Fedora 13 Is Out

ultranerdz writes "Fedora 13 has just been released. It includes major features such as automatic print driver installation, automatic language pack installation, redesigned user account tool, color management to calibrate monitors and scanners, experimental 3-D support for NVIDIA video cards, and more."

Comments

Dialup networking off by default finally

[suso]

While looking through the packages I noticed that Dialup Networking was NOT selected by default. Is this the first version to be that way? Kinda significant as in the end of an era.

Re:Dialup networking off by default finally

[mrmeval]

Ok so it's broken by default. :)

is it faster?

[Darkness404]

I have used Fedora on a number of occasions, however is Fedora now as fast as Ubuntu for doing most tasks? Every single time I've used Fedora YUM makes installing packages a pain because they take too long and sometimes even run into dependency hell (did the first time I tried updating on Fedora 12). Yes, I know they have apt in the repositories, but seriously? Compare Ubuntu to Fedora in default speed, unless 13 changes it, Ubuntu wins.

Re:is it faster?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, starting with Fedora 12, yum has been *much* faster, because it only downloads the differences between the installed and updated package.

Re:is it faster?

[Luke has no name]

But yum has a better output layout than apt-get, IMO. I wish the apt guys would look at YUM for inspiration.

Re:is it faster?

[armanox]

Actually that goes back to Fedora 8 IIRC. It wasn't enabled by default until 12.

Re:is it faster?

[asto21]

Parent is talking about the Presto Plugin for yum. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeaturePresto

Re:is it faster?

[0100010001010011]

You are joking I hope.

Re:is it faster?

[jgagnon]

Hey... he's a well paid sysadmin, give him a break. ;)

Re:is it faster?

[hey]

Love Presto. Its like magic. Was in Fedora 12. Might have been in 11 also.

Re:is it faster?

[suso]

You are joking I hope.

Having used both rpm and apt for a long time now in a sysadmin setting, I can say that both have their pluses and minuses. rpm to me has a much more professional feel to it IMHO. I really wish that dpkg had the -V flag like rpm does, I've used that more times than you probably could imagine. rpm always seems faster at finding a package name given a file path and at listing out the files in a package. On the flip side, rpm historically hasn't had good depenencies and I never liked how they always wanted to compile in support for everything in rpm, which is one reason I liked being able to configure all that in emerge on Gentoo. Plus rpm used to have all kinds of problems with the database getting locked or corrupt. I switched to Gentoo as a workstation a while back when I tried to uninstall kernel-source and it said I couldn't because some audio library depended on it. That just shouldn't ever happen. But then I switched to Ubuntu because Gentoo development goes so fast that if you don't emerge -pv system practically every night, you end up not being able to upgrade at all.

So the point is that there are always reasons for the various package management systems being the way they are and because most people are unique, there are always going to be people who like those different features. You shouldn't poke fun of their choices until you understand them better. Hence the phrase, don't judge a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes.

Re:is it faster?

[Drew M.]

Speaking of issues with apt-get, my old comment:

When doing large scale automated apt-get update; apt-get upgrade tasks, ask what happens to apt-get/dpkg when a postinstall script fails, or there were file conflicts with another package. Yes, the machine never fetches updates again. Serious amounts of dpkg --configure -a, dpkg --purge --force-reinstreq, and apt-get -f install are required to even get it working again. Also don't ask what happens when a user wants to install a local package with dpkg -i that has a missing dependency. Yes it prints an error, but unknowingly to the user the package actually gets half installed and breaks the automated update jobs. Why isn't there a --force flag to prevent this from happening?

Yum and rpm have had these issues solved for years and years, why can't Debian fix it?

Re:is it faster?

[diegocg]

RPM is much faster these days, but yum (well, interpreted python) is still slow, and it doesn't handle dependencies like APT can do. However it has several nice features that were easy to implement in yum and that apt systems still lack. Delta updates are used by default, for example. And with a plugin you can get transactional upgrades in Btrfs or LVM. The Yum utils are also quite powerful. I also like that yum can do almost-everything while in .deb systems you need to use apt-get, apt-cache, dpkg and others (or use aptitude, which is another layer). After 8 years of APT, I didn't miss it when I migrated to Fedora 12.

Re:is it faster?

[shutdown -p now]

Who uses apt-get directly, anyway? Aptitude FTW.

Re:is it faster?

[armanox]

I use it when I'm under Debian.

Re:is it faster?

[reub2000]

It might save you time on a fast processor, but the time saved in downloading anything is pretty much made up up reconstructing the packages on an Atom N270.

Re:is it faster?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, more people should use aptitude, just do this to start using it already:

apt-get install aptitude

Oh. Doh!

Re:is it faster?

[CarpetShark]

Having used both rpm and apt for a long time now in a sysadmin setting, I can say that both have their pluses and minuses. rpm to me has a much more professional feel to it IMHO

You were using RPM and APT (which are not even the same class of thing) and concluded that RPM is more professional? Hahhha, OK. I'm gonna go ahead and conclude that you were using them as static files to test long-term CD archival capabilities then ;)

Re:is it faster?

[shutdown -p now]

Aptitude is in the base Debian system; you don't need to install it.

Also, according to Debian FAQ:

"Note that aptitude is the preferred program for package management from console both for package installations and package or system upgrades.

Re:is it faster?

[Anonymous Coward]

I use it when I am ssh-ing in.

Re:is it faster?

[CarpetShark]

When doing large scale automated apt-get update; apt-get upgrade tasks, ask what happens to apt-get/dpkg when a postinstall script fails, or there were file conflicts with another package. Serious amounts of dpkg --configure -a, dpkg --purge --force-reinstreq, and apt-get -f install are required to even get it working again.

If that happens, you're almost certainly using sid or some other alpha-quality repo, and only have yourself to blame. But you could fix it very simply by fixing or putting an exit 0 at the top of the postinstall script in question (in /var/lib/dpkg/info/packagename.postinst), running dpkg --configure -a, and then removing the package, or installing (and holding) the previous, known-good version until a known-good update is ready.

Yes, the machine never fetches updates again.

Well sure, if you never pay monitor or fix your systems.

Also don't ask what happens when a user wants to install a local package with dpkg -i that has a missing dependency. Yes it prints an error, but unknowingly to the user the package actually gets half installed and breaks the automated update jobs.

"Users" shouldn't be installing packages. But if they are, they should (be screened to) also be aware of and have the use of the apt-get -f install command, which will install any outstanding dependencies and then complete the package configuration.

Why isn't there a --force flag to prevent this from happening?

Because --force flags are used to tell dpkg that you don't care about breakage, not that you do care (which is assumed by default).

Re:is it faster?

[h4rr4r]

Yum has its own special suckage. Heck, redhat has an open bug in RHEL5 about it wanting to remove all your packages when you do a yum-complete-transaction.

Re:is it faster?

[Anonymous Coward]

I completely agree. The apt-get tool is powerful, but the interface and output is terrible. With YUM all package management is pretty straight forward and easy to explain to a new comer. Want to install software?

yum install packagename

Remove software?

yum remove packagename

Want to find a package?

yum search keyword

With the apt-get family of tools, most of the commands are short and.or cryptic. It may get the job done and apt-get may be a little faster, but it's so ugly and cryptic that it's not work the extra performance. The differences between the man pages are pretty eye-opening too. The apt-get manual is obvious written by programmers and sysadmin types for the same, where the yum page is written for human beings.

Re:is it faster?

[Luke has no name]

I hope my extensive bookshelf of project management material and "soft skill" tutorials make up for the fact that I have a diploma <_<

Re:is it faster?

[Anonymous Coward]

...used rpm and apt? And you're a sysadmin? You do know that yum is to RPM as apt is to deb, right?

Re:is it faster?

[Anonymous Coward]

I really wish that dpkg had the -V flag like rpm does, I've used that more times than you probably could imagine.

The metadata is all there. You can use something like debsums to get the functionality of rpm -V.

Re:is it faster?

[0100010001010011]

So, debsums?

#1: There are numerous ways to do this.

#2:
plug:~$ time dpkg -L debsums ...
real 0m0.155s
user 0m0.160s
sys 0m0.000s

Seemed pretty fast to me.

Re:is it faster?

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope your realise your examples don't make your case at all...

Re:is it faster?

[Troll-Under-D'Bridge]

I really wish that dpkg had the -V flag like rpm does, I've used that more times than you probably could imagine. rpm always seems faster at finding a package name given a file path and at listing out the files in a package.

You mean something like this:

$ dpkg -L chromium-browser | grep /bin/
/usr/bin/chromium-browser
$ dpkg -S bin/chromium
chromium-browser: /usr/bin/chromium-browser

Re:is it faster?

[Haeleth]

Yum is still relatively slow, but it's not too bad on modern hardware.

A more serious problem is the lack of any good package management UI. The command line is all very well when you know which package you want to install, but it's not very convenient for searching. The various available GUIs are all painfully slow and rather unpleasant to use, with badly designed unintuitive interfaces and poor-to-nonexistent documentation. I really, really, really miss aptitude.

Re:is it faster?

[turbidostato]

"The apt-get tool is powerful, but the interface and output is terrible [...] Want to install software?
yum install packagename"

aptitude install packagename

"Remove software?
yum remove packagename"

aptitude remove packagename

"Want to find a package?
yum search keyword

aptitude search keyword

"With the apt-get family of tools, most of the commands are short and.or cryptic."

Yeah, sure they are.

Re:is it faster?

[zerocool^]

Part of the reason that RPM is quicker slash more powerful for some things is cause of the HUGE amount of data and metadata it stores. I think a lot of it is in /var/cache/yum - huge sqlite files, and sqlite is reasonably dense for storing data (my fedora 12 server shows about 140MB of stuff here).

RPM is very powerful. You learn some of this stuff while studying for the RHCE test (or at least I did):

Want to know which packages are installed? rpm -qa
Want to verify a package's installation? rpm -qV packagename
Want to know, of those installed, which have been modified? for i in $(rpm -qa);do rpm -qV $i;done #will have false positives... This will tell you if the timestamp / security context / MD5sum have changed.
Want to know what package owns a specific file? rpm -qf /path/to/file
Want to know every file that a package installs? rpm -ql packagename

Even more, want to get a pristine copy of a file / binary / whatever that's installed with a package? Did you know RPMs are CPIO archives?
Verify yum downloader is installed (part of yum-utils).
mkdir somedir; cd somedir #because this will "tarbomb" your directory.
yumdownloader packagename
rpm2cpio packagename.rpm | cpio -dim
ls -lF
That's everything that the package *installs*, not counting any pre- or post-install configuration.

I've really come around to appreciating RPM and yum.

~X

Re:is it faster?

[Billly Gates]

RPM has a bad wrap from those who had nightmares with rpm hell with dialup modems cursing the days it took to download conflicting packages. I wasted 4 days trying to install gnome only to have RPMs force me to wipe my whole RH installation and start over. Its a personal issue for many who do not want to deal with RPM issues again whether YUM is out now or not.

Yum maybe superior if you prefer it, but the gui tools are not. Packagekit is slow and is missing many features of synaptic. With synaptic and Ubuntu's update manager you can do things like uncheck all items and select only the ones you want installed. You can't do this with FC13. You have to manually go through all 533 updates (no lie) and deselect each item individually. I hope it was a bug that is fixed as I still have the beta but that sucked.

I am a fedora users and I like it a lot. I would still use Ubuntu if it were not so flakely on my laptop. Packagekit and the speed of installing rpms is not its strengths however.

Re:is it faster?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, apt is missing quite important things last time i checked. What is the equivalent of yum localinstall file.rpm (this will get the dependencies from repos automatically) for apt?

Re:is it faster?

[pz]

Does execution time really dominate updates / installs with yum for you? Network fetch time is the vastly larger fraction for me.

Re:is it faster?

[LingNoi]

I think the GP means that you can't use apt-get directly because apt-get is built upon aptitude. What you said doesn't make much sense unless aptitude was built on top of apt-get.

Re:is it faster?

[shutdown -p now]

I think the GP means that you can't use apt-get directly because apt-get is built upon aptitude. What you said doesn't make much sense unless aptitude was built on top of apt-get.

Neither one is built on top of another - they both use libapt-pkg. Of the two, however, apt-get is more low-level (and is provided by the same package which provides apt-get).

Re:is it faster?

[bingoUV]

That is why it is optional.

yum --disableplugin=presto

Re:is it faster?

[LingNoi]

You are indeed correct. I have no idea where I picked it up incorrectly. Probably Slashdot *shudder*.

Re:is it faster?

[Builder]

yum (well, interpreted python) is still slow, and it doesn't handle dependencies like APT can do

I'm very confused here. I've been using yum on Centos 5 for years now, and I've never had a time when it wouldn't find and install the dependencies for an RPM I was trying to install using it.

Can you explain a bit more please?

Re:is it faster?

[JackieBrown]

I am trying to figure out what you listed that you can't do in debian.

Want to know which packages are installed? dpkg –get-selections

Want to verify a package's installation? automatic

Want to know, of those installed, which have been modified? debsum

Want to know what package owns a specific file? dpkg -S {/path/to/file}

Want to know every file that a package installs? dpkg --contents {.deb-package-name}

Also, a Debian package is just a compressed archive as well.

I think they are both useful formats and have probably borrowed a lot from each other.

Re:is it faster?

[JackieBrown]

You can use gdebi for that.

https://launchpad.net/gdebi

It has a command line, KDE, and Gnome interface.

Re:is it faster?

[juhaz]

The difference is that in RH system that functionality is all in rpm and yum and you can find it by reading the manpages for them, it may be just as doable in Debian, but it's scattered into half a dozen separate utilities (like debsums) you just have to Know about, and many of them are not in the base system.

Re:is it faster?

[Tubal-Cain]

I keep some offline Debian machines updated, and `apt-get --print-uris --yes` is an easy cli method of getting a list of files to download. I haven't found an equivalent option in aptitude.

Re:is it faster?

[Anonymous Coward]

rpm historically hasn't had good dependencies

That's a ridiculous understatement. The dependencies problem undermines everything that might otherwise be good about rpms. All of the other things you mention might be exceedingly useful, but if you can't get the package installed to begin with, they're useless.

Apt is the number one reason I moved away from Fedora and SUSE to Ubuntu. Fedora is rock solid and the security is amazing (maybe even too tight--too many false positives, etc.), but I cannot tolerate rpms.

I appreciate your attempt to present a balanced assessment of rpms and debs, but the dependency issue with rpms is unconscionable in my mind. After awhile, I realized it was much more reliable and stress-free to build from source than use rpms. Apt I don't feel the same way about. Apt and debs may not be perfect, and I definitely think there's room for a better standard, but they at least seem worth it relative to nothing.

I'd even go so far as to say it's irresponsible to use rpms at this point because it fails at one of its main purposes. If a package format can't handle dependencies well, what's the point of using it? It's like saying that you like a compression format even though 40% of the time it actually makes your filesizes larger, just because you like the file compression utilities that are available for it.

Re:is it faster?

[Anonymous Coward]

I do, but it is mostly a force of habit, rather than for any real reason.

Actually, scrap that, I seem to recall aptitude tends to pull in more dependencies when installing packages, I think it does the optional recommended ones as well as the ones that are absolutely necessary. But I could be wrong on this.

Re:is it faster?

[shutdown -p now]

When using it in the same way as apt-get (i.e. command-line), there's --with-recommends and --without-recommends. In fact, IIRC, the latter is the default.

Direct Link to Changelog

[ProdigyPuNk]

Here's the direct link to new features for desktop users:
http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/13/html/Release_Notes/sect-Release_Notes-Changes_in_Fedora_for_Desktop_Users.html

Re:Direct Link to Changelog

[fearlezz]

And here is the direct torrent link:
http://torrent.fedoraproject.org/

Re:Direct Link to Changelog

[Sudheer_BV]

Thanks. I was going to download it later. It's easy to follow the link.

First Slackware and now Fedora!

[just_another_sean]

Excellent, all comers welcome, I love seeing all the choice and freedom we get by choosing Linux.

While not my personal preference I applaud the Fedora developers for all their hard work on behalf
of the community.

Re:First Slackware and now Fedora!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok.

Re:First Slackware and now Fedora!

[just_another_sean]

Unashamed fan boy is more like it.

Re:Let me save you some trouble

[Anonymous Coward]

It sucks. Just get Windows 7 already.

Hey, that was my idea.

Sweet

[sv_libertarian]

Now I begin my bi annual ritual of backing up my data, and making a new live CD (I always have the worst luck with direct download/upgrade for some reason). I still can't decide *WHY* I use Fedora over say Gentoo or Ubuntu (Ok, Gentoo is just too damned annoying to build and install). I do get tired of enabling mp3/flash/etc... in Fedora though.

Re:Sweet

[Anonymous Coward]

You really need to move to bootable USB. It has saved so many plastic trees since I switched.

Re:Sweet

[ls671]

> Now I begin my bi annual ritual of backing up my data

Well, at least you seem to have a backup scheme in place ;-)

Re:Sweet

[Jim Hall]

Now I begin my bi annual ritual of backing up my data, and making a new live CD

Why create a CD? It's better to use LiveUSB Creator to put the LiveCD bootable image onto a USB flash drive. There's even a nice GUI, works on Linux (of course) or Windows. Here's the How-to..

And 1GB flash drives are cheap and plentiful these days ... if you can even buy a flash drive that small anymore.

Re:Sweet

[Vectormatic]

I have a perfectly good reason for using fedora over ubuntu. Fedora doesnt just fuck half the system up every release just to be new and flashy...

and yeah, what the AC said, USB boot FTW, you just need a 1gb usb stick, which are pretty much free with a box of cereal these days

Re:Sweet

[Anonymous Coward]

Now I begin my bi annual ritual of backing up my data, and making a new live CD (I always have the worst luck with direct download/upgrade for some reason).

Bi-annual ritual? I have a semi-annual ritual!

Re:Sweet

[sv_libertarian]

I do that too (and have no idea why my original post went anonymous, I clearly remember not checking that box) but this Pavilion I'm using (zv6000(doesn't support USB booting, just a bit too old, but otherwise is a great net machine.

Re:Sweet

[sv_libertarian]

Err I really need to have caffeine in my system *before* posting to /.

Re:Sweet

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Fedora doesnt just fuck half the system up every release just to be new and flashy...

1) The newest release of Ubuntu is an LTS release, meaning it will be supported for at least 3 years.

2) Fedora seems to royally fubar my machine when upgrading to the next release. I've had to install as new each and every time. This is why I keep my data in a separate partition.

Re:Sweet

[burnin1965]

You really need to move to bootable USB.

You really need to move to the 21st century. PXE Boot and network install, there is no need to clutter the environment with CDs, DVDs or USB devices when you have a perfectly good network. ;)

Re:Sweet

[sammyF70]

You might want to try Arch Linux then. I got fed up with the half annual ritual myself, and moved to Arch. it's *not* very easy to setup, but if you follow the step by step instructions you should have a running stable system fast. And from then on : "rolling updates, baby!"

Re:Sweet

[sammyF70]

I don't think the /. site needs java actually.

Re:Sweet

[thule]

Make a local mirror, pxe boot, upgrade.

Or

Make a local mirror, install the new fedora-release rpm's and do a 'yum upgrade'.

Or

If you have FiOS, don't make a local mirror, just 'yum upgrade' after installing the new fedora-release rpm.

There only time yum upgrade didn't work was when they switched rpm payloads a few versions back.

Re:Sweet

[Lunix Nutcase]

Fedora doesnt just fuck half the system up every release just to be new and flashy...

You mean except for well-known examples like their way too early adoption of PulseAudio or KDE4?

Re:Sweet

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a zv5000, just get a copy of UBCD which lets you chainload USB drives.

Re:Sweet

[shutdown -p now]

Arch is for those who love vanilla bleeding edge packages. Not to say it's a bad thing (I do that, hence why I run Arch), but it's not quite the same as Fedora.

Re:Sweet

[Anonymous Coward]

The last Ubuntu (yes, the LTS release) has a royal heap of new, hot gimmicky stuff that isn't properly tested. It is *not* stable.

Not that I care (I like to think I can fight my way out of a mal-behaving system), but to think that "LTS" means that it contains proven software instead of just the latest version they could grab from the net is misguided.

Re:Sweet

[pyser]

I think I'm going to hold off. I just finished upgrading most of my Linux boxen to Fedora 12. It was several months and 6+ yum updates before all were finally stable and things worked as they should.

Upgrading is inevitable, because the old stuff falls out of "support", but it's not worth it to me any more to jump on a new release just because it's there. Same thing happened to me back at Fedora 5, and 10 disagreed with some of my hardware.

Re:Sweet

[Hatta]

Fedora doesnt just fuck half the system up every release just to be new and flashy...

They have much better reasons to fuck half the system up every release.

Re:Sweet

[Spewns]

You might want to try Arch Linux then. I got fed up with the half annual ritual myself, and moved to Arch. it's *not* very easy to setup, but if you follow the step by step instructions you should have a running stable system fast. And from then on : "rolling updates, baby!"

I feel Arch is extremely easy to set up. But I can always understand if it's a little daunting to people who are coming from a strictly desktop/GUI environment. Once you're beyond that though, I'd imagine Arch is much less of a pain than other minimal distros.

Re:Sweet

[sammyF70]

You're right, in hindsight it wasn't very difficult to setup. It's just slightly more work than "pop in the CD and press install".

Re:Sweet

[astrashe]

I really like the ruby packages -- it's easier for me to make ruby and rails work easily.

I'm sure lots of people get by just fine with Ubuntu, and I haven't tried it for awhile, but it seemed to me that the package manager and the gems system were always tripping over each other.

It's great that we have options, though. I've been running Linux for awhile, and in my experience, distros eventually melt down. They make bad decisions, try crazy schemes to monetize things, get too bogged down in ideology, chase off developers with fights, or whatever. Nothing lasts forever.

So I'm glad that Ubuntu is out there if Fedora caves in, and Ubuntu people should be glad that Fedora exists in case Ubuntu goes way off track. That's why Linux is cool -- it's distributed enough that no single pinhead can break it.

Re:Sweet

[thetoastman]

I am trying something completely insane. As I type this, I am trying a direct upgrade from Fedora 11 to Fedora 13 in KDE. This should be . . . interesting.

Re:Sweet

[metamatic]

I'm sure lots of people get by just fine with Ubuntu, and I haven't tried it for awhile, but it seemed to me that the package manager and the gems system were always tripping over each other.

Yeah, well, that's because the Debian packagers flat out refused to work with the Ruby developers. The Ruby guys all wanted to integrate Gems and APT packages, so that APT could load a package which would call Gem to do the build. The Debian guys flatly refused, it was "Do it our way or not at all". So Ruby opted for the latter. At least now Ubuntu's Ruby packages aren't utterly broken, and there's a single ruby1.9.1-full package you can install to get the whole of Ruby in one go.

Re:Sweet

[astrashe]

That's really interesting. I didn't know that. I ran Debian for a long time -- what you've said really sounds like Debian. :)

Yum and ruby's gems system are integrated. I tended to credit the yum people for that, but from your comment maybe it has more to do with the gems people.

I really dig yum -- I love the plugin that just grabs the diffs. I love that they have plugins at all.

Fedora isn't as polished as Ubuntu, but it really feels like engineers are front and center, and that they're working on the infrastructure.

And it feels like geeks are the target audience, rather than the proverbial grandmother who can't do anything on a computer. I'm glad the grandma has a good distro, but I'm also glad that I have Fedora.

Re:Sweet

[Bill_the_Engineer]

You can always stay at 8.04 LTS until it's safe to update. In fact, you can wait a couple of more years before making the move. Is that stable enough?

Re:Sweet

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone else see a slight resemblance to other such arguments...?

Re:Sweet

[Anonymous Coward]

Arch is by far the best linux distribution out there. The package management system is simple, efficient, and rad. The base system is sane. It's easy to update and admin, and it doesn't get in your way.

Re:Sweet

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes poor choices? For example, one can now update any installed package without any sort of authentication, so long as said package has a signed rpm available. What could go wrong with that?

Actually, this has been going on since at least F12. After the furor caused when the developer felt that any user should be able to install or update with authentication, it made Slashdot and Distrowatch, and got quashed. However, they left in the ability to update, if using the GUI package manager, with no authentication necessary.

Re:Sweet

[Anonymous Coward]

3) When idle, Fedora actually is idle. load average: 0.01, 0.05, 0.02. On Ubuntu 10.04 my load would be >0.4. Check it out.

Re:Sweet

[Anonymous Coward]

No debs of that "Liveusb creator". I guess it's demeaning for them or something.

Re:Sweet

[Anonymous Coward]

Similarly, Fedora is for people who want customized and broken packages that are from ~6 months ago. As for Arch, i would say it's more for power users than just people who love vanilla bleeding edge packages. I think you can set up a pretty sane and stable server using arch and roll it out in a production environment without much difficulty. If you need a custom build of a certain application (apache, for example) a custom AUR is way simple to set up and maintain. Of course, if you need some sort of corporate backing for support, you probably wouldn't want to use it in a production environment. Then again, you wouldn't use fedora in that case, either. For a desktop, though, where you don't want a bunch of additional bullshit installed, you can't go wrong.

Re:Sweet

[Skapare]

So how to do this with the full DVD worth of stuff?

Re:Sweet

[Anonymous Coward]

I keep two partitions for my primary Linux OS installs. When a new version comes out I just install to the other partition. Once that is working I switch to it as the primary. If for some reason it doesn't work or I don't like it then I still have my old system to switch back to. I just switch back and forth between partitions at each upgrade cycle. Makes things much easier and allows me to copy any old settings I forget without going through the trouble of making actual backups (which is wasteful for the OS since I don't really need to back that up for any reason other than settings).

I keep all my data on a separate RAID array that can be used from either OS partition.

Re:Sweet

[rubycodez]

fedora fucked up my data. fedora 9...worst....fedora...release....ever!

Re:Sweet

[geminidomino]

Considering the clusterfuck that was the 8.04 release that won't be fixed because it would involve updating the software in question (pulseaudio and pidgin are the two that come to mind in my recent experience) which is verboten in an Ubuntu LTS...

I'm not the GP and can't speak for him, but I'm gonna have to say "No." GP has the right idea.

I'm considering ditching Lenny for Fedora myself. I'll wait a few months though.

Re:Sweet

[sv_libertarian]

Because my machine (Pavilion zv6000) does not support USB booting

Re:Sweet

[sv_libertarian]

You might want to try Arch Linux then. I got fed up with the half annual ritual myself, and moved to Arch. it's *not* very easy to setup, but if you follow the step by step instructions you should have a running stable system fast. And from then on : "rolling updates, baby!"

Mmmmm I'll check it out. I've used Gentoo, Kubuntu, Ubuntu, and Fedora. I loved Gentoo, but hated the install process, and wound up just going back to Fedora, and have stayed in a Red Hat induced rut.

Re:Sweet

[laddiebuck]

Or... just Debian. FFS. You manage your updates however you want them but it's actually properly designed and a breeze to set up. I ran Arch for half a year a couple of years ago but there's not much point in doing so.

Re:Sweet

[Anonymous Coward]

Is the machine really GNU/Linux compatible? If it requires non-free drivers or firmware no wonder you have problems. If the manufacturer screwed around with standards no wonder you have problems. Don't blame GNU/Linux or a particular distribution when the problem is really the hardware you decided to purchase. Most systems are screwed up with faulty hardware. If you don't know what hardware to purchase check out the Free Software Foundation for a list of hardware. That list is a bit outdated though and its hard to find the devices. www.thinkpenguin.com stocks all free-software friendly hardware unlike most other GNU/Linux vendors which sell a mix of stuff.

Re:Sweet

[Anonymous Coward]

Now I begin my bi annual ritual of backing up my data, and making a new live CD (I always have the worst luck with direct download/upgrade for some reason). I still can't decide *WHY* I use Fedora over say Gentoo or Ubuntu (Ok, Gentoo is just too damned annoying to build and install). I do get tired of enabling mp3/flash/etc... in Fedora though.

Maybe it is because Ubuntu sucks.

Re:Sweet

[Chris Snook]

I bought a spindle of 25 CD-RW discs back in 2005 for about the retail price of a 1 GB flash stick today. I still have at least 20 of them, and less than half of those have ever been written to. I have 3 USB sticks and one SD card that are big enough for a liveCD image, and I use them fairly regularly (certainly more than once every six months) for other things. I would objectively be an idiot to use a flash stick on a machine with a CD drive. CDs may be to this decade what floppies were to last decade, but they will remain useful for a rather long time because they're big enough for all but a handful of things we do with data, and everyone who ever invested a cent in the technology currently has more reusable media than they will ever be able to consume.

Even if I were burning onto non-reusable media, at 2 releases per year, I would run out of CD-Rs and DVD-Rs (each of which I bought exactly one spindle of) around the time I buy my first car powered by a Mr. Fusion.

Re:Sweet

[bingoUV]

You say as if this ritual were a bad thing. These rituals give some meaning to the life of a geek.

Re:Sweet

[Vectormatic]

heh, that reminds me, 8.04 was the ONLY ubuntu release in history to be quickly superceded by 8.04.1, because the original was badly broken..

and yeah, 10.04 might be LTS, but they decided to just completely change half the GUI just because they want to be inspired by 'light' and stuff...

Long Term Support, sure, Stable, not a chance in hell

Re:Sweet

[Vectormatic]

get a bigger usb drive?

seriously, how much is a 4 or 8gb usb drive these days? and it's not like you'd only use it for booting linux images (in which case i do recommend just burning the disc)

you could also just use that old 80gb usb disk that you threw into the back of the closet when your multi-tb file-server picked up media-storage duties..

Re:Sweet

[bool2]

When PXE works with wireless I'm all there! Otherwise the environment is cluttered with cables - even worse than a small USB disk IMHO.

Re:Sweet

[Anonymous Coward]

You like this, until something mysteriously breaks for the week while you're working on a project. Stability ain't just for servers, y'know.

Re:Sweet

[MikeBabcock]

Visiting friends and using PCs in libraries count as networked but still require my own USB stick, unless you propose I publish tftp to the whole Internet.

And yes, I know why that wouldn't work ;-)

Re:Sweet

[Anonymous Coward]

> I do get tired of enabling mp3/flash/etc... in Fedora though

Because installing a few packages from rpmfusion is sooooooo tough.

Re:Sweet

[inKubus]

And since you mention it, why isn't there a distro that concentrates on a very up to date but stable kernel, and then all the stable pieces to run a web server? CentOS and RHEL are way behind on the web server and PHP packages (as well as python, QT, ruby, etc.) so I always have to manually make those packages.

Likewise, the same could be done with a good productivity desktop distro. Don't worry about apache, php, etc. and just worry about open office and web browsers and audio and such.

I'm sure this is out there, and I'm just not aware of it. I'm also aware of kickstart and the appliance craze, but none of these seem to have the formal structure of a distro.

Re:Sweet

[Anonymous Coward]

1) The newest release of Ubuntu is an LTS release, meaning it will be supported for at least 3 years.

Does that really mean anything? For 10.04 there is an issue on older VIA graphics chipsets, where after installation the screen will go black on boot making it useless. Now, a couple of weeks before the release someone discovered (and posted on the relevant Launchpad page for this bug) that is could be fixed by blacklisting the viafb module, this is a simple fix to implement and the impact is minor, yet they didn't bother pushing this fix into the LTS release.

Re:Sweet

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but not everyone has a perfectly good network, and unless your perfectly good network is GigE (or better) then USB will probably be faster.

Skipped 12

[0racle]

I had to skip Fedora 12 because X and/or KDE couldn't handle both of my nvidia cards. Enabling one with both monitors worked fine, but having X configure both cards (binary nvidia of course) locked the machine completely.

With support for Fedora 11 ending soon, I'm hoping this has been resolved.

Re:Skipped 12

[McNihil]

With my old nVidia system with onboard graphics Fedora 13 locks up at install. Both the analog and digital video out go dark. Sticking with 12 for a bit... possibly till 14 is done.

Re:Skipped 12

[unixguy43]

I skipped 12 as well, but for issues with the Intel video drivers that were in the kernel. It's been a known issue since 2009, but hasn't been fixed, and only affects systems with both the Intel processer and GPU. Supposedly, it's fixed in the F13 kernel, so I guess we'll see.

Re:Skipped 12

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you should buy hardware that has support for a modern operating system. It isn't Fedora's responsibility to account for your shitty hardware choices.

Re:Skipped 12

[ArsonSmith]

Hmm, what exactly are you personally losing when support for 11 ends?

Re:Skipped 12

[JumboMessiah]

I haven't tried a GIT build recently, but as of my last attempt, multi GPU was still broken. Xorg Bug 25593

Re:Skipped 12

[Anonymous Coward]

leigh123linux fixed it.

Fedora 12 driving eight displays

Re:Skipped 12

[Anonymous Coward]

Using a non supported operating system can be a major issue.

I would not recommend that to any others than experienced package managers and distro developers.

It is pain to track all the security issues and backport the fixes to your system. It can be done and it should be done in some cases, but it is not for most people.

Re:Skipped 12

[xemit]

I don't think it was the distribution itself that was causing the problem. What you described sounds similar to what I and others experienced with the latest ubuntu release. https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/nvidia-graphics-drivers/+bug/573557 What was found is that it was a problem with the vga arbitter

Re:Skipped 12

[bingoUV]

I had both Intel processor and GPU too, I didn't see any problem. Is there any bug for this?

Seeing that Intel GPU necessarily means an Intel processor because Intel GPUs are only available onboard, that too only for motherboards that are for Intel processors. So it must be a bug with an huge impact.

GDMConf

[Anonymous Coward]

Has Fedora finally released a version of the GDM configurator that was removed way the heck back in version 9?

If not, who cares about this release. I just want my custom login screen without having to jump through hoops.

Re:GDMConf

[Anonymous Coward]

that is most likely a problem with GDM or GNOME not direclty Fedora. In any other case 90% of Desktop Problems are sitting behind the Monitor and at the keyboard.

Re:GDMConf

[armanox]

GDM Configurator was dropped by GNOME, not Fedora.

Re:GDMConf

[Spewns]

In any other case 90% of Desktop Problems are sitting behind the Monitor and at the keyboard.

If users can't figure out how to use the software, it's the software that sucks.

Re:GDMConf

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of the Fedora developers are also the GNOME developers.

Enjoy the new GDM, where they dumbed down the date in the clock to just the day. They have also managed to dumb down the GNOME calculator. You have to admit that level of dumbing down is impressive, even if you don't like it.

Probably the next calculator will feature the only the buttons 1-9, + and =, the other buttons were too confusing or rarely used, it's simpler to open another calculator rather than have a clear button, and the developer decided that 0 wasn't proper a number, so doesn't deserve a button.

Re:GDMConf

[armanox]

Fedora shares developers with a lot of projects. I personally don't like what has become of GDM - I use KDM in its place. Actually, the "dumbed down" appearance and configuration of GNOME is why I don't use GNOME in a lot of situations (KDE, AfterStep, CLI).

Preparing to jump, who is with me?

[Vectormatic]

I'm just trialing Fedora 13 in a VM right now, if i dont run into any showstoppers i'll be ditching ubuntu this week on my main rig

best of all, i have a tasy intel SSD on my desk right now which will be the system-drive for my new fedora install

anyone with me?

Re:Preparing to jump, who is with me?

[Stachybotris]

Indeed I am. With the changes that are being proposed for 10.10, I'm not too happy with the Canonical people anymore. I'm sure this install won't be a breeze, but only time will tell. The biggest problem I have on my laptop is the widescreen wasn't recognized by X in a friendly manner (I worked around that, however, with a few tweaks to xorg.conf). Though I won't be putting fedora on my main rig - I'm thinking CentOS for that and Fedora for the laptop.

Re:Preparing to jump, who is with me?

[dropadrop]

Seems Fedora 13 has 2.6.9.33 kernel? Trim support by default? I have been curious to try Fedora for a while and have a new workstation (with ssd) coming in a week or so. Maybe I should try this instead of 10.4.

Re:Preparing to jump, who is with me?

[Target Practice]

I'm there as well :) Downloading the ISO and I've got a VM ready for it. Ubuntu has served me well on my new sexy laptop, but I really would like to get back to Fedora.

Re:Preparing to jump, who is with me?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have absolutely no reason to do so. I tried 13 in a LiveUSB environment and it really isn't that different from Ubuntu 10.04 LTs. Both are stable, feature filled, and complete desktops. However, Ubuntu's already installed.

Re:Preparing to jump, who is with me?

[__aardcx5948]

I'm in a similar situation. Downloading the image via torrent now (shall seed), then the wipe of the OCZ Vertex 60GB begins.

Re:Preparing to jump, who is with me?

[arth1]

I found a showstopper for using F13 in a VM already.
If you left-click while the RMB is held down, or drag windows and hit the RMB, there's a fair chance that the LMB stops working altogether. Oh, it works in your host OS, it just won't work in your guest anymore.
Thankfully, with a VM, it's easy to roll back to F12.

Re:Preparing to jump, who is with me?

[Gothmolly]

You failed once you mentioned your "rig".

Re:Preparing to jump, who is with me?

[Billly Gates]

I left Ubuntu a few weeks ago and switched to Fedora 13 beta. Ubuntu was just too buggy on my laptop and flakey.

Make sure you install this first if you love Sudo and multimedia codecs . This tool was a life saver as ubuntu did make it convient to use their copyright restricted mirrors.

I also backed up my Ubuntu themes so I can use them with Fedora as I hate the blue colors. They are in /usr/share/themes.

Packagekit is similiar to synaptic for most Ubuntu users.

Re:Preparing to jump, who is with me?

[Vectormatic]

oooh nice, my intel X25-V should also have trim support..

the only thing i'm stuck on is the FS. AFAIK journalling on an SSD is considered BAD, but fedora doesnt want to install on anything but ext4 (with the image i downloaded anyway), so i think format as ext4, mount as ext2?

Re:Preparing to jump, who is with me?

[Vectormatic]

oh boo-hoo, what should i have said? my 'box' or 'boxen' or whatever?

Run on back to the BSD forums if all this talk about linux on 'rigs' is to hip for you..

Re:Preparing to jump, who is with me?

[dropadrop]

You don't need to mount it as ext2, just make the filesystem with “mke2fs -t ext4 -O ^has_journal /dev/sdXX”. However I'm not fully convinced that is needed with a modern fast SSD that supports trim combined with an operating system that also supports trim.

Here are some measurements: http://thunk.org/tytso/blog/2009/03/01/ssds-journaling-and-noatimerelatime/ though it's not perfect as they are measuring transferred megabytes which is not a good indicator of IO's.

Re:Preparing to jump, who is with me?

[Vectormatic]

hmm, from reading that i see that noatime is much more important than journaling, but i think journaling is also pretty much small writes, so even a small number of bytes might be a large number of writes in the end..

And i think journaling is more relevant to overal lifespan then the kind of block level fragmentation that trim counteracts

Re:Preparing to jump, who is with me?

[Stachybotris]

The install finished relatively painlessly after about 30 minutes last night, and it's working like a champ. Unlike Ubuntu 9.10, Fedora 13 found my wireless card and the correct resolution for my monitor right away. The only things I can say are 'worse' about it are that 1) MySQL-server is installed by default (and I can't remove it without taking the desktop with it for some reason), and 2) installing the MP3 codecs on Ubuntu was a bit easier.

Now, with regards to point 1... I like MySQL - I really do - I just don't need it on my laptop. Well, the client is nice to have, but the server is overkill. For number two all I had to do was enable the FreshRPM repos and everything else took care of itself.

Will kick it around for another couple of weeks before deciding whether or not to put it on my main system. For what it's worth I used the 32-bit build instead of the 64-bit one.

Re:Awesome!

[Em Emalb]

LOL. Troll troll is trolling.

Funny, but trolling nonetheless.

Windows mirrors linux mirrors windows.

[irreverant]

You know, I've used a computer long enough to learn that this battle between windows and linux is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. I've noticed that when XP came out, it seemed very familiar, as a matter of fact, it sure seemed a lot like mandrake. This is the way it's been through out the years. Microsoft takes something that works great from linux and makes it theirs and sometimes makes it better, most of the time worse. And the same goes for linux, sometimes it starts out worse and gets' better because they borrowed it from microsoft or sometimes makes something worse and makes it better then microsoft takes it. The point i'm getting at, after noticing i'm rambling is that I believe there are certain behaviors and tendencies of computer users that have been leveraged by OS manufacturers. That somethings just work better with certain designs, take for example the automatic printer drivers install. That works really well with Windows 7 and apparently fedora is now getting with it. God knows i Hate using CUPS.

Re:Windows mirrors linux mirrors windows.

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe you mean Mandrake was just like XP.

Re:Windows mirrors linux mirrors windows.

[e9th]

That's pretty much a metaphor for U.S. politics.

Re:Windows mirrors linux mirrors windows.

[that IT girl]

Who, erm... who mentioned Windows? Maybe I missed something, but I just saw the news about Fedora 13.

Re:Windows mirrors linux mirrors windows.

[burnin1965]

Microsoft takes something that works great from linux and makes it theirs and sometimes makes it better, most of the time worse. And the same goes for linux, sometimes it starts out worse and gets' better because they borrowed it from microsoft or sometimes makes something worse and makes it better then microsoft takes it.

From my experience Microsoft does borrow others ideas but usually they are in major releases when they need to have some bullet points to justify buying their latest software. Aside from the major releases Microsoft has a hard headed "not developed here" attitude that results in some crappy software.

One example where it took them ages to pull there head out, tabbed browsing.

Some examples where Microsoft is still producing retarded software:
- Focus follows mouse.
- Roll up windows.
- Multiple desktops.

And the open source crowd, they not only borrow but they try lots of new ideas and are happy to significantly modify borrowed ideas and try new things. But sometimes the borrowed ideas are too similar to the garbage from Microsoft.

I.e. Trying to eliminate or hide the ability to perform tree / list file management in the Nautilus browser and instead opening new windows all over the desktop for each directory. Microsoft tried this crappy UI in Windows, it sucked, and it sucked just as much in Gnome.

The greatest benefit linux has going for it is the diversity in the software and the ability to choose and modify. This is a virtually non-existent feature in Windows and OS X.

Re:Windows mirrors linux mirrors windows.

[evilviper]

Your comment isn't talking about Windows and Linux at all. You are almost entirely talking about Explorer and GNOME/KDE. There are a few underlying system services, like CUPS, grub, kudzu, etc., but you're mostly talking about UI.

If that's all you care about, good for you. The rest of us want much more from an operating system than a vaguely familiar interface. The more extensively you actually use it, the more apparent the differences become.

Re:Windows mirrors linux mirrors windows.

[PRMan]

take for example the automatic printer drivers install. That works really well with Windows 7

Yes, but it worked much better on Ubuntu first...

Re:Windows mirrors linux mirrors windows.

[Anonymous Coward]

Some examples where Microsoft is still producing retarded software:
- Focus follows mouse.
- Roll up windows.
- Multiple desktops.

While roll up windows and multiple desktops would be cool, I pray to Bob that Microsoft continues being "retarded" on the focus follows mouse idea.

Re:Windows mirrors linux mirrors windows.

[Anonymous Coward]

take for example the automatic printer drivers install. That works really well with Windows 7

Yes, but it worked much better on Ubuntu first...

Im afraid your speakind african , input error , fault

Re:Windows mirrors linux mirrors windows.

[Anonymous Coward]

oh yeah? here is a tip to open-source-crowd: GO BORROW windows DRIVERS for TV and video cards..
also make that CUPS thing work with A3 and while you're at it make sound work (I do not want alsa and that other thing, neither works well)
and dont update kernel and grub or any of the packages every few seconds. fix it so that it works for quite a while. good things dont need updating and i do not have flat rate.

Re:Windows mirrors linux mirrors windows.

[burnin1965]

GO BORROW windows DRIVERS for TV and video cards

Because sometimes AC is about as smart as a box of rocks...

HDTV for your linux box

Here is a free clue, linux is not for you. Make sure you don't let go of Ballmer's/Job's hand.

Re:Windows mirrors linux mirrors windows.

[Anonymous Coward]

While roll up windows and multiple desktops would be cool, I pray to Bob that Microsoft continues being "retarded" on the focus follows mouse idea.

You say that only because you don't know any better. Besides, if such a feature were to be implemented its very likely to be optional. That way, those who enjoy pointless extra clicking can continue to do so, business as usual. Then those who enjoy fewer clicking and drastically improved usability, not to mention improved screen real estate usage, will smartly switch to focus follows mouse.

Its really about getting the most out of your computer. If you believe in simplicity and drastically improved usability, you desperately need focus follows mouse.

Re:Windows mirrors linux mirrors windows.

[rhendershot]

the mouse wheel should be intercepted by the window under the mouse. I've gotten so used to that in Gnome that I curse Windows daily for the lack.

Re:Windows mirrors linux mirrors windows.

[drsmithy]

Some examples where Microsoft is still producing retarded software:
- Focus follows mouse.

Is a UI catastrophe.

- Roll up windows.

Are of highly questional utility given the Taskbar.

- Multiple desktops.

Are dramatically overrated.

I.e. Trying to eliminate or hide the ability to perform tree / list file management in the Nautilus browser and instead opening new windows all over the desktop for each directory. Microsoft tried this crappy UI in Windows, it sucked, and it sucked just as much in Gnome.

Actually they copied this from MacOS [Classic].

Re:Windows mirrors linux mirrors windows.

[Homburg]

opening new windows all over the desktop for each directory. Microsoft tried this crappy UI in Windows, it sucked, and it sucked just as much in Gnome.

Erm, they both got this from Apple. Microsoft fucked up the implementation, so you had big windows which didn't remember their size or position, making them extremely annoying. But GNOME spatial mode got it right; enabling it is pretty much the first configuration change I make on installing Linux on a new machine.

Re:Windows mirrors linux mirrors windows.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be so blind. It goes without saying that anyone who chooses to use Linux does so because they made comparisons with other systems.

Re:Windows mirrors linux mirrors windows.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your joking, right? One fucking card dedicated to Linux? (Nice 640x480 website, BTW) You can keep your limited choices because you just don't get it. By the way, it's not about the ability to use it, it's not wanting to be associated with conceded assholes like you.

Re:Windows mirrors linux mirrors windows.

[PeterBrett]

Some examples where Microsoft is still producing retarded software: - Focus follows mouse.

Is a UI catastrophe.

- Roll up windows.

Are of highly questional utility given the Taskbar.

- Multiple desktops.

Are dramatically overrated.

Clearly you and the GP have a difference of opinion. With Linux, you can each have things set up the way you like it! With Windows, you don't have that option.

Re:Windows mirrors linux mirrors windows.

[Vectormatic]

By the way, it's not about the ability to use it, it's not wanting to be associated with conceded assholes like you.

So you roll your own OS right? I mean pretty much any OS has some conceded assholes as supporters, go meet the apple kool-aid drinkers, or off course the windows crowd..

Re:Windows mirrors linux mirrors windows.

[MikeBabcock]

If you used it for more than a couple hours you'd probably never figure out how you lived without it. No need to move a window to the foreground, when you can just mouse over it and type, or scroll.

PS Windows did have this feature in the Windows 95 powertoys I believe.

Re:Windows mirrors linux mirrors windows.

[jbengt]

The point wasn't that Microsoft doesn't have focus follows mouse available, but rather, that their way of doing it sucks (like the way they raise a window to the foreground when the mouse is over that window). I also thought focus follows mouse was stupid when I tried it, until I tried it in Fedora. I now would hate to turn it off (except in MS Windows)

Re:Windows mirrors linux mirrors windows.

[evilRhino]

Still had the option on XP, but it broke on occasion. My least favorite example being the auto-complete on Outlook. Sure, Outlook provides a drop down for suggested email addresses, but you can't select any because the mouse automatically selects the window it's hovering over so the dialog closes immediately.

Re:Windows mirrors linux mirrors windows.

[that IT girl]

Right, but that isn't what this post is about. Parent started in with a defense that wasn't provoked and I wasn't sure why.

Even though Fedora is my desktop of choice

[Scareduck]

... it still has some gaping flaws.

• gthumb absorbs all memory in sight when downloading images from a camera. This alone makes it useless for anyone into photography. I see gthumb has been replaced by Shotwell, so hopefully this amounts to an improvement.
• Printer configuration is insanely complex and obscure. Really, this is a gripe about CUPS, but I just don't like either that much.
• NetworkManager is an abortion that doesn't play well with the usual Unixy config files, but is strangely necessary for the desktop to operate correctly. I think this finally got fixed in more recent versions (Fedora 12).
• Audio is just plain broken. Major features -- such as the ability to mix external audio -- have been missing since Fedora 11. Nobody seems to care, or know how the new audio system, Pulse Audio, works.

Re:Even though Fedora is my desktop of choice

[0123456]

NetworkManager is an abortion that doesn't play well with the usual Unixy config files, but is strangely necessary for the desktop to operate correctly. I think this finally got fixed in more recent versions (Fedora 12).

I tried the beta at the weekend and NetworkManager resolutely refused to enable my wireless LAN; I had to go to the command line and 'ifup wlan0' to get it to work. I guess that's better than the Ubuntu NetworkManager repeatedly asking for my 64-character WPA2 password even though it's already been configured.

Audio is just plain broken. Major features -- such as the ability to mix external audio -- have been missing since Fedora 11. Nobody seems to care, or know how the new audio system, Pulse Audio, works.

It's not just Fedora, I don't believe anyone anywhere knows how Pulse Audio works :).

Re:Even though Fedora is my desktop of choice

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this finally got fixed in more recent versions (Fedora 12).

If it got fixed in Fedora 12, why the hell are you complaining about it at Fedora 13?

Re:Even though Fedora is my desktop of choice

[ProdigyPuNk]

Best thing I ever did when I installed Debian was to rip out Pulse Audio. Haven't had an audio related problem since then. It's really not needed for 99% of the applications in the repos. Do yourself a favor and just ditch it.

Re:Even though Fedora is my desktop of choice

[Anonymous Coward]

Haven't you got the memo?

1. Pulse is perfect, your applications are all broken. All of them.
2. Pulse is perfect, your hardware is broken. All of it.
3. Pulse is perfect, every thing should revolve around it weather you like it or not.

How many Pulse developers does it take to screw in a light bulb? Just one. He holds it high above his head and waits for the world to revolve around it.

Re:Even though Fedora is my desktop of choice

[mrphoton]

even though fedora is my desktop of choice, it just fails to boot on my brand new mac book. grown...

Re:Even though Fedora is my desktop of choice

[silverglade00]

So... PulseAudio is an Apple product?

Re:Even though Fedora is my desktop of choice

[Anonymous Coward]

NetworkManager is an abortion that doesn't play well with the usual Unixy config files, but is strangely necessary for the desktop to operate correctly. I think this finally got fixed in more recent versions (Fedora 12).

I tried the beta at the weekend and NetworkManager resolutely refused to enable my wireless LAN; I had to go to the command line and 'ifup wlan0' to get it to work. I guess that's better than the Ubuntu NetworkManager repeatedly asking for my 64-character WPA2 password even though it's already been configured.

The beta is pretty old. There were a lot of fixes in NetworkManager since then. A major part of F13 has been IPv6 enablement, and around Beta time some of the IPv6 stuff wasn't completely shaken out. Try the final release.

NetworkManager asks for your password when it can't connect to the AP successfully since historically that's meant your password is wrong. These days it usually means your driver is just crappy. This behavior will be fixed to keep trying a few times and then just fail if the driver is a piece of junk and can't connect to the AP.

Re:Even though Fedora is my desktop of choice

[TheTyrannyOfForcedRe]

Pulseaudio has be perfect on Ubuntu Lucid. I'm as amazed any anyone. It was a total disaster for the longest time and then all of a sudden no more issues.

Re:Even though Fedora is my desktop of choice

[Anonymous Coward]

There was no audio before pulseaudio. No sound on Linux whatsoever. Not even beeps from the PC speaker. Nothing. Fortunately somebody created pulseaudio, and suddenly there was sound when before there was just silence. Then everything was converted to work only with pulseaudio, I mean, err, had sound support added.

There was no network support before NetworkManager. Config files don't exist either, are definitely not allowed, and any that do exist (which don't actually exist by the way, you're just imagining them), will soon be removed. Config files are too difficult for the average moron, therefore nobody is allowed them.

Re:Even though Fedora is my desktop of choice

[Anonymous Coward]

I really don't get all the animosity towards PulseAudio. Since they put it in Ubuntu, it's worked fine for me on all hardware I've used it on (4 laptops, 3 desktops and VirtualBox and VMWare - all different combinations of Creative, RealTek and other soundcards).

Re:Even though Fedora is my desktop of choice

[vlueboy]

I tried the beta at the weekend and NetworkManager resolutely refused to enable my wireless LAN; I had to go to the command line and 'ifup wlan0' to get it to work. I guess that's better than the Ubuntu NetworkManager repeatedly asking for my 64-character WPA2 password even though it's already been configured.

I saw the same happen in Centos while the Ubuntu partition has been working perfectly. I can't blame my OS if you're seeing it too. The issue is either NetworkManager, or the Gnome keychain manager. Either way, we're stuck with them and their lesser known alternatives.

Re:Even though Fedora is my desktop of choice

[Anonymous Coward]

I assume that you've run the installer, but it doesn't show up in the boot menu (accessed by holding down alt at boot)? I have this problem with Fedora on my 2006 iMac.

Burn rEFIt http://refit.sourceforge.net/ to a disc, and boot to it (by holding alt at boot). There should be an entry for Partition editor, which you should run. Now when you use the boot menu, there should be an entry for Windows (which is actually Fedora).

rEFIt would also help you, if you wanted to set Fedora as your default operating system.

Re:Even though Fedora is my desktop of choice

[V!NCENT]

Yeah keep hearing that... I never had a problem with PulseAudio since day with Fedora.

But then again I did my homework before buying my computer. You see, it turns out PulseAudio has a fallback mechanism for when there is no PulseAudio driver for your sound card and then reverses the routing to Alsa and OSS drivers.

Cool and all... but given the fact that most Alsa drivers are dirty hacks, problems survice, like stuttering audio and not hearing audio at all sometimes.

The exeption to this rule is Skype, which is a horribly dirty hack on Linux and there is a reason that some parts of it are now open sourced so that some people would fix their shit for them, which they didn't because Skype is proprietary and just plain ugly.

Just my $0,02. But remember to do your homework next time before you badmouth something :)

Re:Even though Fedora is my desktop of choice

[Anonymous Coward]

You plug in a printer and it is installed. How much simpler and straightforward can it get?

Re:Even though Fedora is my desktop of choice

[V!NCENT]

So where in the ALSA and OSS config files can I enable multi-channel audio? Whaddaya mean I can't? Aaaah wait! Because before PulseAudio there was no multi-channel audio and audio routing aaaaaaaaah. I see...

"Moron."

Re:Even though Fedora is my desktop of choice

[CronoCloud]

That was in Fedora 12...or at least it automagically installed my printer, surprised me.

Re:Even though Fedora is my desktop of choice

[pavon]

Multichannel audio setup for ALSA. OSS 4x supports multichannel out of the box without any configuration needed. To be fair though OSS was removed from the mainline kernel before OSS 4 was released, and hasn't been the default for any of the mainline distros. However, it is still the sound system for FreeBSD and was available before PulseAudio for any Linux users who wanted to install it.

Re:Even though Fedora is my desktop of choice

[geminidomino]

I have the exact opposite experience. Ever since they put it in ubuntu, I've never been able to make it work right. (3 laptops, two desktops, VirtualBox and VMWare, with Creative, Intel, and RealTek audio adapters).

Re:Even though Fedora is my desktop of choice

[Heather D]

Alsa was rock solid on this computer with Ubuntu 7.04. With PulseAudio in 8.x sound was completely useless. 9.10 was fixable and now works reasonably well but it still goes into a fugue state from time to time. Did they remove the drivers for Nvidea's onboard sound? I ended up having to get an ancient C-Media card to get it working again and that's in Alsa emulation mode. It was a cheap enough fix but I'd like to get the onboard sound working as it would improve airflow to my graphics card.

Re:Even though Fedora is my desktop of choice

[Anonymous Coward]

"PulseAudio has a fallback mechanism for when there is no PulseAudio driver for your sound card "

There are no PulseAudio drivers for any sound card.

It's a software mixer, and uses the ALSA drivers on Linux.

"but given the fact that most Alsa drivers are dirty hacks, problems survice"

I find they work fine. They are suitable for reliable low latency operation, which is what matters to me anyway. If you are getting stuttering, it may be some interaction between an app and pulseaudio.

Re:Even though Fedora is my desktop of choice

[Anonymous Coward]

Go fuck yourself. I don't need to "do my homework" to recognize a condescending little bitch like you, it's perfectly obvious from one post. Stupid fucking nerd.

Re:Even though Fedora is my desktop of choice

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of us do not live a static life.

I plug and unplug sound devices all the time. USB headsets, bluetooth devices, and so on.

The network is changing from country to country and network type to network type.

Fedora 13 with NetworkManager and pulseaudio is not perfect, but it is making the life as a traveller less a hassle.

Linux worked just fine as my main desktop in the 90s, but it was more hassle to configure ISDN, modems, XFree86, and so on. It was fine as a static solution and it did work on laptops, but a lot more hassle.

Re:Even though Fedora is my desktop of choice

[IBBoard]

Printer configuration is insanely complex and obscure. Really, this is a gripe about CUPS, but I just don't like either that much.

I've had to configure a network printer at work on Fedora 11 and it didn't seem that bad. Could have been clearer and simpler, but I've seen much worse given what information it needed.

NetworkManager is an abortion that doesn't play well with the usual Unixy config files, but is strangely necessary for the desktop to operate correctly. I think this finally got fixed in more recent versions (Fedora 12).

Oddly, I'm doing fine without NetworkManager on my openSUSE 11.2 system at home. Some apps, like Banshee, look for NetworkManager on DBus or something but fall back perfectly well when it isn't running. That said, I've got a nice and sensible wired network.

Audio is just plain broken. Major features -- such as the ability to mix external audio -- have been missing since Fedora 11. Nobody seems to care, or know how the new audio system, Pulse Audio, works.

The only time I've had issues with Pulse Audio was because of hardware. I was using an old Soundblaster because I had it, but it needed timer-based scheduling disabling (I think). After that it was fine. The extra features (like per-app muting) can be quite useful and I definitely think it is the best way forward in general.

Re:Even though Fedora is my desktop of choice

[Vectormatic]

i hardly do serious audio on my ubuntu running netbook, but on my main desktop, pulse-audio is just absolute CRAP. if i open a dvd image with VLC, it is pretty much a crapshoot wether the sound actually works, and even if i get some sounds, more then half the time the voice track is missing... or randomly crackles in and out of existence

Honestly, i hate pulse-audio worse then having to fuck around with wireless drivers for days back in ubuntu 6.06...

Re:Even though Fedora is my desktop of choice

[V!NCENT]

;_: QQ QQ cry me a river...

I have a working sound system with PulseAudio and you do not. All I did was google motherboard sound chip followed by pulseaudio and ended up buying the right motherboard and you did not. Doesn't make a difference.

BTW people that are getting pissed of because they didn't got it right make them look stupid. Laughing is a human reaction to seeing acts of stupidity :)

Re:Let me save you some trouble

[palegray.net]

Thanks I like natural juiced instead of any bad and expensive imitation.

I was mostly with you up until that statement, at which point my head exploded.

Thanks Fedora guys

[pizzach]

I appreciate you guys putting gWaei into the repositories. I was forced to install Fedora 13 rawhide to do some testing with gtk+-2.20 (I think) and I was impressed with the package manager. Much cleaner than synaptic. Though I didn't like the lack of progress bars for so many things.

If I want an easy to set up distribution, I would probably prefer Fedora over Ubuntu nowadays. I give the Fedora guys props. (When I say easy to setup, I don't necessarily mean newbie friendly.)

Wow.

[dave420]

Welcome to 1998, folks! I'd have expected quite a bit more than this. What a let-down.

Re:Wow.

[javiercero]

Really, you had all that in 1998?

Re:Wow.

[V!NCENT]

Dude... Fedora is now... how long in development/deployement overal? And they still haven't implemented the Blue Screen Of Death! And that DOS thing where you can interact with your computer by typing? Like WTF yO!?

UNIX is soooooooooooo totally over man. Who the hell still uses X.org's client-server configuration? As if everything these days is still hosted on a server! Maaaaaaaaaaaan... Google docs? What is that?

Re:Let me save you some trouble

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks I like natural juiced instead of any bad and expensive imitation.

That's
what
she
said

Torrent

[crunch_ca]

http://torrent.fedoraproject.org/

Re:Let me save you some trouble

[Dishevel]

Well almost everything that is not liked in Windows 7 is WONTFIX. In fedora WONTFIX really means "THEY WONTFIX BUT YOU CAN IF YOU WANT TO"

Re:Fedora?

[Anonymous Coward]

If Ubuntu is Mac, I've always seen Fedora as Windows.

Re:Fedora?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait a minute. If Fedora (AKA the Bleeding Edge of all Linux) is obsolete, then how obsolete is everything else?

Re:Fedora?

[StuartHankins]

We use RHEL for production servers that do real work, and Fedora for fileservers. We prefer using Fedora because the interface and management tools are similar to RHEL.

But, yeah, if I were using this as a desktop system I'd probably go with something else.

Re:Fedora?

[burnin1965]

Fedora still feels stuck in 1999 as far as I've used it

Sounds like you have never used Fedora.
Fedora 12
Fedora 13

Re:Fedora?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea, you are weird. Also, you're a fucking idiot...

Re:Fedora?

[r_jensen11]

Fedora has one of the best PPC32 communities I've found. The only other option I've found was Debian- Gentoo was one option, but that PPC32 community seems to be less than 10 people. Otherwise OpenSuSE's dropped PPC32 and finding versions for either Ubuntu or Slackware is a herculean challenge

Re:Fedora?

[CronoCloud]

Problem is that there's nothing "between" Fedora and CentOS. Fedora's a touch too bleeding edge in some parts and CentOS packages are a touch dated.

Odd GDM stuff on Fedora 12

[guacamole]

I use Fedora 12 right now. Every time I shutdown the system from command line in a terminal or console as root, the next time my computer boots, the GDM starts in 800x600 resolution or something like that. Restarting GDM once again fixes this. What's going on here? Is there a way to disable this nanny GDM behavior? Looked in a lot of obvious places, like it's configuration files, and I couldn't find the solution.

Another issue, is there a way to initiate a proper shutdown by pressing the power button of your PC? In this past pressing the power button would initiate the shutdown. In Fedora 12, instead a dialog posts out asking me to type a root password because more than one users is logged in (I often su to other accounts in terminals). Is there a way to change this behavior in 12 or 13? Thanks.

Re:Odd GDM stuff on Fedora 12

[Anonymous Coward]

After finishing with su work in a terminal, type "exit"; this will drop you out of root. Probably not the answer you're looking for, but it should work.

Re:Fedora?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't be more sane to run CentOS on the fileservers? Fedora is a desktop distribution.

Re:Fedora?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the videos you linked only reinforce the notion that the nineties are still in vogue...

Take a look at a recent Ubuntu, it's something different altogether.

Re:Fedora?

[sensei moreh]

I still use Fedora. I also still use Ubuntu. And I find that after getting my desktop set up the way I like it under GNOME, there's typically very little effective difference between the two. Right now, however, we have a somewhat significant difference. Fedora 13 ships with a nouveau driver that works with my on-board Nvidia 9100 graphics (and even does 3D if I install the experimental drivers in their repository); Ubuntu 10.04 does not; forcing me to use the proprietary Nvidia driver.

Lucky Number 13

[rwv]

Seriously... who releases a version 13 of anything? I did this recently on a project as an internal release and within a week a showstopper bug revealed itself so we had to patch it and jump to version 14.

Re:Lucky Number 13

[jmccue]

Slackware for one:

http://linux.slashdot.org/story/10/05/24/2333259/Slackware-131-Released?art_pos=23

2nd release for v13
congratulations to slackware and fedora for both v13 releases

Re:Lucky Number 13

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously... who releases a version 13 of anything?

Anyone rational who is has released 12 previous versions.

Superstitious people are welcome to stick with operating systems whose users believe in rituals like "reformatting" and magic charms to ward off "viruses". Those of us with functioning brains will enjoy Fedora 13.

Re:Lucky Number 13

[Libro]

Aha! You have proof of the effects of such a dastardly number! It must be true! I'm a little surprised that such superstitious nonsense is seriously put on a supposedly sensible site such as slashdot ... Maybe it's just me ;)

Re:Lucky Number 13

[VGPowerlord]

Have you also noticed that buildings don't have a 13th floor? The building I work in specifically adopted the British floor numbering system, where Ground and 1 are separate floors, to avoid having a 13th floor.

Re:Lucky Number 13

[Anonymous Coward]

In the words of Mitch Hedberg: "All you people on the fourteenth floor (i.e. version) - you know what floor you're really on!"

Torrent Download page

[ac7xc]

http://torrent.fedoraproject.org/

Re:Fedora?

[Spewns]

Fedora (AKA the Bleeding Edge of all Linux)

No.

Re:Fedora?

[Anonymous Coward]

A few years ago, I hired some Linux consultants to set up a file server, mail server, Asterisk server, and firewall. They used Fedora for each. I asked them the same question, to which they replied that Fedora has more support from the community then CentOS. I can only assume they didn't use RHEL because they would rather that we pay them for supporting our servers, which I don't mind because when we have a problem they can be on premises in fifteen minutes.

Re:Fedora?

[armanox]

Guess Network Manager, Pulse Audio, and several other similar tools are not cool either.

How about rz and sz? ;)

[antdude]

I still use it with SecureCRT and Le PuTTY (wished it was updated again and better since it is just a hack) in Windows. SyncTERM has it too, but crappy.

Re:Fedora?

[burnin1965]

I was at a linux install-fest a couple months ago where we were installing Fedora 12 and Ubuntu 9.10 on a pile of donated computers that were given to families that could not afford a new computer. Some of the kids there were swearing up and down by Ubuntu, how special and wonderful it is and how Fedora was no match.

While testing one of the Fedora systems one of the kids wandered by and exclaimed "Ubuntu!!! .... oh, that's Fedora". Silly kids.

The point of the story, other than some differences in file locations and scripts there is far greater similarity between Ubuntu and Fedora than there are differences. They are both using the same open source software. Its not like Windows vs OS/X. And selecting a brown color theme for your desktop is not some advanced futuristic feature. Grow up.

Case in point, Ubuntu 9.10 Desktop

Re:Fedora?

[burnin1965]

And pink is not a feature either.

Ubuntu 10.04

Re:Fedora?

[PitaBred]

Is there a reason you don't just use CentOS, which is all but identical to RHEL? Fedora is a desktop OS primarily.

Re:Fedora?

[V!NCENT]

????????????

Fedora usually has bits that aren't even in the Linux kernel yet, man. Latest X.org drivers and all. Do you even know what Red Hat sponsors and what features land in the latest Fedora before they even enter any upstream mainline repository? There are bits in stable Fedora that aren't even downloadable on Gentoo...

Also: Fedora is pretty Venilla alround. All the work that they do is mostly, if not all, solely upsstream. It realy is the biggest R&D project in the Linux realm. GCC, Gnome, Linux, KDE...

Ubuntu really is the middle ground between rock solid stable and bleeding edge... ;)

Re:Fedora?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's ironic you should mention PPC, since Fedora 12 was the last one where PPC was a primary architecture. Starting with F13, PPC is relegated to a secondary architecture. Whatever that actually means, it will end up with fewer developers caring about PPC issues.

Re:Let me save you some trouble

[binarylarry]

Windows 7 is a theme for Vista.

Not bad... for 2001

[macs4all]

Fedora 13 has just been released. It includes some major features like automatic print driver installation, automatic language pack installation, redesigned user account tool, color management to calibrate monitors and scanners, experimental 3D support for NVIDIA video cards, and more."

So, in other words, it's getting around to competing with OS X 10.2, right?

Oh, and I'm pretty sure that everything except the NVidia 3D support was available in OS X 10.0, which is over 10 years old.

Go ahead and mod me down; but dems da facts...

Re:Not bad... for 2001

[ElusiveJoe]

What is a reason for posting such retarded comments? Even if I was a Mac fanboy, I'd be ashamed.

Pulse audio doesn't have drivers

[pavon]

Can you please point me to this hardware compatibility list that you checked when you were "doing your homework". Because from what I can tell PulseAudio doesn't have any sound card drivers. It is just a sound server that provides network transparency and better mixing capabilites as an additional layer on top of the kernel sound support. It always uses an underlying layer like ALSA or OSS to talk to the hardware, as seen in this module diagram. Here is a full list of the PulseAudio modules - note that there are no direct hardware sinks, only sinks to other sound systems and piping capability.

Re:Pulse audio doesn't have drivers

[V!NCENT]

"Can you please point me to this hardware compatibility list that you checked when you were "doing your homework"."
Make a list of motherboards. Google the sound chip. www.google.com/linux "soundchip_name pulseaudio". Positive results are positive. Negative results? Find a different motherboard. Jesus that was undoable...

"It is just a sound server that provides network transparency and better mixing capabilites as an additional layer on top of the kernel sound support."
Yet PulseAudio requires all sort of features so you need to have a Pulseaudio fixed Alsa driver or else it will screw up :)

But hey you got the driver part correctly... not that it matters because almost no Alsa drivers that weren't fixed worked.

Some source: http://www.cio.com.au/article/320807/open_source_identity_pulseaudio_creator_lennart_poettering/?

Re:Pulse audio doesn't have drivers

[pavon]

Yet PulseAudio requires all sort of features so you need to have a Pulseaudio fixed Alsa driver or else it will screw up :)

Okay, that makes more sense. Thanks.

Re:Prien715 is Weird

[macs4all]

Ubuntu is actually hurting the open source industry. Most fedora users refer to ubuntu users as dumb people or the uburdumb people.

And THAT is EXACTLY why Linux is doomed. Because Linux users are too busy patting themselves on the back for being 1337, while usability continues to be neglected.

Wake up, idiot! Only about .0005% of the computer-using populace gives a SHIT about a CLI, or any of the other things self-styled ub3r 1337 hAx0rs cream their jeans over.

Doesn't make them "dumb" or "uburdumb"[sic], it makes them people for which a computer is a TOOL, not a reason-to-live.

usb-creator

[mister_playboy]

We have usb-creator on Ubuntu. It's been part of the default install since 9.04, IIRC.

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/FromUSBStick

Installing from USB is certainly the way to go.

Re:Let me save you some trouble

[Anonymous Coward]

AllUsersAreDevelopers(TM)

Re:Fedora?

[geminidomino]

You really picked some very bad examples to name...

Lost and confused - it is for usability

[dbIII]

The command line interface to NetworkManager WAS added as a useability improvement - it is so somebody can more easily run the thing remotely or on a server with no graphical interface.
Sometimes it is just easier to use words to get a message across instead of pointing at pictures.
However if you really want to see where usability is improving look at Maemo, web interfaces to linux routers and interfaces on linux based systems associated with televisions.

Bitrot

[jmorris42]

> Same thing happened to me back at Fedora 5, and 10 disagreed with some of my hardware.

I have similar problems that will prevent me from putting F13 on either of the machines I use.

My desktop box is stuck on F11. Linux (upstream) has had a broken driver for my Highpoint RAID card for years. (Years as in the newest OS I know of that has a working driver was RHEL4) I managed to get the free driver at Highpoint's site to build on F11's original kernel with a little patching but later ones break new things I haven't had time to troubleshoot. So F12 was out and while I'll boot a copy of F13 in rescue mode and check, odds are F13 is out.

Or there is the Thinkpad I'm typing this on. F12 went on and I have everything working. Oh hell yea! Spanking new lappy and everything is working! Of course I had to stop taking kernel updates for it when a kernel update broke undock support. It is RH bugzilla #573135 and still in NEW state over seventy days in so don't bet the rent money on it getting fixed in the F13 cycle.... maybe F14, or maybe I get stuck with F12 for years like my desktop box.

Which, if anyone at Fedora is listening, SUCKS BALLS on a system with a use by date shorter than a microwavable burrito. :)

Re:Fedora?

[Minwee]

Is there a reason you don't just use CentOS, which is all but identical to RHEL?

I expect that the cause of that decision could be found somewhere in layer 9 of the OSI model.

Re:Let me save you some trouble

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. I can fix a package for my OSS OS.

However, if I don't get the original maintainers to accept my patch and include it into the official distribution I'm as good as dead.

Do you realize the work needed to re-patch your system continuously?

And WONTFIX means they will not look at my patch favorably.

Hell I have some patches that have been given green light but are still in a limbo until they are committed and it has been like 6 months.

And that is for an OS I care about and care about individual developers not having the time to do something. If RH did that to me I would move on to Ubuntu.

update in a week

[Anonymous Coward]

If on day, flaws are found, give the Fedora Devs a week to iron them out. AKA, do a full update in a few days to a week and see what shakes out.

hell no- underpinnings remain icky

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole "RPM" / Fedora / RED Hat world is a mess last I checked. While not all Debian derived distributions have the resources to maintain themselves at least the underpinnings are sound and reliable. As a result you have decent distributions like Ubuntu. You can upgrade from Ubuntu 8.04 to 8.10 to 9.10 to 10.04. They have repositories and package management systems that work. While the "App" style web store interfaces could use some work it sure beats anything Fedora and the other RPM based distributions. I think Xandros Warehouse actually had the best system / easiest to use system I've ever seen. Although Linspire had the largest repository in 5.0 I've ever seen. While recent releases of Ubuntu have been as well and better integrated than Linspire 5 (it took some years to get there though) it still lacks what Linspire 5.0 had in polish. Though Ubuntu is more stable and security is much better than Linspire ever was. The problem with Linspire was they kept changing directions, never got the repositories stable, and kept screwing things up.

Re:hell no- underpinnings remain icky

[MikeBabcock]

Do you actually know what you're talking about, or are you just spouting off things you've read online?

I've directly updated my Fedora installations for quite a while now, without any problems. I intend to do a full reinstall with F13 because I have a new drive to install it on and want to check out the new installer features, but otherwise I would just get a notice like I did in F11 to optionally move up to F12 on my next boot.

There are plenty of people working on Fedora, and the packages between Redhat and Debian distros aren't so different. A lot of the major stuff is identical, since they both depend heavily on essentially third party packages.

Re:hell no- underpinnings remain icky

[bill_mcgonigle]

Do you actually know what you're talking about, or are you just spouting off things you've read online?

In fanboi forums no less.

I've got a machine in my office that's running Fedora 12 x86_64 that has been yum upgraded since it was installed as a Redhat 9 box.

i386 to x86_64 was a bit tricky, I wouldn't necessarily recommend that, but within the same arch, it works well to the extent your package's maintainers care about their users.

Re:Prien715 is Weird

[laddiebuck]

GP is an idiot but so are you. I happen not to give a shit about the tech industry -- about all I follow is a couple of Slashdot stories every week. I just need to get things done as efficiently as possible. There's no faster way for just about any general-purpose task involving a computer than the Unix shell. When you get to specialised tasks, it's often the case that a program that deals with text interfaces is still going to be the fastest, because you can mangle text or edit it much better with grep/awk/sed/cut and vim/emacs or in a pinch perl/python than with anything else. And if your OS is built around text, which you get with the Unix CLI, then you're gold.

All I'm trying to say is that the computer to me is not a "reason-to-live" as you put it, just another tool like my car. But it so happens that the fastest way to get things done and get things done that would be impossible with other interfaces, and do all this with the minimum rise in blood pressure, is the Unix CLI. And that's why I run Debian Linux -- it doesn't get in my way, just gives me more power than the non-Unixlike OSes. (OS X really gets in my way and I hate it even though it has acceptable underlying tools.)

Re:Fedora?

[armanox]

Well, they're not cool. But a lot of people like them.

OpenJDK, Plymouth, and DRI2 are probably better examples. (Especially DRI2). And YUM + presto beats apt-get any day.

Re:Fedora?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was at a linux install-fest a couple months ago

Well, there's your first problem. Take my advice and stay away from computer orgies. Even more deplorable that children were involved. Absolutely disgusting.

Wherefore art thou, 3D?

[Progman3K]

I scanned the release notes, couldn't find any mention of 3D support...
What is the added 3D support, exactly?

Re:Wherefore art thou, 3D?

[Ant P.]

Nouveau can render polygons now. It's roughly at where ATI support was about 4 years ago.

Re:Fedora?

[geminidomino]

I wasn't saying they were not cool so much as they WOULD be cool if they weren't a constant source of irritation to so many people.

In all the complaints I've had/read about Ubuntu and Fedora not working right, the top three are those two plus video drivers. :)

Hurray!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow! Welcome to 2007 Fedora!

Re:Fedora?

[Vectormatic]

awesome, you just made my day :)

i wiki'ed it to be sure, but my first guess when seeing layer 9 was right on the money

Re:Fedora?

[StuartHankins]

Support. I can pick up a phone and make a call and I'm almost immediately connected with someone who, even if they can't immediately solve the problem, can open a ticket and start that process.

Of course if it's a "server down" type of issue I can call 24/7 and get someone immediately. We're a large enough company that production OS's are expected to have support.

There's another side of it too though -- if you want the field to keep innovating, you have to fund someone. Red Hat happens to be one of the larger Linux OS companies with paid developers on staff. CentOS, while giving some marketing share for RHEL-compatible systems, gives nothing back to the community unless you're also donating somehow.

Re:Fedora?

[StuartHankins]

Arrrgh... Please ignore parent (my) post. I have multiple Fedora/RHEL posts going and I thought I was responding to a different one.

We use Fedora rather than CentOS so that we can try out new features ahead of their implementation in RHEL. For instance we tried out virtualization in Fedora 12 to compare with RHEL 5. These are just fileservers and that functionality is pretty basic stuff.

Re:Prien715 is Weird

[macs4all]

(OS X really gets in my way and I hate it even though it has acceptable underlying tools.)

Why? What "gets in the way" about being able to have your GUI and CLI, too.

I do understand why certain tasks MIGHT be easier or even possible in CLI-world than in GUI-world (mostly due to the GUI designer making tradeoffs between having a clean, consistent GUI vs. having every single knob and switch exposed). But I simply cannot understand why most, if not all, Linux geeks would be so actively hostile toward an OS (OS X) that, while not completely F/OSS, is at least created by a company that actively participates in the F/OSS community.

Do you feel like OS X "gets in [your] way" because certain System directories are normally "invisible" to the Finder? You DO know that you can reach ANY folder with the Finder's "Go" command, right? And there is a simple preference change to make it so that, not only does the Finder show ALL files (with extensions), but you can see/navigate to all the scary bits that Apple normally hides from "dumb users". I have found that those two changes make most Linux users a lot happier with OS X, because every single Linux user thinks they will DIE if they don't do two things: 1) Run as root (usually needlessly; 2) Poke around (needlessly) in the depths of the System directories.

So, why wouldn't you like an OS (OS X) that has Unix underpinnings and a bitchin' CLI, but still lets you run Photoshop, Final Cut Pro, VectorWorks, Logic/ProTools, et cetera, NONE of which has a REASONABLE Linux counterpart, and NONE of which would be ANY fun to (try to) manipulate from a Command Line. I mean, can you imagine drawing a 3D model of your house using a CLI? As I said, some tasks lend themselves to a CLI. OS X has that. And some tasks lend themselves to a GUI. OS X has that (and arguably better than Linux), AS WELL AS THE ACCESS TO BEST-OF-BREED APPLICATIONS that use that GUI (which Linux does NOT).

I'm really not trying to fan the flames of war, just curious as to why all the hate of an OS that really does pull off the best of both worlds. And please don't start that tired "It's a proprietary OS" stuff; because your arguments were USABILITY-based (CLI vs. GUI), not PHILOSOPHY-based (Open vs. Closed).

There are ALSA drivers that are "nicer"

[Sits]

Pulseaudio typically talks to ALSA on Linux and as such what the ALSA driver exposes and how it behaves can influence what happens in Pulseaudio. For example, I remember hearing that there were bugs in the emu10k1 ALSA driver with regard to reading back the current hardware pointer. It is also worth noting that different drivers will be able to report back different levels of information - not all drivers return volume decibel information for example. I can see how different "hardware" could influence the Pulseaudio experience.

Having said that, I don't ever remember seeing a Pulseaudio "hardware compatibility list". Hopefully these days the most egregious issues having been fixed or worked around.

Re:Let me save you some trouble

[Dishevel]

What you are expecting is that everyone must love and support your fix forever.

What I am saying is that OSS OS gives you the ability to do what you want with it. That is not bullshit. If you want other people supporting and updating your OS on a regular basis that can be had with OSS. If you want to take what they did and customize it to better fit what you want you can do that as well with OSS. Just because it is a wonderful system dose not mean you are entitled to everything you want simply because you think it is best.

I can see that you are very angry at people not doing what you want them to do. That is something you must deal with yourself.

Re:Fedora?

[CronoCloud]

Try Yellow Dog, still pretty active, mostly PS3 users though.

Re:Prien715 is Weird

[laddiebuck]

Why? What "gets in the way" about being able to have your GUI and CLI, too. I do understand why certain tasks MIGHT be easier or even possible in CLI-world than in GUI-world (mostly due to the GUI designer making tradeoffs between having a clean, consistent GUI vs. having every single knob and switch exposed). But I simply cannot understand why most, if not all, Linux geeks would be so actively hostile toward an OS (OS X) that, while not completely F/OSS, is at least created by a company that actively participates in the F/OSS community.

Don't get me wrong, I run a GUI -- fluxbox or Gnome depending on whether I'm using a laptop or desktop. I need a GUI as a framework because there's no browser to beat Firefox and because I need calendaring for my job and that means Thunderbird, though I prefer pine. Fluxbox doesn't get in my way and lets me do things easily; Gnome isn't so good at letting me do things easily but still doesn't get in my way. And I'm not anti-Apple, their record of openness on desktops is decent; they're no saints but apart from mobile devices they're not fascists.

What I hate is OS X's interface. I gave it a try for a couple of months. It really gets in my way and takes away a lot of power. Sure it's got some decent ideas but it's fundamentally broken. I want to alt-tab between windows, not apps. Even with third-party apps I never found a way of doing so. Terminal is a piece of crap just like every terminal emulator since xterm and rxvt (yeah, gnome-terminal and konsole, you guys suck too). So I run xterm, but that doesn't play nicely with "Spaces" which is a very brittle implementation of multiple desktops, as you'll know if you've tried alt-tabbing between X and native apps on multiple Spaces. I really couldn't comment on the Finder as I never use graphical file managers, and there's no hiding going on in the shell.

I thought my original post would have made it clear that I don't like to poke around and tinker, but I appreciate that I can configure things as I want to if I need to, after consulting some manual or after some Googling. I found this somewhat true of OS X too; obviously less so than on Linux but it was clear that they made an effort to have a robust Unixlike OS with text config files.

I guess I'm also not your target user. I don't give a fig about Photoshop and I don't even know what the other tools you list are. For the very simple image editing I need to do sometimes, I use the gimp, and sometimes I burn an audio CD or video DVD with k3b or something. I don't collect my own photos and videos, and I think making a 3D model of my house is a waste of time. It sounds like you're rather more into the tech world than I am, because I just don't care about photo/video editing. I manage my information in a simple text file in vim (ca 10k lines) and my data is logically organised in a directory structure. Therefore I don't need apps to manage my data, because I get around in it much more quickly with the generic tools.

Basically to answer the question which you implied but didn't ask, which is what it would take for me to like OS X as much as I like Linux: from a broad philosophical standpoint, if they made the GUI more configurable so I can adapt it to my workflow instead of adapting to it. I mean I had to install a damn third-party app (Insomnia) to prevent sleep on lid close. On the detail side, if X apps were first-class citizens, you could alt-tab between windows, if they made the window manager as powerful as any run-of-the-mill X window manager (seriously Aqua is anaemic), and perhaps documented the system config files so I didn't have to Google to configure anything they forgot to put in the System Preferences tool. I don't mind having to install GNU awk or date from third-party repositories to work around their totally lame awk and other standard tools but if they provided the GNU tools themselves that would be nice too. I'm not from the Windows world so I want more power from my OS and if you don't appreciate that I need GNU awk and an xterm and fluxbox or Gnome because the equivalent apps on OS X are light-years behind, then don't try to champion OS X.

My machine is a MacBookPro from last year and I gave OS X a decent chance for 2-3 months. Now I run Debian on it.

Re:Prien715 is Weird

[macs4all]

What I hate is OS X's interface. I gave it a try for a couple of months. It really gets in my way and takes away a lot of power. Sure it's got some decent ideas but it's fundamentally broken. I want to alt-tab between windows, not apps. Even with third-party apps I never found a way of doing so.

...blah, blah, blah, can't be bothered to look for blah, blah, blah

My machine is a MacBookPro from last year and I gave OS X a decent chance for 2-3 months. Now I run Debian on it.

Yeah, you gave it a BEGRUDGING chance, you mean. Here's what I found in 500 milliseconds (really!) of Googling:

So, to crib from the list, You can "Alt-Tab" between either every single window in every single application (Ctrl-F4), or only in the frontmost application (Command-`). For fuck's sake, I dare say there are enough keyboard shortcuts in OS X that it begins to resemble emacs ( ;-) ). In fact, I DARE you to remember all these. Quite frankly, I was amazed that there were some of these. FFS, OS X has defined keyboard commands to do stuff I've never even thought of doing, like "Decrease the size of the selected item" (!!!), or "Copy the formatting settings of the selected item and store on the Clipboard" (!!!!!). You see, much like the old DEC terminals, Apple has an additional modifier key (Command), and so can actually (and apparently does) have more keyboard shortcuts than most OSes.

Oh, and as far as your "Keep running while lid is closed", what you mean is "Clamshell mode", and can be invoked with a simple keypress on startup (if attached to an external display). And if you wish to disable the lid "sleep" sensor, you don't have to "install a damn third-party app", you simply have to enter "sudo pmset -a lidwake 0" (if you want to do it on any power), or "sudo pmset -b lidwake 0" (if you want it to only do that when on batteries).

BTW, I don't even own a MacBook or MacBook Pro and I Googled both answers about "lid closed" operation in 2 seconds. Literally the first and second hit on the first search page.

So, it seems like YOU are the problem, not OS X.