Slashdot Mirror


Fedora 15 Released

halfline writes "Fedora 15 was released today. It features GNOME 3 (with its substantially redone UI) and the systemd init system by default." The release also brings the latest KDE and XFCE versions, improved Btrfs support, amd a switch from OpenOffice.org to LibreOffice. Installation images are available from the usual sources.

171 comments

  1. In unrelated related news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    CentOS 6 was still not released today (big surprise)

    1. Re:In unrelated related news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they can't even get things like Unicode support implemented after 14 years what luck do you think fixing bugs like that has? They couldn't even fix the bugs in the old style discussion system's pagination which shouldn't have been THAT hard to reimplement that it justified an entire rewrite of the comment system twice.

    2. Re:In unrelated related news... by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      CentOS 6 should start pushing out to the public mirrors early next month.

      The QA team should have had the trees for about a week already, and would be receiving the ISO images for QA later this week.

      Hope this helps.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  2. "Btrfs" by MrEricSir · · Score: 2, Funny

    The last time I heard "Btrfs" was from right behind me, after eating too many beans.

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    1. Re:"Btrfs" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      If your asshole is capable of making a "t" sound, I suggest you see a proctologist immediately.

    2. Re:"Btrfs" by clem · · Score: 1

      It's a brave proctologist who probes those depths. Making a "t" sound requires teeth.

      --
      Your courageous and selfless spelling corrections have made me a better person.
    3. Re:"Btrfs" by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Not teeth, a pallet.

      Try saying "This tricky tricycle is trippy" and pay attention to where your tongue goes. If you use your teeth for anything except the "th" in "this", then you have a strange accent or you may consider seeking out a speech therapist.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    4. Re:"Btrfs" by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1

      ...or to be laying in a bathful of water when you fart.

      Allegedly.

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    5. Re:"Btrfs" by vlpronj · · Score: 1

      If you have a pallet in your mouth, your rectum, or any other body orifice, it's probably not a good thing.

  3. Torrent by kai_hiwatari · · Score: 5, Informative

    The direct download was quite slow for me. Torrent was faster for me. http://torrent.fedoraproject.org/

    1. Re:Torrent by drb226 · · Score: 1

      In my experience, new releases of large FOSS projects are always very fast to torrent.

    2. Re:Torrent by rasmusbr · · Score: 1

      I downloaded it at full speed from the Fedora site. Maybe it is because I'm in Europe where it is late in the evening.

    3. Re:Torrent by Homburg · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well of course. As you can see by reading Slashdot, all of us use torrents only for seeding Linux distributions, and nothing else.

    4. Re:Torrent by drb226 · · Score: 1, Informative

      Don't forget the many^H^H^H^H CC-licensed movies/TV shows, such as Pioneer 1.

    5. Re:Torrent by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      I understand the karma of having a bleeding edge iso but don't most ISPs mirror such downloads?
      Wait 24 hours and it'll be cached locally and 'unmetered'.

    6. Re:Torrent by Omnifarious · · Score: 1

      Strangely enough, in my case, that's true, though not because I haven't tried to download anything else. I haven't yet found a torrent site that had a user interface that even came close to working on my Linux box. They all have tons of Javascript cruft on them that I don't want to run and obscure the URL for the torrent.

    7. Re:Torrent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      tpb has been pretty useable. I do actually only use torrents for linux isos. for my tv, movies, etc. I prefer that other network that we don't talk about, the one that predates the internet.

    8. Re:Torrent by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      demonoid is good, if you get lucky or someone is willing to extend you an invitation. No porn is allowed, which is (IMO) a good thing.

      There's a lot of the usual stuff, but there's also tons of things that /are/ legitimate. I myself seed 5 or so torrents with the author's permission.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    9. Re:Torrent by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      ISPs hosting mirrors? HAH!

      We wish we had that. If we ever did, it stopped somewhere in the 90s. (USA)

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    10. Re:Torrent by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      TPB is okay if you use FireFox with adblock. Banners are okay but those animated ads annoy hell out of me.

    11. Re:Torrent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      without adblock, most of the www is very annoying.

    12. Re:Torrent by Eil · · Score: 1

      ISPs hosting mirrors? HAH!

      We wish we had that. If we ever did, it stopped somewhere in the 90s. (USA)

      http://mirrors.fedoraproject.org/publiclist/Fedora/15/

      Scroll down to the US mirrors, you'll see plenty of ISPs hosting Fedora mirrors.

    13. Re:Torrent by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Consumer ISPs. Internap et al doesn't count.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    14. Re:Torrent by Eil · · Score: 1

      Fine, here are some of the consumer-facing ISPs that host Fedora 15 mirrors:

      • xmission.com
      • canbytel.com
      • tds.net
      • nexicom.net
      • pavlovmedia.com
      • hiwaay.net
  4. Cool by der_alte · · Score: 0

    but I haven't yet finished fine tuning my new and shiny Kubuntu installation.

    1. Re:Cool by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      I know that you're kidding, but for those who will try it: You _can_ use the same /home partition in Fedora and *buntu, but remember to chown all your files to user 500 for Fedora or 1000 for *buntu. Same rules for all other RedHat based distros (users start from 500) and Debian-based distros (users start from 1000).

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    2. Re:Cool by ChrisMP1 · · Score: 1

      I think it would probably be easier to just set the UID to 1000 in Fedora (the installer gives the option, IIRC).

      --
      <sig>&nbsp;</sig>
    3. Re:Cool by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      Nice, thanks! I did not know that the installer gives this option. I had either missed it or it did not exist when I was still installing Fedora Core, up to version 6.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    4. Re:Cool by sensei+moreh · · Score: 1

      Looks like Fedora is going to move to 1000 with F16 http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2011-May/151663.html/

      --
      Geology - it's not rocket science; it's rock science
    5. Re:Cool by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      Wow, thanks. The link 404s but I was able to find the thread. It is mentioned that upstream uids begin from 1000, I didn't even notice when that change happened.

      This should probably be it's own /. story, this is an important change and needs to be more widely known.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
  5. network update? by softWare3ngineer · · Score: 1

    is there a option to update over the Internet yet? switch away from fedora because it was a pain to download a new dvd every 6 months to update versions.

    1. Re:network update? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, always has been. I just prefer a clean reinstall than a update, so I just download the net install cd image.

      But if you want to:

      http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/YumUpgradeFaq

    2. Re:network update? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      yum install preupgrade
      preupgrade

      Posted from an F14 box that's been preupgraded since F11. My laptop at home was F13-F14-F15alpha-F15.

      Its been there for a while.

    3. Re:network update? by WillKemp · · Score: 1

      is there a option to update over the Internet yet?

      Yes, you can do an online upgrade. I haven't tried it though.

    4. Re:network update? by hierofalcon · · Score: 2

      Install the pre-release package and then do

      yum upgrade

      Or load the new product keys into your rpm database yourself, reset your yum repo lists manually to the next release version, and execute the above command.

      Usually this requires a small number of package deletions and reinstalls after the upgrade, but some work systems have been upgraded since FC1 without needing to do a new fresh install. In most cases, you can even do them live now and reboot when you're done. Occasionally you need to restart a service before the upgrade is complete, but it usually does pretty well. Be sure to try it on a test box and not a production server though. Just be sure to read the release notes first and handle all the .rpmsave, .rpmnew, and the like configuration file changes where you'd made changes from the defaults.

      Still has to be done with each new release every 6 months or so. It will be nice if they ever move to a moving release structure instead that you can just keep updating, but I doubt that will ever happen.

    5. Re:network update? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please mod parent up. This is the way to go! I've done this for F12 -> F13 and just recently for F13 -> F14. Super easy!!!

    6. Re:network update? by StuartHankins · · Score: 1

      +1 Informative. Thanks for the info -- I've been using Red Hat since it was called 5.2 (before Fedora Core existed) and somehow missed this option.

    7. Re:network update? by S.O.B. · · Score: 1

      I'm like you. I think the only time since F8 that I reinstalled was when I switched from i686 to x86_64.

      Although, I did give the CD upgrade a shot, after backing up of course. The install had an embolism part way through and left me with an unbootable system. I knew it wouldn't work but I just had to see what it would do.

      --
      Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
  6. Is it better? by ADRA · · Score: 1

    I really really love the UI of the Fedora 14 GUI and of Windows 2000(much of XP), I really really hate Windows Vista/7, and I'm mostly ambivalent when it comes to the OSX philosophy. The question is, am I going to hate the new Gnome 3 look and feel, or what?

    --
    Bye!
    1. Re:Is it better? by Picass0 · · Score: 2

      Gnome 3 almost looks like it's been optimized to be a tablet environment. I'll play with the new Gnome, but I'll have to be really impressed to switch away from KDE.

    2. Re:Is it better? by hierofalcon · · Score: 0

      From the comments on the Fedora Forum, I'd guess hate. I use KDE, so I really don't Kare what Gnome does.

    3. Re:Is it better? by schwep · · Score: 1

      I tried Gnome 3 with a pretty open mind (I also liked Gnome 2 interface), and couldn't cope with it. I was not able to configure anything of value to me. Despite being a Fedora contributor (just 1 package), I dumped F15 for Scientific Linux 6.

      Gnome 3 would be really cool on a tablet, just not a desktop where you actually do work. In fairness, I was unable to switch to either of the other window managers (KDE, etc.).

      I liked the rest of Fedora 15 because it worked well on my laptop (hardware support-wise). I just couldn't make the UI work for me.

    4. Re:Is it better? by Greger47 · · Score: 2

      Exactly my impression to, I think it would be great for tablets.

      But for desktop not so much, it feels like a mouse marathon back and forth over the wide-screen monitor to launch applications, switching desktops etc.

      /greger

    5. Re:Is it better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought so too until I figured out the keyboard shortcuts and installed alternate-tab (http://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/Extensions/alternate-tab)
      Now the UI feels very good. Certainly better than OSX, and I haven't really used Windows for awhile.

    6. Re:Is it better? by walshy007 · · Score: 1

      Out of curiosity, what made you unable to switch to the other window managers? by most accounts kde is very accessible (in both kde and gnome I mainly use alt-f2 to load things so it makes no difference).

      Just seems odd to switch a whole distro because one desktop manager changed.

    7. Re:Is it better? by justsomebody · · Score: 1

      ok, that has to be either worst joke ever or lame attempt at trying to post serious troll comment.

      if anything... shell is abso-fucking-most configurable desktop ever. you can extend/change abso-fucking-lutely everything with simple javascript. granted, since g3 was just released, not many extensions are present yet and gnome-shell by it self is not really feature rich environment and neither was any other desktop when they switched release. moving from gnome 1 to 2 was especially terrible. old and new gtk worked and looked differently, one had utf8, other didn't... same troubles at kde camp from 3 to 4. c'mon developers need to sleep too and if they wait to release full featured version without period of change they'd need to support 2 versions.

      if anything, work like that really deserves benefit of a doubt until 3.2 or 3.4. people making extensions might surprise you. just google on how to make extensions and see how brilliant it is. and yes, i do love shell... after i installed places extension and made 3 extensions for my self i can really say i was never so productive

      --
      Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
    8. Re:Is it better? by ADRA · · Score: 1

      Self-answering my own question, I tried the distro in VirtualBox, so immediate impressions:

      1. It crashed doing somewhat simple tasks (VM acceleration conflicts between NV driver, VBOX, Gnome3? I dunno, but it was annoying)
      2. The title bars are retarded wastes of space, and I hate the monochromatic ways that title bars no longer stand out.
      3. The navigation really does look geared toward tablets and not desktop computers... where is my Linux DESKTOP.... *sigh*
      4. I really really hate the IOS check box style.. Was the classical check box SO inferior? I mean its things like that which really erk me. 'Lets change things for no good reason' Its somehow subjectively better for me (or the 3 of us) and we should all jump on it.
      5. Everything was scaled way too large, so probably related to DPI issues (once again, may be because of Vbox). If the system would stop crashing, I may have found the menu setting to fix it.

      To be completely honest, the best thing I liked about Gnome 3 was when it was in fail-safe fallback mode. At least then it looked like Gnome that I've loved over the years.

      To me anyways, It looks like half the gnome team are in love with MAC/IOS based UI concepts. I just don't understand. If you love them so much, why not just use a mac? I love gnome for what it is, not for it to look exactly like -desktop environment of the month-.

      --
      Bye!
    9. Re:Is it better? by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      well if I can plop an icon on the desktop without having to make a widget or new action its already leaps and bounds over KDE 4

    10. Re:Is it better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't.

      Also, icons on the desktop are a terrible way of doing things, and I for one am glad that both KDE and GNOME have moved away from them in search of better approaches.

    11. Re:Is it better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you can do that in KDE 4. Someone hasn't been paying attention.

    12. Re:Is it better? by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      That's opinion only. You may not like it but that's just you. There are plenty that like to drop icons on the desktop. It's annoying to do things one way for ages and then get jerked around just because someone decides that the way you do things is wrong. Hell this ain't Microsoft.

    13. Re:Is it better? by reub2000 · · Score: 1

      Agreed. You can still add icons to the desktop, it just isn't representing a folder where crud seems to accumulate.

    14. Re:Is it better? by Pecisk · · Score: 1

      You can use also Meta/Windows key too.

      --
      user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
    15. Re:Is it better? by sensei+moreh · · Score: 1

      XFCE wouldn't work for you?

      --
      Geology - it's not rocket science; it's rock science
    16. Re:Is it better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your post reminds me of something else you wrote earlier:

      "BEST CAR IN UNIVERSE!!!!! only missing 3 tires and there is no engine, but do not fear... space where you can put your own engine is intact and perfectly cleaned. also, sits and wheel can be be included with additional purchase, as special feature mirrors were cleaned daily"

      Looks like gnome3 is the BEST DESKTOP IN THE UNIVERSE!!! Only missing the ability to do basic things like change the fonts, theme, colour scheme etc etc. Missing several other features too, but do not fear... you can just spend hours learning javascript and writing extensions to gain functionality which is already provided by every other wm/desktop system. I don't want to upset you, I just thought I'd spin things around on you. You've got to admit that GNOME3 is lacking some important stuff.

  7. Re:Does it still crash all the time? by ZankerH · · Score: 3, Informative

    Protip: Fedora Core 4 was released almost 6 years ago. This is ancient history in free software development terms (unless you're HURD), and you should assume any experience you had with it is irrelevant to any modern GNU/Linux distro, Fedora included.

  8. Well ... by lennier1 · · Score: 1

    Might be interesting to see how systemd will work out in something other than Arch and Debian (unstable).

  9. Re:Does it still crash all the time? by WillKemp · · Score: 1

    So you haven't used it, and know nothinpg about it, but still feel the need to comment???

  10. You are way out of date. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Network updates have been possible for about 10 years.

    1. Re:You are way out of date. by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      My soho server has been yum upgraded since it was a Redhat 9 box. Only i686 to x86_64 was a bitch, but I couldn't not try. I learned that probably I shouldn't have done that.

      It started out as a P4 desktop unit, now its a Phenom II x6 running Xen 4. Most upgrades do require a touch of knowledge about yum and rpm, and a read of the release notes. But, compared with re-installation/reconfiguration it's not a big deal.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  11. KDE !=Linux by Picass0 · · Score: 1

    Don't blame Linux for KDE's stability issues.

    1. Re:KDE !=Linux by ehrichweiss · · Score: 1

      KDE is a lot better than Gnome 3; that's for certain. I had been using Gnome right up until this release and now I find Gnome completely unusable for my needs. Their "simplification" of the GUI was the worst idea I've seen in ages, and they don't even allow for a way to switch to the old way of doing things so I was forced to switch to KDE, which required some getting used to but overall was configurable enough to somewhat duplicate my previous environment.

      --
      0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
    2. Re:KDE !=Linux by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      I, OTOH, went to XFCE. As you say, it took a little getting used to, but I've no regrets. Much faster, less of a resource hog and it lets me do things the way I like, not like some ivory-tower dev thinks I like to do things.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    3. Re:KDE !=Linux by ehrichweiss · · Score: 1

      I tried XFCE but it must not be well configured on my end cause I couldn't get it to do much. I'll probably play with it more in the future though.

      --
      0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
  12. Re:Does it still crash all the time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    cool story bro stop posting srsly

  13. Gnome 3 Shell by HRbnjR · · Score: 5, Insightful

    After half an hour with the Gnome 3 Shell I *really* want my old desktop back :(

    My initial impression is that all fundamental tasks, like launching apps, switching apps, switching desktops, etc, all take far more motions and/or clicks to accomplish than before. It appears as though all my app launchers have been pulled from their organized menus and dumped in a big messy pile I have to search through. And it doesn't look like I can customize the layout like I could before.

    Maybe it will grow on me, maybe I will learn and adapt (I'm trying to give the Gnome dev's the benefit of the doubt here), but as it stands after my initial half an hour, I *hate* it, and I don't think I'm going to be nearly alone?

    1. Re:Gnome 3 Shell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nope, I did as well. Trick is to stick it in fallback mode (via system settings->system info). That'll give you the familiar Gnome panels, albeit in black and without the ability to customize found in the Gnome 2.* series.

    2. Re:Gnome 3 Shell by macemoneta · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've been running F15 since the beta. It took a couple of days to acclimate to gnome-shell. I used to run Gnome2+Compiz+AWM, so it's a considerable change. Even so, I'm quite comfortable with it now and have no intention of switching back.

      --

      Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.

    3. Re:Gnome 3 Shell by amiga3D · · Score: 0

      I was the same with Unity on Ubuntu 11.04. After playing with it in a virtual environment for a while I just said to heck with it. Maybe in a year or two it'll be okay but I think I'll stay with Gnome in 10.10 for at least 6 months. I'll revisit for 11.10 and see if they've smoothed it out because it definitely looked rushed out the door. It could be the same with Gnome 3.

    4. Re:Gnome 3 Shell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You don't have to use Unity in Ubuntu 11.04. Just install xfce or your desktop of choice.

    5. Re:Gnome 3 Shell by synapse7 · · Score: 1

      I dislike the "pile" layout for launchers also. Maybe it is more intuitive coupled with a touch interface.

    6. Re:Gnome 3 Shell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to hold when right clicking most of the panel stuff now.

    7. Re:Gnome 3 Shell by rlillard · · Score: 2

      I agree that it is confusing. I been running a F15 release candidate for the last month or so. There are some features of Gnome3 that have to go away and will as soon as I have some spare time to dig into it. I must point out that Gnome3 is the lesser of two evils. I began using Redhat back in the mid-90s. When Ubuntu released Dapper I switched my working desktop to it because of the reduced admin effort. My current desktop is Lucid.

      About 2 months ago I heard Ubuntu was moving away from Gnome and downloaded Natty just to see what the fuss was about. That lasted about 2 weeks. I blew Natty away and downloaded Mint/Xfce. Wasn't very happy with it either. So now I'm back to Redhat/Fedora/Gnome3. For me, Ubuntu the wrong direction. Loss of the network transparent graphical environment was the final straw. If I wanted an Mac, I would have bought a Mac.

      Gnome3 will take some getting used to, but I am confident I can open the hood and fix the things that drive me crazy. The first to go will be windows that maximize themselves when I push the title bar to the top of the desktop. I don't know who thought that was a good idea, but they need a dope slap.

    8. Re:Gnome 3 Shell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been using F15 for about a month with Gnome 3. It's a little bit to get used to, but as an interim measure, install avant-window-navigator. It puts a mac-like dock on the bottom of the screen and, as they say, Bob's your uncle.

    9. Re:Gnome 3 Shell by Pecisk · · Score: 1

      Well, maybe you missed 'Applications' tab in Activities field, because it's all categories are available. Afaik old way of editing gnome-menu should work too.

      --
      user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
    10. Re:Gnome 3 Shell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Now it's KDE users' turn to be smug and laugh while their rivals go through a painful transition.

      Maybe you should give KDE a shot, in fact. You can set it up with desktop icons and a task bar with a menu button on it, just like Gnome 2!

    11. Re:Gnome 3 Shell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am confident I can open the hood and fix the things that drive me crazy.

      Well, just be careful you don't kill gnome-shell twice, or too quickly, else you get the "Oh no!" screen in your face, and are invited to logout. Fortunately, if the only reason you're being forced to logout is that the bloody "Oh no" screen won't get out of the way, you can press Alt+F4 to get rid of it.

      Funnily enough, there was no need for a fail whale screen before.

    12. Re:Gnome 3 Shell by justsomebody · · Score: 1

      heh, if this is not customizable then i don't know what is;) i can only imagine what everything people will think of for extensions.

      http://www.webupd8.org/search/label/gnome%20shell?max-results=10
      http://blog.fpmurphy.com/

      --
      Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
    13. Re:Gnome 3 Shell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just packed up and moved over to KDE 4.6. Gnome 3 is probably great for tablets.

    14. Re:Gnome 3 Shell by mugurel · · Score: 1

      After half an hour with the Gnome 3 Shell I *really* want my old desktop back

      Personally, I have gmrun bound to a convenient key combination, and I firmly hope that will help me through the looming nuclear winter of redesigned desktops. http://directory.fsf.org/project/gmrun/

    15. Re:Gnome 3 Shell by Zappy · · Score: 1

      I can probably get used to it on my 10" netbook. It is a definite no-go for anything larger.

      I will definitely select the fallback mode on my 17"laptop and for sure on my 2x 24" desktop.

    16. Re:Gnome 3 Shell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been using Fedora 15 since it went alpha. The Gnome 3 change was hard for me to get used to as well. However, I now prefer it to the old style.

      I actually find launching apps in Gnome 3 to be much faster and easier than with Gnome 2:

      - hit the super key (or windows key)
      - start typing the name of the app (sometimes typing what the app does works, too: for example, "browse", for Firefox or the "Image Viewer")
      - when it appears in the list, either use the arrow key to move over to the app if you have a few options, or just hit enter if it's already selected

      See, no mouse needed!

      Gnome 3 does have some failings. I use two monitors. If I move a window to the second workspace, only the left monitor actually will show the new workspace. The right monitor continues to display the apps from the first workspace instead of displaying only the desktop (or the app I just moved there). I can't tell if this is a feature or a bug. 8/

    17. Re:Gnome 3 Shell by Jim+Hall · · Score: 1

      I experimented with the Beta, and I like the usability in Gnome Shell. I find it very natural. Yes, you have to "let go" of some things you learned on Gnome 2, but you need to "let go" of certain concepts whenever you switch from Windows to Linux, or Windows to Mac, or Mac to Linux. One feature that hooked me was how open windows (your "activities") are represented. It's sort of like MacOSX's Espose, move your mouse to "Activities", and it shows everything. From there, you can also open new "activities" (programs). It's an all-in-one menu that makes a lot of sense.

      I had the Beta installed on a USB flash drive, and I'd boot into that sometimes. When I'd boot back to Fedora 14 (or Windows 7) I felt like the old desktops were primitive.

      And I'll also add that the font rendering in Fedora 15 is awesome. Fonts looked great on earlier versions of Fedora, but they look smoother and easier to read in the new desktop. Not sure if I should credit a change in Fedora's preferred font rendering, or if this is an improvement in Gnome 3.

    18. Re:Gnome 3 Shell by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      See, no mouse needed!

      Yes, we're back to the glory days of DOS and command-line Unix.

      If the fastest way to start a new program in your GUI is to guess the name and type it in, then you're doing something wrong.

    19. Re:Gnome 3 Shell by dotbot · · Score: 1

      For me, Ubuntu the wrong direction. Loss of the network transparent graphical environment was the final straw.

      With future Ubuntu, are you saying that e.g. in a secure shell on another machine (ssh -Y me@othermachine) I can't run a graphical application using my X server? Perhaps I have misunderstood what you meant by network transparent. I thought any graphical environment was built on X11 and so just worked over the network...

    20. Re:Gnome 3 Shell by armanox · · Score: 1

      Perhaps Wayland doesn't support that? Remember Ubuntu is ditching X11, and that Wayland is not feature complete (from what I've heard).

      --
      I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
    21. Re:Gnome 3 Shell by supersloshy · · Score: 1

      Try to learn the keyboard shortcuts (Windows, Alt+Tab/Alt+`, searching to launch apps... etc.). It makes the experience much better than the other desktops I've tried. Also, check out some of the fantastic GNOME Shell extensions that have been released on the internet. There's a places/device menu extension icons on the top panel, a less slide-y message tray, etc. To tell you the truth, though, I don't use GNOME 3 with any extensions at all; it works that well for me. Read the documentation, approach it with an open mind, and it might just grow on you like it did to me and many other users :)

      --
      "Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
    22. Re:Gnome 3 Shell by AdamWill · · Score: 1

      Why? Universal search, which is what this is, is a great interface. You don't have to guess the name; it searches the filename, menu entry name, and menu entry description too. So you can just type in something the app you want *does*, and it'll probably find it, since that word will be in the description.

      You can already do web searches on terms you type in by clicking a couple of buttons in the overview, and down the road it won't just search apps, it will search documents, browser history...just about anything.

    23. Re:Gnome 3 Shell by thaig · · Score: 1

      XFCE is quite a good alternative now - just install it and the option will appear in your login menu. YMMV but I found it to be a happy enough home.

      --
      This is all just my personal opinion.
    24. Re:Gnome 3 Shell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I haven't tried Gnome 3, but I am using Unity and I feel the same way about it. However, I know that Gnome 2 was looking dated, and that the Linux desktop needed to improve - so I am willing to struggle through and get used to it. I think both Gnome 3 and Unity are a step in the right direction - change is good, but a little painful.

    25. Re:Gnome 3 Shell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I shouldn't have to read documentation to learn a bunch of shortcuts. A UI should be self evident. When I want to use the keyboard, I use the CLI. Tab completion is fast and launches apps for me. When I use a GUI, I expect the mouse to be quick and efficient and not require a keyboard to accomplish anything. I suppose with a laptop, your hands are already in position to type or mouse. With a desktop, the mouse keeps you hand away from the keyboard. It's not convenient to keep moving your hand to and from the mouse and keyboard.

      I think these new UIs are completely forgetting they need to work with multiple interfaces. They're also heavy on the eye candy to look cool and fresh. Personally, the desktop should not be the focus. It's merely the means to get to the real applications. I want to be able to launch my apps, see any status I want to see and easily switch between open applications. That's all the shell really needs to accomplish for me.

    26. Re:Gnome 3 Shell by dotbot · · Score: 1

      Remember Ubuntu is ditching X11

      Well, that would explain it! It would be a terrible decision to drop network transparency, unless they're just interested in converting Windows and Mac users...

    27. Re:Gnome 3 Shell by supersloshy · · Score: 1

      It's not convenient to keep moving your hand to and from the mouse and keyboard.

      You have two hands, right? Most people do. If you do, just keep one hand near the keyboard and the other near the mouse. Problem solved.

      I think these new UIs are completely forgetting they need to work with multiple interfaces. They're also heavy on the eye candy to look cool and fresh. Personally, the desktop should not be the focus. It's merely the means to get to the real applications. I want to be able to launch my apps, see any status I want to see and easily switch between open applications. That's all the shell really needs to accomplish for me.

      Last I checked, it already does all of that very well. A tap of the windows key and then typing/clicking on a favorite is all you need to launch an app. Notifications are also visible in the message tray (bottom-right corner) in and out of the overlay. Switching windows can be accomplished by simply clicking on the window, using Alt+Tab/Alt+[above tab], the overlay (a tap of the windows key; there's even an extension to make navigating the windows in the overlay with the keyboard possible), the dash (favorites list)... There's more than enough ways to switch the windows you have open. Also, GNOME 3 was designed to be usable on desktops, small screens (which they admit they have a few problems with right now), and touch devices (which is going to be better in 3.2).

      The documentation for GNOME 3 is very easy to read; it's not like a confusing man page or anything. Just type Alt+F2 and type "yelp" (or look for the launcher for Help in the applications menu). You can also read around online if you want, but yelp is also very helpful.

      --
      "Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
    28. Re:Gnome 3 Shell by nobodie · · Score: 1

      I worked with gnome shell twice during the testing process. First time just could not make it happy for me. But then I quit it and went back to gnome 2 and.... well somehow I seemed to be able to see better what they were trying to do. I get the idea that is driving it and like that idea.

      So, I tried it again and once I got past the hump I didn't go back. I am still using fedora 14 with the old gnome shell from the repositories which is a very older version, I am planning on upping in the next few weeks though and will be happy about it I think.

      People are complaining about change, but, to quote a Taoist text from 1300 or so: The only changeless change is Change. We have to move on, its just what people do, even as they kvetch about it.

      --
      Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.
    29. Re:Gnome 3 Shell by rhendershot · · Score: 1

      there are so many things I can no longer do with gnome3

      - create a launcher on my desktop that has a complex command
      - park a link to something on my desktop that I want to review later
      - group launchers (ie drawer) for easy click access
      - monitor system usage (ie applets)
      - ALT-F2 a program (try gnome-ter ...it does not know the program exists)

      Many have stated the idea that it's easier to meta-key and search. Well, the program names change both for the actual executable as well as the friendly-name (eg Pidgin) so remembering every program association is far more effort than creating a launcher that I can put on my desktop or into a panel or panel drawer. My current gnome2 requires at most 2 clicks to launch a program in debug mode with a custom working directory... I cannot do that with the default launcher from the search results and even the simplest is several clicks into arbitrary menu structures or abated attempts at searching ("messaging" as opposed to "pidgin".. puhlease!)

      I'm at a loss for words as to how sheeplish gnome3 feels. It's like some early beta of windows vista that was trying to mimic a Mac.

      In short: I hate it.

    30. Re:Gnome 3 Shell by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      Go to the system config and find the entry to turn graphics on (It is off by default). Log out and log in again and you will have a gnome2.x desktop style, which you can reconfigure to as many as you require. This option gives you some of the new with some of the legacy.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
  14. Re:Does it still crash all the time? by sourcerror · · Score: 1

    That's why I'm asking.

  15. Re:Does it still crash all the time? by sourcerror · · Score: 0

    Is a questionmark that hard to interpret?

  16. Re:Does it still crash all the time? by amiga3D · · Score: 1

    Linux ATI support doesn't suck, ATI's linux supports sucks....well....actually it's more like it swallows.

  17. Gnome Shell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Personally, I like Gnome3, but I have a feeling this release is going to irritate a lot of people. There's no way to go back to gnome2 (afaik) and the fall-back mode falls far short of including all of the features gnome2 had. OTOH, systemd rocks and is what SMF on solaris _should_have_been_. Using XML AND shell boilerplate to replace just shell boilerplate in SysV init was monumentally retarded. The new service script syntax is concise, short, and is what a good init should have been for many years now. Built-in dbus integration and process handling eliminates the need for folks to include syslog output (print to stderr, dbus will pick it up and forward it), or any of the BS process parent/pty/forking/daemonizing that everything does now. I've been on F15 since alpha and I'm loving it.

  18. Just installed it and... by hey · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...I like it. The faster .drpm alone is worth it.

    1. Re:Just installed it and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are the terrible things that yum does? I mean, in 2011, not 2003 or whenever you are thinking of. Regularly using both apt and yum, I find myself either ambivalent about which is better, or being slightly happier with yum's searching and informational capabilities (at least the ones that don't require reading the whole man page to find out about).

    2. Re:Just installed it and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of the problem is PackageKit rather than yum. It constantly steals the yum lock in the background, usually right after you've run a "yum search" and have just finished typing "yum install the-package-you-found", and has rubbish documentation and interfaces so dumb that they actively make their users stupider.

      So after you've finished removing that useless POS from your computer (seriously, what problem is it supposed to solve? Were people really getting confused because different OSes that they didn't use had different software update GUIs?), the remaining issues are:

      1. It's slow. This is the era of low-powered devices. yum crawls on netbooks; GUIs like yumex are unusable. When you run a simple search in kyum, it literally says "Please be patient, this may be a lengthy operation..."!

      2. It doesn't have any good frontends. PackageKit is an abortion, yumex is uselessly slow, kyum has the least user-friendly interface ever invented, everything else is abandoned. There is nothing as good as Synaptic and nothing nearly as good as aptitude's curses interface.

      (My main criteria for defining "good" in a package manager front-end are: effective search, incremental dependency resolution, and an interface that gives priority to more important information -- I want to see "Python (an interpreted, interactive, object-oriented programming language)", not "An interpreted, interactive, object-oriented programming language (python)" like PackageKit stupidly insists on showing, apparently being under the impresion that this is more user-friendly.)

    3. Re:Just installed it and... by siride · · Score: 1

      Okay, admittedly, I've only used yum from the command line. I'll agree the synaptic and aptitude are great frontends. I'll recuse myself from further discussion on this topic.

    4. Re:Just installed it and... by cswiii · · Score: 2

      I've been using smart package manager nearly exclusively for a long time now. There is the occasional unfortunate GUI bug but they seem to get rectified pretty well. And if you want, you can always use the CLI backend.

      http://labix.org/smart

    5. Re:Just installed it and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Faster DRPM" has been in Fedora since Fedora 11 at least.

      All you have to say is yum -y update and it downloads the delta RPMs, patches the cached RPMs and updates the system.

  19. Re:Does it still crash all the time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fedora hasn't crashed for me in .... Maybe since FC4/5.

    Binary ATI support requires a non Fedora Project repo, but really it's not that hard to use your google-fu. The binary driver works just fine, don't think I've had a crash even with high FPS games.

  20. In related related 503 news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey assholes! Modding me down does NOT fix your problem! Get your shit together, would ya? Or find somebody who knows what the fuck they're doing, cuz you sure as hell don't! Incompetent fucking clowns. You're devolving back into amoebas. No offense intended to the real amoebas out there.

  21. Re:Does it still crash all the time? by Dog-Cow · · Score: 0

    It helps if you don't ask your question (solely) in the subject line.

  22. Re:Does it still crash all the time? by RotateLeftByte · · Score: 1

    So download it, try it and then come back here with the answer to your questions.
    As an aside, FC4 is regarded by many as a 'bum' release.

    --
    I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
  23. Re:Does it still crash all the time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Things have much improved since then. Fedora now features abrt, which will automatically spam redhat bugzilla with dupes of your crashes. And with F15, it can do it quicker, thanks to less debuginfo downloading.

  24. Re:Fedora in my pants by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

    Where did you find a hat small enough for that head?

  25. I *could* like it by Junta · · Score: 1

    So as one who is fairly chaotic about app install, I never liked/used menus anyway, so pressing Meta, then starting to type what I want is natural. It's a fancier run dialog for me in essence.

    My problem is I'm similarly chaotic about opening many windows, many tabs, many applications. Compiz and KDE4 has it just right, I can search and it will remove from the scaled window display any windows that do not match the search string. KDE and Windows 7 offers a weaker, but distinctly useful alternative of previewing all windows associated with an app icon. With only those two capabilities (the window preview on mouseover in the activities view acting like Unity on mouse click), I could get behind Gnome 3. Well, that and the ability to customize keyboard shortcuts, I have way too many nested remote desktop scenarios to conveniently take defaults (and I just prefer some things).

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  26. As for the desktop design... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The desktop design is awesome. Since my first step into the linux world around '02, I loved the concept of virtual desktops and the "pager". I first started to use it with enlightenment at that time.

    Either way the concept is pretty simple. You use 1 virtual desktop for one task sort of speak. My own personal example would be;

    Desktop 1: 4x terminals
    Desktop 2; IRC & IM
    Desktop 3: File Manager
    Desktop 4: Browser
    Desktop X: Whatever application you want to use.

    If you also save the session, everything will start up where you left it. Perfect! To me the design decision that the Gnome team has made towards this is awesome to say the least. There's a few oddities in regards to the UI but it's either themeable or modifiable.

    I will also use this opportunity to say that the spatial file manager design they came up with a few years back was retarded. With a metaphor of putting stuff in drawers. Christ. Talk about thousand mouse-clicks of death.

    Either way, this is a smooth try at using the desktop like I have for years. Congrats!

    1. Re:As for the desktop design... by kvvbassboy · · Score: 1

      My setup is quite similar to yours, and I see what you mean. The notification system, and saving the session is awesome. Personally, I thought it was better than Unity in terms of looks, direction and the fact that they want to do something unique.

      But, it severely lacks an easy way to get an overview of your desktop, and it overall requires too many finger/mouse gymnastics.

      Some changes like providing an "expo" like feature will be nice. Giving a list of applications running in the current desktop on the bottom panel would be great too. It could turn out to be a great desktop for my personal use, with a few changes. But, for now, I am most comfortable with Gnome 2.32 and KDE 4.6.

      On a side-note, systemd provides highly noticeable benefits to the boot time, and it is not as memory intensive as some people make it out to be. I would say about 600 MB for parent's setup.

    2. Re:As for the desktop design... by AdamWill · · Score: 1

      "But, it severely lacks an easy way to get an overview of your desktop"

      Er, what? Shell is _built_ around an overview. Just hit the start key.

  27. Re:Does it still crash all the time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hi, I'm here from the Hurd anti-defamation league, and wanted to point out that while progress is slow, it's actually doing pretty well.

    It's doing so well, in fact, it's *almost* ready for noobs like yourself to try:

    http://www.archhurd.org/news/19/

  28. Re:Fedora in my pants by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

    Rob Malda's underwear drawer? *ducks*

  29. LLVMpipe? by suy · · Score: 1

    Has some Fedora user tried LLVMpipe with some desktop apps that require OpenGL (like Gnome Shell)?

    LLVMpipe is supposed to bring CPU-based rendering to apps that otherwise would require a working graphics card with OpenGL support. Seems backwards at first, but it would be a more coherent experience: if you don't have working graphics drivers, you have the same experience (slower), instead of a fallback mode, or a different implementation (like Unity 2D instead of the "normal" Unity).

    It could also pave the way for Qt 5 apps, because Qt 5 is going to require OpenGL too. If LLVMpipe works decently it would be an improvement for developers. They could use OpenGL features to make their lives easier, without worrying too much about if the user has proper drivers.

    1. Re:LLVMpipe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My understanding is that LLVM pipe is a work in progress and as such, hasn't implemented the parts of the Open GL spec that the 3d window managers use.

  30. Lamo's will be upset. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lamo's like OSGUI will be mad because he doesn't know command line lol.

  31. Hate to say it... by Junta · · Score: 1

    But delta rpms are nice and I don't know (haven't seen) equivalent stuff crop up in apt. apt/deb was light-years ahead in the beginning, but yum/rpm has more or less caught up and even has some nice stuff missing from apt/deb (though yum incessantly refreshing the metadata by default annoys me personally, increasing time to install a package unnecessarily).

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    1. Re:Hate to say it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      debdelta has been around for years.

  32. Re:Does it still crash all the time? by sourcerror · · Score: 1

    I was just curious as it's supposed to be bleeding edge, and at the time there was too much bleeding. However, I never had any luck with ATI drivers, as I tried various distros a year ago (Centos, Suse, Ubuntu; HD 3800 card). And even if I use the default driver (ie no 3D acceleration, software rendering), in Blender every second menuitem won't be rendered.

  33. GNOME 3 at it's glory; Fedora strenghts/weakneses by Pecisk · · Score: 1

    First of all, I installed Fedora 15 alpha/beta because I wanted to try GNOME Shell in production. If you have tried Ubuntu GNOME 3 team PPA, you'll know what I mean. It is also a problem because Ubuntu 11.04 lacks lot of depencies necessary for smooth sail (like NM 0.89/0.9 beta).

    Nevertheless, I'm quite familiar with all kind of distros (10 years on Linux Desktop...ohh...it is that long already?), so Fedora isn't something new for me. It was also interesting to see what have changed over the years.

    First of all, Fedora has solid repository system, using yum. Adding repositories are very easy (using special rpms with distribution configuration files for yum), and software is more or less up to date. It is huge change from antique rpm command only system. RPM Fusion repository fills your "evil side" needs like commercial codecs and software :) Also delta rpms are very interesting concept and while building delta change list requires some time for descent system, download size is cut seriosly, so this technology definitely has a future.

    Fedora 15 ships GNOME 3 almost unchaged, in it's full glory. It makes sanse if we remember which paid for GNOME 3 development in first place. This is also reason why it makes sense to try in on Fedora.

    I will skip detailed analysis about why I like GNOME 3 (or GNOME overall). Mostly because why I'm all for freedom to change your desktop at your will, I don't like to do it myself (too much real life I suppose). Anyway, while concept (for GNOME Shell that is) seems to be strange and you need to relearn some motor skills, it pays back after several weeks. Mostly GS works because it is very simple - top panel (you can't change it), Activities view with dock and that's mostly it. I'm surprised that I really like switching between apps using Activities view. with few windows it feels like too much, but with ten it definitely helps Also Alt+Tab with Alt+` is very nice touch (especially when you talk on phone and try to find app with another hand using Alt+Tab).

    In overall I really love it. When I heard that Canonical will make Unity default as I was saddened because I thought it is the end for GNOME 3. Well, it doesn't - and if Canonical won't start deliver soon with Unity and someone will make serious effort to make good distro with GNOME 3 as default, Mike will have to run for his money.

    --
    user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
  34. live media by mathfeel · · Score: 1

    Why are all main stream distribution still only release their live/install media in CD/DVD image file? Why not USB? The only distro that I know of offers that is Arch. I have at least two laptop that doesn't have an optical drive. Yes, I can use UNetbootin to make one, but in this day and age, why not just offer an image? Why are we still burning onto write-once media (few, if any, use cd-rw for this purpose?) like cdr/dvdr that become obsolete when a new version comes out and are really toxic to the dumpster.

    Side question: what is the proper way to throw away cdr/dvdr's?

    --
    The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the 'social sciences' is: some do, some don't
    1. Re:live media by halfline · · Score: 1

      Why are all main stream distribution still only release their live/install media in CD/DVD image file? Why not USB?

      you can put the fedora live isos on usb sticks. You either dd if=iso of=/dev/sdb1 or use liveusb tools to get a read-write overlay that persists across reboots.

    2. Re:live media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Put 'em in your microwave for 3 sec, after bbrrzz show, throw away. Disclaimer: I live in TN, that is the "proper" way. Improper would be to whirl it out back of the trailer.

    3. Re:live media by bfields · · Score: 2

      Look over to the right of the download page. Note where it says "To install Fedora using a USB stick, follow these instructions."

      (Also note the command line version of the instructions amount to just dd'ing your choice of iso images onto a usb stick.)

    4. Re:live media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fedora provides a graphical utility for making a bootable Fedora USB drive. It's already included as part of Fedora 14.

    5. Re:live media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Fedora/Redhat/CentOS/Scientific/Mandriva/Mageia/Suse ISO files are dual mode. Just copy it to a USB stick using dd or cat. This has been a feature for many years.

      It is only with the Debian distros that you still need to jump through hoops.

    6. Re:live media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're not. The CD-sized ISO images of most if not all mainstream distros can be written to a USB stick. There are even GUI programs to do this, eg imagewriter in opensuse .

  35. Re:Does it still crash all the time? by ZankerH · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is a first for me, but mod AC parent up. This is genuine news to me and deserves exposure.

  36. Depends on how technical you are by Sits · · Score: 1

    As another reader pointed out, you can put a Linux ISO on to a USB stick. I know Fedora and Ubuntu both come with tools to do just this. Another option that has been supported for as long as I've been using Linux distros has been net booting - you download a tiny image and then install over the network. If you can do bootp you don't even need to put the small image on the machine using removable media.

    Finally something I learned is that you can quite bootstrap an install CD if you have the technical chops and a machine which has a bootloader that lets you boot arbitrary kernels. You typically unpack the ISO to a spare partition, grab the vmlinuz and initrd/initramfs and then boot that and pass the options that let it know which partition contains the rest of the install. It was initially very painful to learn how to do this but it does mean you don't need any new media on machines which have something like grub already working (or you can put grub on a USB device and then boot off that).

  37. Re:Does it still crash all the time? by Osgeld · · Score: 1

    well TBH FC4 is the main reason I switched to a debian system and have never looked back, I wonder how many of us there are out there?

    Not that I would not try it, but I will need a bit more persuasion than "we exist", there is plenty of that in the linux world

  38. Seems half baked to me by Thalaric · · Score: 1

    I hate to say it because I'm a big fan of gnome and fedora, but from a technical standpoint this release is really sub par. I've had more problems with installation with 15 than any I can remember in recent history.

    - For the first time the installer requires more than the 512gigs of ram on my laptop, had to do a network update
    - new kernel won't detect network card on PC, had to force latest fedora 14 kernel to get online
    - Oh look, evolution changed it's mail folder structure and decided to delete all my existing email
    - Random freezes when doing large file transfers??
    - Now my PC hangs indefinitely on reboot unless I hit the power switch
    - Gnome shell is a little clunky but its growing on me. To bad they removed every menu option to turn off the computer except the oh-so-useful Suspend... the option every computer needs except the vast majority that aren't laptops

    1. Re:Seems half baked to me by fwarren · · Score: 1

      The brain trust at Gnome knows better than us end users. The most intuitive way to do things is to have suspend option that changes to a shutdown option when you hold down your ALT key.

      Brilliant, no wonder I am just an end user. I could never ponder such transparency.

      --
      vi + /etc over regedit any day of the week.
    2. Re:Seems half baked to me by Thalaric · · Score: 1

      s/512gigs/512megs/

    3. Re:Seems half baked to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try holding down alt when trying shutdown, the suspend will switch to shutdown.

    4. Re:Seems half baked to me by fnj · · Score: 1

      Phew. I was worried there for a moment. I think the fact that I was worried even for a moment says more about my low regard for the Gnome developers than it does about my gullibility.

    5. Re:Seems half baked to me by greg1104 · · Score: 2

      Well, sure, if you only have 512GB of RAM on your laptop, you're not going to be able to use all the GNOME Shell capabilities. Systems with less than a terabyte of RAM will have to adopt lightweight alternatives like Compiz or Plasma. Be sure to upgrade your hardware if you want to take advantages of all the latest wizardry from the GNOME project!

    6. Re:Seems half baked to me by AdamWill · · Score: 1

      why would the memory requirements of the Fedora installer have anything at all to do with GNOME developers?

    7. Re:Seems half baked to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because both projects are mostly comprised of code written by Redhat employees. Haven't you noticed? Fedora is morphing into GnomeOS.

    8. Re:Seems half baked to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because both projects are mostly comprised of code written by Redhat employees. Haven't you noticed? Fedora is morphing into GnomeOS.

      Oh wait! Silly me. You already knew the answer to your own question because you work for Redhat! In the interest of full-disclosure and transparency, you should identify yourself as a Redhat employee/fedoraproject member when commenting about your company's product.

    9. Re:Seems half baked to me by Jack+Malmostoso · · Score: 1

      Oh look, evolution changed it's mail folder structure and decided to delete all my existing email

      I had a moment of terror as well when I upgraded to Evolution 3.0 in my Debian Sid system last week.
      Your mail has not been deleted, but it has been moved in another folder (can't remember exactly where, I'm at work stuck with WinXP) in Evolution.
      What I did, I simply re-imported all of my email from the "old" location (~/.local/share/evolution/mail IIRC), scanned everything for Junk, used the "remove duplicate messages" function and I was good to go.
      But yeah, weird.

      P.S.: Make a backup before you start.

    10. Re:Seems half baked to me by AdamWill · · Score: 1

      Well I was just asking a question, it didn't seem relevant. You do know that the people who work on GNOME and the people who work on anaconda at Red Hat aren't the same people, right?

  39. Re:As for the desktop design.. by fwarren · · Score: 1

    On the other hand, it does not work for me. I use a desktop setup much like the parent poster does. The problem lies in the fact that all of these apps MUST be started up. If for any reason whatsoever you close out the final app on a desktop or the final app on a desktop crashes, that desktop goes away and the other desktops "shift" up by one. Now the Browser is no longer on desktop 4, it is on desktop 3.

    In addition to that I use ctrl+alt+left and ctrl+alt+right to move between desktops, and having the ability to wrap around from 4 back to 1 or from 1 back to 4 is nice. The way Gnome shell uses ctrl+atl+up and ctrl+alt+down and the lack of desktop wrapping is an issue for me.

    With Fluxbox I am able to do the following right out of the box:

    Ctrl+Fx = goto desktop
    Winkey+Fx = send app to desktop
    Ctrl+Winkey+Fx = goto deskop WHILE sending app to desktop

    Ctrl+Alt+left/right = goto next/prev desktop
    Winkey+left/right = send app to next/prev desktop
    Ctrl+Winkey+left/right = goto next/prev desktop WHILE sending app to desktop

    Without even taking my fingers off of the keyboard I have more control over my virtual desktops in a program written a decade ago than I do with Gnome Shell. Along with the ability to set shortcut keys for launching apps like:
      ctrl+alt+c = calc

    Or chaining keys such as ctrl+alt+k (for KDE) thus:
    ctrl+alt+k+b (for browsing, bring up konqueror)
    ctrl+alt+k+c (for kcalc)
    ctrl+alt-e (for editor, kate)
    ctrl+alt+s (for shell, konsole).

    Along with the ability to have rules for where windows end up or being able to set up a keyboard shortcut to start a program if it is not running, and if it is running, either to bring the program to my current desktop, or to switch to the desktop where the program is currently running at. I can also run Dock Apps for launchers, pagers, utilities, status indicators, and clocks instead of being forced into app indicators. I have seen nothing better than wmmsg http://www.dockapps.org/file.php/id/169 at letting me know I received an IM while I was gone. As long as I am at a desktop and not a hand held tablet, Fluxbox beats Gnome Shell 3 hands down. I have a 6 year investment in my keyboard shortcuts that Gnome Shell can not match.

    The funny thing is all of the stuff they are doing to bring virtual desktops so front and center that users can't help but use them, kills off a lot of the usefulness of virtual desktops.

    --
    vi + /etc over regedit any day of the week.
  40. Fedora and NVidia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has Fedora done anything about problems concerning NVidia cards? I tried 12,13, and 14 but X kept freezing on me with either the proprietary driver or nouveau. I haven't had such problems on other distros, but no such luck on Fedora. I have used the tricks I found in the forums but none worked well.

  41. Re:Does it still crash all the time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder how many of us there are out there?

    Judging by Fedora's 27 million users, the largest user base of any distro, my answer would be "not that many."

  42. Re:Does it still crash all the time? by dbIII · · Score: 1

    More than you would think I expect. The linux on my phone and on my netbook is derived from Debian and both can take some Debian packages (eg. installed the Inkscape Debian package on a stock eeePC about two minutes after I heard it was possible).

  43. Re:Does it still crash all the time? by Alien+Being · · Score: 1

    Give it a spin and find out.

    For me... FC1 was good, 2 was better, 4 better still. I'm still using 6 as my desktop and media center. I've been using Redhat variants with KDE for 13 years now. I average somewhere around 60 day uptime and 30 days between desktop restarts.

  44. Re:Does it still crash all the time? by X0563511 · · Score: 2

    12, 13, and 14 were pretty solid from my experimenting. Hell I even managed to cooperate with SELinux!

    Give it a try.

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  45. Re:Does it still crash all the time? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

    6? Wow...

    Hell you'd have a better (and just as stable, if not more so) time using RHEL5/6 or CentOS5/6 - or Debian should you want a break from the RH family.

    That is unless you have particular wants/needs keeping you using older versions of just about everything.

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  46. Re:Does it still crash all the time? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

    I started with Debian back in 2001 and to this day keep flopping back between the two. I really have no complaints and feel just as at home in either. I mean, when you can build packages for either system without too much trouble, this tells you something.

    Hell the current stable on both feels modern enough for me to have no need/want for something "fresher" like Fedora or (shudder) Ubuntu, and they both have the rock-steady stability we love.

    The one thing RHEL/CentOS has going for it is the close SELinux integration. Getting to that point in Debian is a pain in the ass. Call me a weirdo but I like SELinux.

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  47. Re:Does it still crash all the time? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

    I hate when people do that, especially people who do it in email.

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  48. Re:Fedora in my pants by X0563511 · · Score: 1

    Like this. Just put it in an inventive location... (SFW)

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  49. Re:Does it still crash all the time? by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

    You must be new here. Welcome to Slashdot where people routinely comment about things they know nothing about.

    --
    Good, inexpensive web hosting
  50. Tried Gnome-3 for 1 hour... by msevior · · Score: 1

    Just upgraded my laptop from F14 - F15 with preupgrade. It all went very well.

    Congrats everyone!

    I've been playing around with gnome-3 for about an hour and I'm getting the hang of it. It's definitely different and is certainly cool. I miss is my cute little applets especially power, network and system load. Are they gone from gnome-3?

    Also I'd like to change the pure white text on black theme of the bar thingy at the top of the screen.

  51. Typo in the article by IllusionalForce · · Score: 0

    "The release also brings the latest KDE and XFCE versions, improved Btrfs support, amd a switch from OpenOffice.org to LibreOffice."
    I'm pretty sure it should read "and a switch."

  52. XFCE by Yenya · · Score: 1

    Same here. After almost 10 years with GNOME, I have migrated to XFCE for F15.

    For former GNOME-2 user, XFCE provides almost the same experience: it is based on GTK, and their Terminal even is based on the same widget as gnome-terminal. I have kept my window-manager (sawfish), so the user interface is almost the same.

    Unfortunately, in F15 the Galeon browser is no longer provided, so I had to migrate to Firefox, which is my biggest change in F15 from the UI standpoint. I will miss Galeon's smart bookmarks.

    XFCE even supports the "desktop icons are minimized applications" mode (the default option is "desktop icons are application launchers") as the old window managers like twm or fvwm had.

    --
    -Yenya
    --
    While Linux is larger than Emacs, at least Linux has the excuse that it has to be. --Linus
    1. Re:XFCE by BreezeC · · Score: 1

      Because don't like Gnome 3 , I use Xfce now.

  53. Re:Does it still crash all the time? by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1

    Would you mind not interrupting us, please???

    I'm currently cutting up his eggs for him & any minute I know he's going to be popping his head out the bathroom door & calling down to me to come up & wipe his backside for him.

    --
    Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
  54. Re:GNOME 3 at it's glory; Fedora strenghts/weaknes by drunkahol · · Score: 1

    You said "First of all" twice. Doesn't count the second time.

    I would mirror most of the rest of what you said though. GNOME 3 is actually pretty good - unless you WANT your desktop to be based on Win95.

    Cheers

    D

  55. cool by virtuosonic · · Score: 0

    does it work? or does it crash?

    --
    http://agender.sourceforge.net/ get a free schedule tool
  56. Support for Fedora 14? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

    Does anyone know how long Redhat/Fedora will keep supporting Fedora 14 with updates and security fixes?

      I tried Fedora 15 with the Gnome_shell and KDE and both are not for me. I intend to stay with Fedora 14 as long as there is support before I quit Linux. I may switch to Fedora 15 and use it as a server only. I played with Scientific Linux based on RHES 6.0 but it is Fedora 11 and it does not come with the same kind of software like Joomla, books on Java and Python development, and other things that Fedora has.

    1. Re:Support for Fedora 14? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Does anyone know how long Redhat/Fedora will keep supporting Fedora 14 with updates and security fixes?

      About 7 more months.

      I played with Scientific Linux based on RHES 6.0 but it is Fedora 11 and it does not come with the same kind of software like Joomla, books on Java and Python development, and other things that Fedora has.

      Did you check out the EPEL project for those wares?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    2. Re:Support for Fedora 14? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Wow!

      Thanks a lot. I may use scientific linux 6.x for awhile now until Gnome-Shell 3.1 and some extensions come out to fix it.