) for any incompatibilities. For example, if you upgrade some libraries but have an older version of another program, that program won't work unless you update it, distro upgrades update everything so they all play nicely with each other.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    3. Re:Too many releases! by moderatorrater · · Score: 1

      why does linux have so many release cycles...It's funny how many people here bitched that windows was coming out with Win 7 so soon after vista, but they don't mind that linux seems to release something every couple months depending on the distro. Odd./quote. Not really. If you knew which packages to download, it would be relatively easy to upgrade from one version of the distro to another. With Windows, you're on one version or another, and there's no way for you to get the latest version of their kernel unless you upgrade. As long as you get onto one of the LTS versions of Ubuntu, you'd be able to wait for as long as you could on Windows. Moving quickly is the biggest strength of open source development. That and choice, so that'd be the two big strengths of open source. And the community.

    4. Re:Too many releases! by Ex-Linux-Fanboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      why does linux have so many release cycles

      Because Fedora is a cutting-edge testing release that's done about twice a year. The RedHat Linux way is to take software that Microsoft would only make available to internal testers in Redmond, and make it available to the general public as "Fedora".

      If you want something with fewer release cycles, you're best bet is Red Hat Enterprise Linux (which every three years or so, takes a release of Fedora, declares it stable, renames it "RHEL", and updates that version of Fedora for seven years). If you're too cheap to buy RHEL, you can get CentOS, which is a free derivative of RHEL. CentOS 5.3 is the Linux equivalent of "CentOS 5, service pack 3" [1]

      [1] Well, except that adding new drivers to older releases of CentOS is harder than it is to do with Microsoft Windows. What can I say, Linux isn't perfect.

    5. Re:Too many releases! by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      Well, every time a new distro revision is released, the old one usually still receives updates and support for some years. By not doing a full upgrade to the new major version, you get the latest patches and yet the feature set remains the same.

    6. Re:Too many releases! by Rubel · · Score: 1

      I sympathize, although for my desktop system I do prefer just grabbing the latest stable stuff every nine months or so ala the Ubuntu release cycle. But for a server of course, it's nice to have things stable. Or is it UI changes that bug you?

      But as the Anonymous One suggested, there are other flavors of Linux which move at a slower pace, such as http://debian.org/ or RHEL (or the free version of it, CentOS).

    7. Re:Too many releases! by sgage · · Score: 1

      "It took me forever to get it running just the way I wanted and by then a new version was out and I had the pressure to upgrade..and of course..I had to set up everything again since invariably, it broke something."

      Took forever, pressure to upgrade, invariably broke something. Nice totalizing language, troll. You don't have to upgrade, and if you choose to, just do an in-place upgrade. In going from Hardy to Intrepid to Jaunty this has worked flawlessly for me.

      "It's funny how many people here bitched that windows was coming out with Win 7 so soon after vista, but they don't mind that linux seems to release something every couple months depending on the distro. Odd."

      More classic troll language. First of all, I don't recall many people bitching about Win7 coming out so soon after Vista - when trolling, it's always good to start out with a strawman argument. Second, "linux" doesn't release something every couple of months - there is no "linux", only distros. E.g., Ubuntu has a very well-defined 6-month cycle, with continual updates along the way, automatically. It's really more of a rolling release. Pick one that works the way you like.

      Then, of course, we get the old "when Linux does the same thing that MS does, nobody complains" whine, along with the obligatory parting shot... "Odd". The release cycles and policies of Linux distros are nothing like the MS approach.

      For a start, your Ubuntu (or whatever distro) upgrades are free.

      However, if you want, you are free to fork out $100+ every 3 years to MS for their latest and greatest Windows, as they decide they need another pulse of revenue. And don't forget to upgrade your virus protection, etc. It's a different approach entirely.

    8. Re:Too many releases! by harryandthehenderson · · Score: 2, Informative

      Seriously, why does linux have so many release cycles.

      Because people want the latest versions of software?

      That's one thing I didnt like about Ubuntu. It took me forever to get it running just the way I wanted and by then a new version was out and I had the pressure to upgrade..and of course..I had to set up everything again since invariably, it broke something.

      You didn't have to upgrade at all. No one forces you to do so if everything already works just fine.

      It's funny how many people here bitched that windows was coming out with Win 7 so soon after vista, but they don't mind that linux seems to release something every couple months depending on the distro. Odd.

      Because it doesn't cost me a couple of hundred dollars to upgrade from Ubuntu 9.04 to 9.10? Or from Fedora 10 to 11? I'm sure that has nothing to do with it.

    9. Re:Too many releases! by migla · · Score: 4, Funny

      Moving quickly is the biggest strength of open source development. That and choice, so that'd be the two big strengths of open source. And the community.

      Yes, our three main weapons are speed, choice, community and an almost fanatical devotion to freedom.

      --
      Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
    10. Re:Too many releases! by ushering05401 · · Score: 1

      'Backports' is the operative phrase for Ubuntu users experiencing upgrade anxiety - and installing them should be through enabling of the backports repos (or is it automatic now for security?)... https://help.ubuntu.com/community/UbuntuBackports

      Quote from the link:

      "This is where Ubuntu Backports comes in. The Backports team believes that the best update policy is a mix of Ubuntu's security-only policy AND providing new versions of some programs. Candidates for version updates are primarily desktop applications, such as your web browser, word processor, IRC client, or IM client. These programs can be updated without replacing a large part of the operating system that would affect stability of the whole system."

    11. Re:Too many releases! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linux isn't perfect.

      Blasphemy!

    12. Re:Too many releases! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Exactly, the four best things about linux will always be speed, choice, community, freedom, and the fact that it costs nothing.

    13. Re:Too many releases! by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      What's bad about Ubuntu is the crazy upgrade restrictions. Often you can only upgrade to the newest version from the immediately previous version. Then you try to upgrade to the previous version and find that the upgrade is no longer available. What a mess!

    14. Re:Too many releases! by Sensible+Clod · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, I just upgraded to Jaunty on a machine that had only seen about 40 hours of use since I installed Intrepid on it, and it hosed the system. The filesystem was still there, but I couldn't get it working for several hours. Finally, I just clean-installed Jaunty, since I didn't have much I wanted to save.

      GP may be trolling or not, but don't imagine that upgrades are always hearts and flowers.

      Oh, and I'm not upgrading my Fedora 10 box right away, either, just in case.

      --

      The difference between spam and poop is that you don't have to dig through septic tanks looking for real food. -- Me
    15. Re:Too many releases! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well I wasn't expecting that.

    16. Re:Too many releases! by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 1

      First of all, I don't recall many people bitching about Win7 coming out so soon after Vista

      That's not true at all (well, it's not true that it hasn't occurred, although I don't doubt you when you say you don't recall it). I've heard plenty of bitching about this topic. I think that the GP has a valid point, except that he's fallaciously acting as if the users all have the same opinions.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    17. Re:Too many releases! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, why does linux have so many release cycles.

      I use debian you insensitive clod!

    18. Re:Too many releases! by bytesex · · Score: 1

      You said it: among the best qualities of Linux there will always be speed, choice, community, freedom, the fact that it costs nothing, and the body hair of Alan Cox.

      --
      Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
    19. Re:Too many releases! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fedora is Bleeding-Edge distribution. Mandriva and OpenSUSE are Cutting-Edge. Ubuntu has no edge at all, because there is Debian.

    20. Re:Too many releases! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well I didn't expect the Linux Inquisition!

    21. Re:Too many releases! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ubuntu, Debian, RHEL and others are called as distributions of Linux OS. FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD are called flavors of BSD. And they have own distributions each of them.

    22. Re:Too many releases! by jackspenn · · Score: 1

      If you want a stable distro, use RHEL or CentOS, which have a life cycle of 3 years. If you want bleeding edge, and a 6 month update cycle, use Fedora. If you like the color of brown and want to think you are cooler then you are, ubuntu is probably right for you. If you like to waste money, buy a Mac.

      Oh and if you make your home partition separate and script settings you prefer, then you can update the distribution and not have to reconfigure everything by hand.

      --
      Respect the Constitution
    23. Re:Too many releases! by zokier · · Score: 1

      Change distro to something that has slower release cycle like Debian, or longer support like Ubuntu LTS, or no releases like Arch. Using Linux-based OS is all about choice, you can see it as a downside or upside. On the other hand, its usually assumed that your configurations etc(='running the way I wanted') don't break (much) if you update, at least if you haven't missed any releases in between.

    24. Re:Too many releases! by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      Linux doesn't have short release cycles, distros do. Only some of them at that, if you want a slow release cycle install Debian stable.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    25. Re:Too many releases! by Hucko · · Score: 1

      If you are unsure about these new fangled computers, use Windows. It slows everything down nicely.

      --
      Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
    26. Re:Too many releases! by gigabites2 · · Score: 1

      Except Ubuntu isn't Debian... Many of the developers for Ubuntu also work for Debian, and Ubuntu is based off of Debian, but the similarities end there. Ignoring the organizational differences, there are still differences in the way upgrades work. Debian testing and unstable both have rolling releases. Debian stable is released with a stable set group of packages (with backported security updates) every year or two. Ubuntu seems to be a compromise between them, releasing on a relatively set schedule relatively often with little changing in between the releases. Saying there is no edge because of Debian is moronic, however. Sid is about as bleeding-edge as you can get. I dare you to run pure Debian Unstable for a month and tell me it's not.

    27. Re:Too many releases! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a clever troll, right?

    28. Re:Too many releases! by init100 · · Score: 1

      It took me forever to get it running just the way I wanted and by then a new version was out and I had the pressure to upgrade

      You were pressured to upgrade? Some mafia-style hitmen came and demanded that you upgrade?

      My home desktop runs Fedora 7. Sure, it has had no updates for almost a year, but it is working well for what I use it for (video encoding). Why upgrade if you don't really feel like it? My machine is probably going to be upgraded soon, since I'd like the system not to be too old, but I hardly feel any pressure to upgrade every time. I try each release in a VM, before I decide if the real home machine will get an upgrade.

    29. Re:Too many releases! by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      Actually, if it was a troll, it wouldn't be a very clever one IMHO.

      See https://help.ubuntu.com/community/UpgradeNotes

    30. Re:Too many releases! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meanwhile, I recently upgraded seven machines from Intrepid to Jaunty and had no problems which particularly stick in my mind. Only two of those were done from the console; the others I upgraded over an ssh connection and just rebooted at the end. One runs KDE, the other runs Gnome, and the ssh upgrades don't use graphical environments. Some nVidia, some mythbuntu, etc. I'm a professional sysadmin, which probably counts for something, but I always wonder about people for whom upgrades "hose" their system. They always say "there was nothing weird about my machine", but somehow I've managed to upgrade distributions on literally thousands of Linux systems (mostly not Ubuntu) for over 15 years now, and I've *never* had an upgrade break a machine to the point that a clean install was required.

      Anywho, the point is not that I'm an awesome sysadmin. The point is that it's a good thing to find the root cause of problems and learn from them. In the future, you 1) won't have that problem again and 2) can hopefully help someone else figure the problem out.

    31. Re:Too many releases! by myliverhatesme · · Score: 1

      The difference is that Windows isn't FREE. I hate paying to upgrade from an operating system that I was never satisfied with to begin with.

  9. take a screenshot tour by viralMeme · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Fedora 11 Screenshot Tour

    --

    I like it except it doesn't have X feeture :)

    1. Re:take a screenshot tour by lymond01 · · Score: 1

      I realize it's a desktop OS as well, but whenever I think of "screenshots" for Linux, my eye twitches.

    2. Re:take a screenshot tour by greenguy · · Score: 1

      This is cool and all, but it doesn't have a screenshot of what I want: sound.

      --
      What if I do the same thing, and I do get different results?
    3. Re:take a screenshot tour by H0p313ss · · Score: 2, Funny

      Fedora 11 Screenshot Tour

      So... just like Ubuntu only blueier.

      Perhaps we could roll a new Ubuntu sub-project: Blubuntu

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    4. Re:take a screenshot tour by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't KDE 4.2.4 the latest? 4.2.2 is buggy :(

    5. Re:take a screenshot tour by bsDaemon · · Score: 1

      Well, Gnome screens are Gnome screens are Gnome screens. However, that particular pages contains screenshots of Sugar as well, which I believe was for the OLPC or some such. But, I've never seen it before to realize just what a hideous, obnoxious mess thing it really is. Thus, for me, it was worth following the link.

    6. Re:take a screenshot tour by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      Perhaps we could roll a new Ubuntu sub-project: Blubuntu

      Sure would beat the turd-coloured default edition...

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    7. Re:take a screenshot tour by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

      Perhaps we could roll a new Ubuntu sub-project: Blubuntu

      Sure would beat the turd-coloured default edition...

      Absolutely, I especially hate the way it makes my thighs look big.

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
  10. This will probably become RHEL6 by Ex-Linux-Fanboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This release of Fedora is the release that will probably be the basis for the next release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). This is a good thing, because I like using commercial software on Linux (read: I like using VMware Player to run virtual machines), and right now RHEL 5 does not run with the 2007-era hardware I have, being based on a version of Fedora from 2006.

    Once this becomes RHEL, commercial ISVs (Independent Software Vendors) will start supporting the release and both the hardware I use and the commercial software I need to be productive (sorry guys, I find VirtualBox a lot more buggy and less intuitive to use than VMware) will be supported in a version of Linux that will have the stability I need.

    Can anyone confirm that RHEL6 will be based on Fedora 11?

    1. Re:This will probably become RHEL6 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
    2. Re:This will probably become RHEL6 by harryandthehenderson · · Score: 1

      This is a good thing, because I like using commercial software on Linux (read: I like using VMware Player to run virtual machines),

      Why would you need RHEL to run VMware Player? It's been in the Ubuntu repositories since 6.06.

    3. Re:This will probably become RHEL6 by Ex-Linux-Fanboy · · Score: 1

      I tried that, but Ubuntu had a lot of problems with crashes and instability.

      - Sam

    4. Re:This will probably become RHEL6 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fedora 11 will not be upstream for RHEL6. RHEL6 will be based on Fedora 12.

    5. Re:This will probably become RHEL6 by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      When RHEL6 comes out, you might be using hardware from 2010-2011. I see something similar to a chicken and egg problem. Or maybe it's closer to the short story "The Gift of the Magi"; You give RH time to make a new version, letting your hardware age... and eventually RH gifts you with a comb, but you sold your hair!

    6. Re:This will probably become RHEL6 by mister_playboy · · Score: 1

      I believe that VMWare doesn't officially support Ubuntu.

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
    7. Re:This will probably become RHEL6 by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      This seems likely. A bunch of stuff slipped from 11 to 12, and a bunch of 11 is still broken.

      12 might even have Xen Dom0 on pv_ops with 2.6.30.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    8. Re:This will probably become RHEL6 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RHEL releases are not BASED off of fedora releases. the only thing that happens, is they take stable software, who's release may be common to the previous fedora. There is no "lets take fedora and rebrand it RHEL". The only common ground is that when RHEL6 comes out, it will use software that was tested on Fedora. If something changed on fedora, and it was good, it may be incorporated into the next release of RHEL.

    9. Re:This will probably become RHEL6 by fnj · · Score: 0, Troll

      Oh, for frickin heck. Now we have to wait through ANOTHER Fedora cycle??? RHEL 6 is already years late. Sigh. Let's face it. RHEL 6 will be released a week after the world ends. RHEL is in its death throes. They're just spinning their wheels and making stinky tire smoke trying to get off the line. RHEL 5 is older than Moses and has moldier packages than a frickin mummy. This is just plain embarrassing.

    10. Re:This will probably become RHEL6 by fnj · · Score: 1

      Wikipedia disagrees with you.

    11. Re:This will probably become RHEL6 by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Years late according to which schedule?

      RHEL 5 is meant to be a stable platform. Fedora releases have been undergoing major churn, alot of suckage with immature architecture upgrades, and the kernel has been quite spotty of late. It looks like that's starting to level out in 2.6.30, especially in regards to virtualization, which is a critical technology for RHEL. Go read about pv_ops if you'd like the history on that.

      If you want the latest packages you should be running Fedora or a similar distro that tracks latests. I do this on some machines, and it hurts a little bit. If you want stable plus small incremental improvements you want RHEL/CentOS. I do this on other machines. If you want really really stable you want Debian stable. I don't need that.

      Who is served by a RHEL that's pushed out on flakey infrastructure? What is it you want from RHEL (that's actually possible)? There might be a better-suited distro if your needs don't align with the larger RHEL customer base (the people who actually write checks, I mean). People who just want a distro that runs solidly and gets security and chipset updates seem to like it.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    12. Re:This will probably become RHEL6 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not for long, it wont.

    13. Re:This will probably become RHEL6 by Ex-Linux-Fanboy · · Score: 1

      RHEL is in its death throes.

      Oh, really?

      Seriously, buyers who are giving RedHat serious money have asked for fewer releases with longer lifetime cycles. When 2014 begins, RHEL 5 and its derivatives will still be supported and is the only currently available Linux distribution that will be supported at that time.

      If you want bleeding edge, you have Fedora. If you want tested, true, and stable, you have RedHat.

  11. The stats are looking good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Right now, two hours or so after the announcement, I see 2279 leechers for the i386 dvd torrent, and 1794 for the x86_64 torrent.

    I've download (via bittorrent) the Fedora releases since Fedora 5 IIRC, and that is the highest number that I've seen two hours after the release. Usually there are about 1,000 - 1,500 at this point.

    So that's one offhand datapoint.

    If you want the maximum download speed, I suggest that you start downloading soon. The numbers start dropping off significantly, though there are usually hundreds of seeders who stick around.

    Now if only they'd get the Source DVD's up! The delay on these is always annoying

    1. Re:The stats are looking good by inode_buddha · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Although I still prefer FTP or HTTP, I've learned over the years to wait a few days before downloading. It also gives some time to see what the early adopters say, usually right here on slash.

      --
      C|N>K
    2. Re:The stats are looking good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been running the beta for a couple of weeks on my MSI Wind. Works slickly, without any problems for me.

    3. Re:The stats are looking good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I try to wait 2 weeks, to avoid that flurry of bug patches in the first 14 days fixing weirdness. However, I'm on the verge of ignoring that personal rule because of all the fun features in this one ...

  12. Re:we must keep releasing stuff by QCompson · · Score: 1, Troll

    Geez, that 4.3 video makes it look horrible. It still has slow screen redraws and weird artifacts when moving windows. It also appears to be getting uglier and uglier as we painfully proceed along the KDE release trail. And I see that damn cashew in the corner (which everyone but a handful of KDE developers seem to hate) is still hanging in there. Frankly, vista looks a hell of a lot more polished and modern than that.

  13. Now I get to hear about it all day at work... by dburkland · · Score: 1

    Every Fedora release brings 10 different people talking about how they can't wait to install the new release. There is nothing better hearing them bitch the next day about how their machine has all these issues haha. (I am not a Fedora hater in anyway)

  14. Re:Ho ho. I'm a long-time Mandrake/Mandriva by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    User, but used PCLinuxOS for about a year. I tried RH & Fedora a few days here and there....But, for those interested (not just in Fedora):

    Linux Format magazine (issue 120) will carry Ubuntu as well as Mandriva 2009.1
    http://www.linuxformat.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=NewArchives

    Issue 119 carries "Triple-booting DVD with PCLinuxOS 2009, Mepis 8 and Zenwalk 6"
    http://www.linuxformat.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=NewArchives&issue=119

    Not to "dis(s)" Fedora, but variety in Open Source/GNU/Linux will (hopefully) ensure ms doesn't nuke us.

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  15. Reunion Time by Anna+Merikin · · Score: 1

    I last installed a RH/Fedora OS almost ten years ago -- RedHat 6.0. I loved it. I pulled down sources from RPMFind.net and compiled them to try them out. I used that distro until the wheels fell off -- GCC became out-of-date and could not be updated nor could programs written for GCC-4 be compiled successfully under GCC-3, or so I heard. Same for the kernel, RH-6.0 being one of the first users of the 2.4 series (2.4.11, IIRC). The most modern kernel I remember installing on it was 2.4.35!

    That took about five years. (I HATE installing and especially configuring new OSes!)

    I used Knoppix 3.2.x for a year or so as a hard drive install but it would not update, Knoppix maintaining no repositories themselves, and the distro being incompatible (libraries) with Debian's repos.

    I moved on to Ubuntu clones, Mepis-6 (two years) and Ultimate-2.0 XMas (six months.) No probs except I feel left out of the process. When I installed UE first time, a few things didn't work quite right. I ignored them for the time being, spending time finding and installing programs useful for the way I live -- Ufraw, ufraw-Gimp, Gimp, Digikam, (I have a pro-level DSLR and shoot RAW-DNG) and such. Then, after an update, the probs went away. Obviously, the updates fixed them, but I was not aware of how. Then, I was offered an opportunity to upgrade the distro to the newest one, and I tried it. Now, the system is not borked but imperfect, so time to install another.

    I will try Fedora 11 (it's downloading now) with workstation compiling tools and see if I can keep it going for five years or so like RH-6. Or at least until GCC-5 and kernel 2.8.x become ubiquitous, whichever comes first.

    Did I mention I HATE installing and configuring OSes?

    1. Re:Reunion Time by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      I HATE installing and especially configuring new OSes!

      If you ever find you need to do a lot of that, RH (IIRC, even back in the old RH5,6,7 days) has a auto-configuration dealy-who called kickstart which can auto-configure a new install for you, just like the previous install. Occasionally comes in handy (not quite as handy as Ghost/partimage, but sometimes the hardware differences are just too much for Ghost/partimage, or you want to have a clean setup).

    2. Re:Reunion Time by Anna+Merikin · · Score: 1

      Not a possibility in my case, as I was using a lot of programs then (Pan, Sylpheed-claws, e, ytree, blackbox) that were not available in .rpms from RH or anyone else; they had to be compiled from source. This was Back in the Day while they were alpha and beta applications -- say around 2000-2001.

  16. Things about linux that still anger me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Deps, So many Deps. 2. Standard uniform Package manager. Yum or Apt-get + they seem to not talk to each other correctly. 3. To many Distros. I stick to CentOS or Fedora. 4. To many people re-inventing the wheel, I.e. 9001 Windows Managers/Desktops. 5. Non-Simple Update from Different Revision of the OS. Maybe I am ignorant but These this hinder linux from becoming a complete powerhouse.

    1. Re:Things about linux that still anger me. by harryandthehenderson · · Score: 1

      5. Non-Simple Update from Different Revision of the OS. Maybe I am ignorant but These this hinder linux from becoming a complete powerhouse.

      You are ignorant. To ugprade from one Ubuntu revision to another requires hitting a single button marked "upgrade". Wow, that was so hard.

    2. Re:Things about linux that still anger me. by sgage · · Score: 1

      The trolls are out in force today.

      Deps? Stick with a good modern desktop distro and you'll have no problems with deps. Ditto package managers. Pick a distro that uses the one you like.

      Too many distros? WTF? Just pick one! You are not obligated to care about multiple distros.

      What do you care about how people choose to spend their coding time and skills? So what if there are a lot of choices for this and that? Pick one that you like!

      Linux is a rather complete powerhouse. Perhaps that is what is bothering you - if you want power, you're going to have to know what you're doing.

      Anger is a strange emotion to bring to it. Why not just use Windows or Mac? Life is too short to be angry about Linux...

    3. Re:Things about linux that still anger me. by bursch-X · · Score: 1

      No it doesn't work that easily, he'd have to enter his password. And you know that's the first thing users forget, having set up automatic logins and everything.

      --
      There are two rules for success:
      1. Never tell everything you know.
  17. Encryption by buchner.johannes · · Score: 1

    Fedora is probably the only general audience distribution that supports disk encryption and lockup security features user-friendly and out-of-the-box.

    Has anyone got full disk encryption in daily use?

    --
    NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    1. Re:Encryption by Limburgher · · Score: 1

      Yup, on F-10. Hassle-free, and I can even get into it with a Livecd if I hose the machine and know the passphrase.

      --

      You are not the customer.

    2. Re:Encryption by Bazer · · Score: 1

      I had until I caught a bad case of brain-dead and nuked the LUKS header on my /home partition. (I wanted to resize an LVM volume and called pvcreate on the wrong partition)

      That header consists of 512 bytes which contain the only key to your precious data. No redundant keys and no backups (see below). The LUKS dev team's advice on this issue is:

      • don't backup the keys (it's dangerous from a cryptographic standpoint)
      • be careful
    3. Re:Encryption by QCompson · · Score: 1

      Full disk encryption is very setup with ubuntu on the alternative-installer disk.

    4. Re:Encryption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use encryption on my /home partition, but not the rest of the system. Been using it since Fedora 9 came out and it's worked very smoothly. No noticeable slow down or problems. Definately a nice thing to have on a laptop. However, since it prompts for a password at mount time, I wouldn't put it on a desktop or server machine.

    5. Re:Encryption by IBBoard · · Score: 1

      Yep, we use it at work (it was mandated recently that we must encrypt and that Linux can use FDE). I was going to switch from F10 to openSuse but openSuse 11.1 doesn't support FDE yet, only individual partition encryption, (apparently it is in the works for 11.2) and so I went to F11 preview. Tick one box on install, give it a password and off you go.

      Ubuntu does support it as well, but it is on the "alternative" disk rather than the standard disk. I don't know much more than that, though, because I've never felt the need to install it. Some of the other guys in my office use it, though.

    6. Re:Encryption by IBBoard · · Score: 1

      You do realise you're still leaving yourself vulnerable there, don't you? If any of your data is copied to /tmp then it'll be unencrypted. Even if it is deleted from /tmp it might still be recoverable. Just encrypting /home seems a bit like locking your front door but leaving your back door open.

      As for not putting it on desktop machines, it depends on how concerned you are. We've got to do it at work, and it is probably good to do it at home in case you ever sell your HDD (it'll make sure that the data can't be recovered). Servers are normally in a secure enough place that they don't need it, and it'd probably screw a remote reboot if you can't enter your password!

  18. Yay, KMS! by MostAwesomeDude · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Fedora 11 is the first release of any major distribution to include kernel mode-setting (KMS) for Intel GMA, ATI Radeon, and nVidia TNT2/GeForce chipsets. This is an excellent step forward in terms of moving off of crufty old graphics APIs and being able to use video cards in a more uniform, reliable manner.

    --
    ~ C.
    1. Re:Yay, KMS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a shame I have to use the nomodeset kernel option in order for X to start on my Macbook with intel graphics. There seems to be quite a few bugs related to this.

  19. Preupgrade by ichthus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I just used preupgrade to move from fc10 on my Samsung NC10 netbook. As I type this, Anaconda is installing the packages for upgrade.

    So far, this upgrade is going smoothly. According to the release notes, I should see an improvement in battery life. We'll see...

    --
    sig: sauer
    1. Re:Preupgrade by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      Please reply back with results. Never used preupgrade, but would be interested in seeing how well it goes for you.

    2. Re:Preupgrade by ichthus · · Score: 1

      Will do.

      (Currently installing package 1339 of 1474 (gutenprint-foomatic)) It's got a while left...

      --
      sig: sauer
    3. Re:Preupgrade by ichthus · · Score: 1

      It finished installing packages, did a bunch of finalizing blah blah, and then rebooted. I'm now up and running with fc11, with all of my configurations still intact. The only problem I can see so far is that the LCD brightness applet on the panel doesn't work.

      So far, admittedly after only a few minutes of playing with it, I'd call this upgrade a success. And, it was as simple as running 'preupgrade' as root.

      Next, my headless bitTorrent/web/samba box gets to go from fc9 to fc11.

      --
      sig: sauer
    4. Re:Preupgrade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      netbook and linux? total fag fest. keep sucking that dick, bitch.

    5. Re:Preupgrade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Upgraded with yum from F10 to FC11, yeah I like danger with my updates

      After removing some packages ntpdate,ntp etc. yum finally started "rolling" and now after "millions" of selinux errors and 6 hours of time, the update finally finished. Now I am posting this from FF3.5b4.

      It might be because I am tired (it is soon 4am here in Finland), but everything feels a little bit snappier, maybe gcc 4.4 has a magic touch after all.

  20. I've evaluated pre-release version by melted · · Score: 1

    Ultimately, couldn't see why I'd stick with Fedora anymore. Most of my servers run CentOS (which is a humongous pain in the ass), the new Ubuntu servers are for development only. If Ubuntu does well there, CentOS may have to give way, too.

    1. Re:I've evaluated pre-release version by bwt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How are we supposed to evaluate your statements if you don't say HOW running distro A is a pain in the ass, and how distro B fixed it. From the fact that you don't even try to explain this I think we're left with the obvious conclusion: distro A doesn't meet your requirement of being distro B.

  21. Re:Ho ho. offtopic grammar pedantry by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    Here here.

    You're looking for "Hear, hear!" as in "Hear, Ye! Hear Ye!" or "Listen to me!"
    Sorry, we each have our grammar-nazi burdens to bear. I just bared mine.

  22. Re:Still? by zumajim · · Score: 1

    Yeah, really. I stick with it because my office is a Redhat shop and this lets me stay close to the Redhat layout and such but still have the option to update and install new stuff to keep my own systems bleeding edge. That said, I think Ubuntu deserves its first-place standing and I get tempted to switch. We'll see how F11 goes. If it wipes out my grub loader (again), I might just jump ship...

  23. Re:What an immature release announcement! by vivaelamor · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Maybe you'd prefer the release notes or the tour instead?

  24. Fedora server components are not bleeding-edge by FranTaylor · · Score: 2, Informative

    The desktop may be bleeding-edge, but the server components are rock-solid.

    I might have a tough time adjusting the volume or getting the desktop applets to work right, but the server implementations are stable and work right every time.

  25. Re:Ho ho. offtopic grammar pedantry by timster · · Score: 1

    Sorry, we each have our grammar-nazi burdens to bear. I just bared mine.

    I hate you.

    --
    I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
  26. 3D acceleration for older ATI cards? by tomaasz · · Score: 1

    Does this include ATI drivers with decent 3D acceleration support for OLDER cards? Or does it at least offer the possibility to install those? I run into this issue with Ubuntu - the X server was so new that the drivers weren't available yet and my Radeon HD 2600 had no 3D OpenGL support.

  27. Acer Aspire One by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone stuck it on an Acer Aspire One yet?

    I plan to do this later unless there's any major show stoppers.

    Ta

  28. Acer Aspire One by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone tried F11 on an Acer Aspire One yet?

    Any feedback?

    Ta

  29. Meh... by Murpster · · Score: 2, Informative

    I began using Slackware back when the shiny new Linux kernel was 0.95a and used Slackware until about 1996 or early 1997 when I switched to RedHat. I was a huge fan of RedHat and the first few Fedoras, but with newer releases, they seem to be focusing on making a Winux system for dummies and put more effort into making snazzy looking desktop environments and writing clunky inefficient GUIs for simple systems tasks. The systems aren't as reliable as they used to be, you get all kinds of garbage dependencies and badly configured packages. I haven't put anything newer than FC8 on my home systems, but I installed Fedora 10 on a work system last year. I wash my hands of this crap. I don't know what distro I'll use next, but I'm not installing any flavor of RedHat again on any of my systems.

    1. Re:Meh... by mister_playboy · · Score: 1

      Don't worry... I'll get off your lawn. :)

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
    2. Re:Meh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well you can always use Gentoo, nothing like compiling everything from source AND hand-editing cfg files.

    3. Re:Meh... by Murpster · · Score: 1

      I can honestly say that things worked much better that way, and wasn't significantly harder. Also, if things misbehaved, it was much easier to figure out why. Firefox recently started acting almost unusably slow on my Fedora system, even though I haven't changed anything. Quite often it freezes to the point that the only fix is killall -9 firefox-bin. I assume some yum auto-update changed something, hell if I know what though. Doing it by hand, if you upgrade/modify some software and then things start breaking, you've at least got a solid idea where to start looking.

  30. With Apologies to Frank Herbert... by petrus4 · · Score: 1

    "The `//areZ must flow." ;)

  31. Red Hat buyout by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Possibly off-topic, but rumor has it that Red Hat will be bought by a larger company in the near future. While this doesn't have any bearing on product in the near future, it's still interesting.

  32. Gimme! by tjwhaynes · · Score: 1

    My Awesomeness is soo great that Not only have I installed it; evaluated it and sent out my reviews to various magazines; I have also configured it to make me coffee and raise my kids.

    I need that perl script on my desk NOW! Hang on - if it raises kids, it's probably in Lisp.

    --
    Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
    1. Re:Gimme! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I need that perl script on my desk NOW! Hang on - if it raises kids, it's probably in Lisp.

      They call come out with big bushy beards :/

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  33. Re:Still? by WillKemp · · Score: 1

    I got a bit sick of the problems i was having with F10 a couple of months ago, and switched my laptop to Ubuntu 9.04 beta. It was ok, some things were a bit better, but there were a few annoyances - in particular, X kept freezing. I switched to F11 preview, a week or so ago and i'm glad to be back on Fedora!

  34. i586 version of fc11 serving the world . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no problemsinstalling on an AMD using preupgrade
    My server is now up and my pages are being served
    (to the world) via FC11. this is an i586 version

    And it was very easy to do.

    Now the AMD64 version . . . with preupgrade . . .
    that is taking a very very long time

  35. really is that fast to do this on some setups by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    use preupgrade.
    I run an fc10 i586 version,
    I got the email for the fedora being available at about 10:30 this morning.
      preupgrade was done by 2:30 Eastern.
    My server was back by 3:00.

    I would post my server url but . . . I know what would happen. /. not my pages!
    the 64 bit version on another box is taking a lot longer.

  36. 11? by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Whoops. Completely missed 11. I've been tracking 12.

    (Alpha comes out July 7)

  37. Arch Linux by omuls+are+tasty · · Score: 1

    I'll get off your lawn since I only started using Linux since 1.0.8 ;)

    Might wanna try out Arch Linux. It kind of reminds me of Slack - just with a proper package manager and without an opinionated (B)DFL. BSD-style init, everything is generally real easy to configure by hand, and the packages are pretty close to vanilla. They are binary so usually you don't have to waste time compiling them yourself, but when you need to, it's real easy - their "automated build system" (ABS) is mighty cool. The base install is minimal, but they're not too obsessed with freedom, so you get a completely usable desktop with the default repos, and there's also a huge community-provided repository.

    It's a rolling release though, so stuff does occasionally break. Still, by far my favorite modern desktop distro (I also tried Fedora, Ubuntu and OpenSuSE)

  38. 20 Second Startup Time by TheStonepedo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Is that on my grandmother's Pentium II laptop or my boss's multi-core workstation? Startup time seems like an arbitrary statistic for a Linux distribution that should run on a broad range of outdated and current hardware.

    --
    I'll be your candy shop of infinite deliciousity if you'll be my discotheque of endless rump-shaking.
    1. Re:20 Second Startup Time by armanox · · Score: 1

      When they cut boot time for Fedora 9 I seem to remember the test system being a Pentium 3.

      --
      I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
    2. Re:20 Second Startup Time by AdamWill · · Score: 1

      It's a marketing number. "20 Second Boot" sounds sexier than "Faster Boot".

      (yes, that really is why we did it that way.)

  39. Use a long-term support release by daffmeister · · Score: 1

    If you want fewer releases use a long term support release.

    For Ubuntu they are marked LTS and come out every two years. The last was 8.04 (Hardy)

    For Fedora / RedHat they are the RedHat Enterprise Linux releases, and are about every three years, or the free CentOS copy of same.

    And I don't remember anyone bitching about Win 7 coming out. Despite the bias towards linux around here I think most people will be glad to see the back of Vista.

  40. Mixed by robmyers · · Score: 1

    I installed it last night. Good: fast and looks great. Bad: Ignores my wireless dongle. Pidgin, Gwibber and Tor broken. Not being able to see much of the internet may be an effect or a cause of this but the timing is suspicious.

  41. Re:we must keep releasing stuff by fnj · · Score: 1

    Jeeze, how much caffeine was that guy on who was demonstrating KDE 4.3 Beta?

  42. Re:we must keep releasing stuff by fnj · · Score: 1

    Geez, that 4.3 video makes it look horrible. It still has slow screen redraws and weird artifacts when moving windows.

    You're judging that from a youtube video with its insanely low framerate? Retard.

  43. FLOSS Weekly Ep71 "Fedora" w/ Paul W. Fields by Papatoast · · Score: 0

    Pretty good interview
    http://twit.tv/floss71

    --
    We were somewhere around Barstow on the edge of the desert when the drugs began to take hold. - HST
  44. Re:Ho ho. offtopic grammar pedantry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here here.

    You're looking for "Hear, hear!" as in "Hear, Ye! Hear Ye!" or "Listen to me!" Sorry, we each have our grammar-nazi burdens to bear. I just bared mine.

    No, it is "Here, Here!" as in "kiss it, right here."

  45. F11 does not install on all Intel based systems by lsatenstein · · Score: 0

    The installer crashes on my system, and won't allow one to view the disk drives or select partitioning. A dump of the anaconda install program is so locked up, I cannot save a dump for diagnosis. (No, I don't run vm)

    --
    Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
  46. The Best Fedora by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fedora 11 is the best fedora. Period.