Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Fedora 17 Released

Posted by timothy on from the sounds-like-a-movie-title dept.

ekimd writes "Fedora 17 aka "Beefy Miracle" is released. Some of the major features include: ext4 with >16TB filesystems, dynamic firewall configuration, automatic multi-seat, and more. Major software updates include Gnome 3.4, GIMP 2.8, and GCC 4.7. The full feature list can be found here. Personally, I still find Gnome 3 to be an 'unholy mess' so I'm loving XFCE with Openbox."

141 comments

  1. I've got your Beefy Miracle right here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Seriously, could we have selected a different name? Tee-hee!!!

    1. Re:I've got your Beefy Miracle right here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Your mom loves my "Beefy Miracle"

    2. Re:I've got your Beefy Miracle right here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Yep, she loves it because you can fuck her while she's asleep because she won't feel it.

  2. Beefy Miracle by stevegee58 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Good heavens, what an unfortunate name for a Linux release.

    1. Re:Beefy Miracle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      For whatever reason, I find it to be hilarious. I'm not much of a fan of Ubuntu's naming scheme, but this one from Fedora struck a chord with me. I guess it's my inner 12 year old that finds this amusing.

    2. Re:Beefy Miracle by Junta · · Score: 3, Informative

      I find it amusing that as a result of this name, I think this kicked off:
      https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Future_Release_Naming

      After several tries at getting 'Beefy Miracle' in, and the leadership seemingly forced to accept it. Hence a new naming process.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    3. Re:Beefy Miracle by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 5, Funny

      Good heavens, what an unfortunate name for a Linux release.

      You think that's bad, Ubuntu 13.04 is going to be called Rampant Rabbit.

      --
      Summation 2
    4. Re:Beefy Miracle by hendridm · · Score: 1

      They were looking for something that fit the B.M. initials. At least it wasn't called Bowel Movement.

    5. Re:Beefy Miracle by MrHanky · · Score: 5, Funny

      Ubuntu 8.04 was a spoonerism for Hairy Hardon. Once someone pointed it out, it became practically impossible to remember the original.

    6. Re:Beefy Miracle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Likewise. I don't know why there's such a commotion. In a world where everything is overmarketed and calculated, I enjoy the increasingly rarer instances of defying, refreshing silliness.

    7. Re:Beefy Miracle by idontgno · · Score: 1, Funny

      What? That's the releasename?

      I think I got an email about that, but I thought it was herbal enlargement spam and deleted it.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    8. Re:Beefy Miracle by jones_supa · · Score: 0

      Agreed!

    9. Re:Beefy Miracle by houseofzeus · · Score: 2

      Luckily "Spherical Cow", which is much more sensible. won the vote for Fedora 18. http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/announce/2012-April/003067.html

    10. Re:Beefy Miracle by lipanitech · · Score: 1

      I used to be a big fan of red hat and fedora but lately Debian and Ubuntu are my distros of choice. Backtrack has been my latest distro since I am a security guy.

      --
      http://thetechnologygeek.org/
    11. Re:Beefy Miracle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to be a big fan of Debian and Ubuntu but lately Fedora and CentOS are my distros of choice.

    12. Re:Beefy Miracle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to be an adventurer like you two, but... wait, I can't play Skyrim on Linux!

    13. Re:Beefy Miracle by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      Some of the suggestions are really lame. Pandas - Chinese names transliterated into random phonemes that few can pronounce let alone remember. Sports - cool idea when it's snowboarding or beach volleyball but who's going to code for fedora 28, lawn bowls? :-)

    14. Re:Beefy Miracle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It just so happens that's my porn name!

    15. Re:Beefy Miracle by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      Yes, but it is halel and kosher too.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    16. Re:Beefy Miracle by DaVince21 · · Score: 1

      I like the page that links to: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Markdude

      --
      I am not devoid of humor.
  3. Beefy Miracle? by Joehonkie · · Score: 2

    That is honestly the worst release name I ever heard. It sounds like a porn star nickname.

    1. Re:Beefy Miracle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would that be fat-ass or super-fat-ass?

    2. Re:Beefy Miracle? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2

      And the version sounds like a political cause. "Justice now! Release the Fedora 17!"

    3. Re:Beefy Miracle? by Viol8 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Unfortunately a lot of linux distro coders don't seem to know where the dividing line between wryly amusing and lame is when it comes to naming releases. The novelty of Ubuntus silly release names wore off for me personally around 5 years ago. All I want a OS so please just stick with the release numbers and don't treat me like a 7 year ago girl looking for a new cuddly toy.

    4. Re:Beefy Miracle? by philip.paradis · · Score: 1, Funny

      don't treat me like a 7 year ago girl looking for a new cuddly toy

      And with that, I'm honestly afraid of the kind of replies you're apt (oh wait, they use yum... crap, that makes this worse) to get related to this release's codename.

      --
      Write failed: Broken pipe
    5. Re:Beefy Miracle? by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Names are useful for the creative team who doesn't know which backend their creative materials (look and feel) are going with. When the creative starts, it might be Fedora 16.2, 17, 17.5, 18... Apple has proven that these names from creative can be used for branding and Debian... have followed suit.

      It makes sense. You don't like cute names you aren't the target.

    6. Re:Beefy Miracle? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 5, Informative

      The most significant difference between Fedora and Ubuntu here is that in Fedora, the only time you're likely to see a release name is on a Slashdot article, and then if you look at /etc/issue*. Everybody else calls it Fedora 17. In Ubuntuland everybody calls the release by at least the noun part of the release name. For Fedora, its terribly inconsequential, and I say that as the guy who named Fedora 12.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    7. Re:Beefy Miracle? by LordNimon · · Score: 1

      Names are useful for the creative team who doesn't know which backend their creative materials (look and feel) are going with. When the creative starts, it might be Fedora 16.2, 17, 17.5, 18...

      I have no problems working on features and fixes for future Linux kernel versions without needing to know what actual version name the release will be called. I don't see how the distro developers can't do the same thing.

      --
      And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
      To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
    8. Re:Beefy Miracle? by westlake · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately a lot of linux distro coders don't seem to know where the dividing line between wryly amusing and lame is when it comes to naming releases.

      The same can be said for FOSS developers generally.

      The problem only gets worse when they port their apps to other operating systems and markets.

    9. Re:Beefy Miracle? by frostfreek · · Score: 1

      Just today I was looking at windowing test tools...
      and found this:
              windowlicker - Java GUI Testing Framework - Google Project Hosting
              code.google.com/p/windowlicker/

      What a terrible name... especially if you google it.

    10. Re:Beefy Miracle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet, your sign on name is viol8? Don't worry, most self righteous people are hippocrites, so you are in good company.

    11. Re:Beefy Miracle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In Ubuntuland everybody calls the release by at least the noun part of the release name.

      Since when? All the people I see talking about an Ubuntu release use the adjective: Hardy, Lucid, Oneiric, etc..

    12. Re:Beefy Miracle? by crutchy · · Score: 1

      i like debian's release names cos my whole family is a fan of toy story. dunno what they gunna do when the list of character names runs out though. maybe then they can go with finding nemo, another excellent pixar classic :)

    13. Re:Beefy Miracle? by crutchy · · Score: 1

      holy crap i must try out this windowlicker. sounds awesome!

      oh wait hang on its java... i'd rather actually lick a window

    14. Re:Beefy Miracle? by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      I expect nothing less from a community that insists on abbreviating "distribution" to "distro".

    15. Re:Beefy Miracle? by jbolden · · Score: 1

      I imagine they could do the same thing. But it is easier to have a name. Particularly if they are working on multiple projects. Then that name sticks.

    16. Re:Beefy Miracle? by DaVince21 · · Score: 1

      I dunno, man. "Distro" is about as accepted as "blog" or "app" nowadays.

      --
      I am not devoid of humor.
    17. Re:Beefy Miracle? by philip.paradis · · Score: 1

      Toy Story 2
      Toy Story 3

      --
      Write failed: Broken pipe
    18. Re:Beefy Miracle? by crutchy · · Score: 1

      i guess from that there are more than enough toy story characters, as long as the debian devs don't switch to an ubuntu release schedule

  4. who comes up with these codenames? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Manatees?

    1. Re:who comes up with these codenames? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No they are the size of manatees, however.

    2. Re:who comes up with these codenames? by uncle+slacky · · Score: 2

      Oh, the huge manatees...

      --
      Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it.
  5. Alt+Tab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has Alt+tab been fixed to work with windows by default and not apps?

    1. Re:Alt+Tab by Junta · · Score: 4, Informative

      That wouldn't be 'fixed', that would be regressing for the sake of people who hate change just because it is change.

      If you are terribly bothered by it:
      https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/15/alternatetab/

      But once you get used to it, it is a much more scalable mechanism to deal with many windows. Plenty of stuff in Gnome3 frustrates me, but this one I think they got right.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    2. Re:Alt+Tab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

      Please go fuck yourself. People that were comfortable and, more importantly, more productive with the previous behavior of ALT-Tab are not just Luddites. Your comment stinks of the arrogance commonly displayed by Gnome core developers.

    3. Re:Alt+Tab by DrXym · · Score: 0

      Yeah those arrogant GNOME people put in a sensible default behaviour and the means for you to override it if you wish via an extension. Such arrogance!

    4. Re:Alt+Tab by Junta · · Score: 1

      I guess the question being, what scenario is more productive? If you have small window count of about one window per app, then you probably wouldn't have even *noticed* the difference. If you have a large window count, then how does alt-tab, alt-above-tabe impede productivity? Other arguments I can buy (e.g. encouraging many across-the-screen moves, hiding dock making it more difficult to be 'discoverable', and many other criticisms of gnome 3), but other than 'it's different', I see no technical advantage to alt-tab versus what they provided.

      I currently have a modest number of windows open (11). To get to a particular window as a test, it took me 4 keypresses. For me to have gotten to it without hierarchical task switching, it would have taken me 8 keypresses given the current layout. Also, by masking the windows of other apps, more screen real estate is available to preview the windows I want.

      Mind you, this is still all significantly worse than a hypothetical scenario with window title search or 'show only windows of a certain app' in 'activities view', where you can both be more precise in query and have more real estate to show the results.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    5. Re:Alt+Tab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Way to miss the point, Sally. Whether the default is sensible is debatable (it's insipid, actually). The FU was for the condescending attitude expressed by assholes like yourself towards those users who preferred the previous behavior and had the temerity to say so out loud.

    6. Re:Alt+Tab by Lussarn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Either you do a window-based DE or an application based, Gnome 3 went for application based. I happen to like it, a lot. this includes alt-tab behavior. If you happen do not like application based, then you should probably not try to turn Gnome 3 into one, there are other choices for you.

      I think Gnome 3 is the best thing that happened to the *nix desktop for a long time. The navigation is fast if you know how to use it. I do use a few extensions, like static workspaces (altough I think this is included in 3.4). It also happen to be quite fast, running it on my ion2 netbook, no problem. Have never used a composition desktop before, they where all to slow. Gnome 3 changed that.

      Gnome developers have always had cojones and done things which may not look to be the right thing, in the end they come out winning, this time should not be an exception.

    7. Re:Alt+Tab by MyLongNickName · · Score: 0

      This kind of intelligent conversation makes me want to wipe out all of my Windows servers, and hire you to install and manage my new Linux boxes.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    8. Re:Alt+Tab by DrXym · · Score: -1, Flamebait

      No I get the point all too well. If developers don't exactly deliver what you Mr Anonymous Coward demand (for free) regardless of it's merits vs some other mechanism then you're going to call them assholes. I'm sure they'll be very sorry to see you go.

    9. Re:Alt+Tab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      I will not use GNOME3 because of this.

    10. Re:Alt+Tab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      For me, switching between 2 or 3 xterms or browsers and another app window is a very common scenario. I will continue using a window manager with proper window management.

    11. Re:Alt+Tab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      You really are being a disinguenuous twat. If your reading and comprehensions skills allow, go back an re-read the thread. And if you still intend to misrepresent what I wrote, then go find Emmanuel Bassi. He's got a bag o' dicks for you to munch on.

    12. Re:Alt+Tab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually i think it was more of a "copy macosx" behavior kind of move. It's not really bad or good in my experience. depending on the workflow one or the other might be more convenient. Since apps tend to be single window, I tend to prefer the previous switching however, but since apps tend to be single windows.. the new switching also tend to look like just the old switching, making it less of an issue.

    13. Re:Alt+Tab by ak3ldama · · Score: 1

      The ONLY way your argument is at all legitimate is if extensions is included with the default software that comes with Gnome 3. Because it sure seems like it is needed. To chip in, the new alt tab sucks, I wish it would "regress."

      --
      "but money is the God of Algiers & Mahomet their prophet." - Rich. O'Bryen June 8th 1786
    14. Re:Alt+Tab by DrXym · · Score: 1

      My reading comprehension is just fine. You throw around insults because a GUI dares not do things the way you expect. Rather than stepping back and perhaps considering the rationale for this decision, or maybe, just maybe offering constructive criticism you start ranting and insulting people. Immature doesn't begin to cover it. Grow up.

    15. Re:Alt+Tab by walshy007 · · Score: 1

      I find whether you like gnome3 is highly dependent on how many applications you typically have open at once, with the fewer you have open the more usable gnome being.

      The eeepc I'm on at present has (counts) 43 windows open, and on my desktop I can be using 100+ depending upon task. Quickly accessing the window I want under gnome3 is a real pain compared to say, kde. So I just use kde.

      The grandparents get by with gnome3 just fine though, they rarely have more than 4-5 things open at a time.

    16. Re:Alt+Tab by crutchy · · Score: 1

      you bought new boxes for linux!?

      dude you got ripped off

      i just accept everyone else's junked windows boxes and replace the broken windows with linux ones :)

    17. Re:Alt+Tab by crutchy · · Score: 1

      condescending attitude

      hypocrite much?

  6. No Unity? by karolbe · · Score: -1

    Too bad that there is no Unity for Fedora. I would like to give Fedora a try but I don't like that new Gnome (due to different Alt-Tab behavior and other annoyances).

    1. Re:No Unity? by Junta · · Score: 1

      I actually grew to like the alt-tab part pretty quickly.

      I still miss 'window title search' and 'show all windows for an app' that I had in compiz.....

      Also, only allowing configuration through themes and extensions is frustrating...

      You may wish to try Cinnamon from Mint, last time I tried it was a tad incomplete though.

      Can't stand unity either...... Gnome 3 is the less of the two evils.

      There is also always KDE and xfce...

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    2. Re:No Unity? by eric_herm · · Score: 1

      Already 3 people tried, and likely more will try to package everything. But Unity is evolving too fast, and no one want to take care of compiz.

    3. Re:No Unity? by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Looks like Unity and Cinnamon are 2 DEs that don't exist for rpm based distros.

    4. Re:No Unity? by tjwhaynes · · Score: 2

      I still miss 'window title search' and 'show all windows for an app' that I had in compiz.....

      Window title search: https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/317/window-display/ shows the matching windows in the Overview as you type.

      Show all Windows for an app: Maybe I'm missing something but I use Cycle through the apps with Alt-TAB, Cycle throught the windows for an app with Alt-AboveTAB. Which means to cycle through the windows for the current app, one press of Alt-AboveTAB shows the set. I use the cursor keys in Alt-TAB to navigate as well - not sure that is in Vanilla Gnome 3.4.

      --
      Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
    5. Re:No Unity? by Junta · · Score: 1

      Thanks for that. I do wish the window previews were a bit more usably large (as it stands, the thumbnail is just too small to make out wtf it is).

      The alt-tab behavior you describe is vanilla, but when you have dozens of terminals and you *know* a substring in a title, a search is more effective than traversing. If referring to it being a substitute for 'show all windows for an app', the problem being the UI in compize/kde uses maybe 90% of screen real estate to facilitate decipherable previews, where alt-above-tab uses maybe 15% of the screen real estate and the rest is pretty much unused.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    6. Re:No Unity? by karolbe · · Score: 0

      I think that the major problem here is compiz. Even Ubuntu devs have problem with it (Ubuntu 12.04 contains some pretty serious bugs related to compiz). It is baically unmaintained these days. But still. No Unity no Fedora for me.

    7. Re:No Unity? by AdamWill · · Score: 1

      Cinnamon certainly does. It's under review for Fedora at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771252 . If you're in a hurry, you can get the .src.rpms from there and rebuild them.

    8. Re:No Unity? by walshy007 · · Score: 1

      Someone actually likes unity? I'm amazed.

      Gnome3 is dodgy, but that is what we have kde/xfce/etc for.

    9. Re:No Unity? by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Looks like Unity & Cinnamon are missing from .rpm based distros. MATE I'm guessing is still available, as is Trinity and all other major DEs

    10. Re:No Unity? by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Oops, double posted - my apologies

    11. Re:No Unity? by karolbe · · Score: 0

      Unity is not perfect. But still it's usability is much better than original Gnome 2.x and (as I mentioned in my previous post) still better than Gnome 3.x. KDE/xfce/etc are not solutions either. Unity Dash with lenses, scopes simply rock and make work much faster and easier.

  7. another example of having lost the plot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Redundant

    not content with the desktop debacle, they're doing their best to destroy any chance of being considered for corporate application. way to go.

    1. Re:another example of having lost the plot by Junta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You do realize that the Fedora leadership expressly does *not* want to be part of corporate applications right? From a business perspective, the goal is to have a research and development strategy that takes advantage of enthusiasts willingness to have a less stable environment to test and develop features and concepts that ultimately land in 'Red Hat Enterprise Linux', the most popular 'enterprisy' instance of Linux there is?

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    2. Re:another example of having lost the plot by philip.paradis · · Score: 2

      At least for the server side of things, nobody in their right mind runs Fedora on production systems anyhow.

      --
      Write failed: Broken pipe
    3. Re:another example of having lost the plot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure RH is doing well in the corporate world.

    4. Re:another example of having lost the plot by slackware+3.6 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Red Hat is the corporate application. Fedora is the comunity project that gets funding from RH.

    5. Re:another example of having lost the plot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... Because RedHat wouldn't make money that way, at least not while remaining to appear as some open source fanboy.

    6. Re:another example of having lost the plot by LordLimecat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, because CentOS would be a far better choice.

    7. Re:another example of having lost the plot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah but nobody is going to want to use RHEL with gnome3 (Desktop users doing stuff like CAD/CAM/EDA) dunno who else actually pays for the desktop version.

    8. Re:another example of having lost the plot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup. I can personally attest to that. I manage a workgroup of approximately 1,700 computers (desktop and laptop) for my company's IT department, all set up with Kerberos and full disk encryption. We used to use RHEL, but once Gnome came out it was absurdly difficult for me to install another DE/WM. It would have taken me close to three minutes to install another package - not counting downloading time! - and I don't even want to think about how long it would have taken to distribute that to our desktop machines through a script for those interested. It's not like these are just the defaults that can be changed anytime.

      At least the Fedora people use nice default wallpapers. I run Fedora on my home machine and I would be absolutely devastated if the latest release came with an ugly wallpaper. I might have to change it myself!

  8. Very unfortunate name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Otherwise known as the "BM" edition. Lame...

    1. Re:Very unfortunate name by 0racle · · Score: 2

      Or back in reality, actually known as 'Fedora 17.'

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
  9. Looks not as polished as Ubi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    based on screenshots.

    http://shaiton.fedorapeople.org/screenshot/f17_en/

  10. MEAT YOUR NEW GOD!!11!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://beefymiracle.org/

  11. Who cares about your taste? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Isn't this supposed to be news?, who cares what you think about Gnome 3?

    I don't say it might not be a valid discussion (which has been made over and over), but just stating that you hate it on the summary as you do seems to be very out of place.

    1. Re:Who cares about your taste? by slackware+3.6 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The KDE option is their for those that don't like Gnome3.
      Now I drive Dodge trucks so should I whine and bitch about Chevys and what an unholy mess their electrical systems are?
      And Timothy there are many different desktops if you don't know how to install a different DE use Ubuntu and STF up.

    2. Re:Who cares about your taste? by Kompressor · · Score: 2

      Chevys and what an unholy mess their electrical systems are?

      Not enough can be said on this topic.

      Signed,

      A Chevy Colorado Owner

      --
      kmem russian roulette: Aquillar> dd if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/kmem bs=1 count=1 seek=$RANDOM
  12. Let me be the first to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Holy cow!

    1. Re:Let me be the first to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      More like Holy Meat by-products!*

      *their mascot is a hot dog

  13. .. still a better name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...than Prancing Peacock for example.
    now let's see what the distro's like.

  14. It's a well known fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every straight man likes an open box...

    1. Re:It's a well known fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But what if it's a Blackbox? Some think they're as Awesome as Ratpoision.

    2. Re:It's a well known fact by kj_kabaje · · Score: 1

      Ah /.,... home to random misogyny and racist puns. In other news, Hooray Beer!

  15. Besides the name and the Desktop... by hey · · Score: 5, Informative

    ... which is always fun to talk about. Fedora is really pushing the state of Linux forward more than any other distro.
    systemd for faster boot and starter reactions to changes (eg USB device plugged in). Moving every thing to /usr to make the filesystem more sane.
    Single window gimp! And lots more.

    1. Re:Besides the name and the Desktop... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about BTRFS as boot device support? Any word on that?

    2. Re:Besides the name and the Desktop... by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Since this is based on Linux 3.4, maybe it should be there, but I think it is more likely that RHEL is the one that would support it.

    3. Re:Besides the name and the Desktop... by Tynin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What about BTRFS as boot device support? Any word on that?

      Considering I was able to in Fedora 16, I would assume so.

      mount | grep btrfs
      /dev/sda4 on / type btrfs (rw,relatime,seclabel,nospace_cache)
      /dev/sda2 on /boot type btrfs (rw,relatime,seclabel,nospace_cache)
      /dev/sda5 on /home type btrfs (rw,relatime,seclabel,nospace_cache)

    4. Re:Besides the name and the Desktop... by mickwd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Moving every thing to /usr to make the filesystem more sane.

      Meaning that the system no longer supports /usr in a separate filesystem: http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken.

      Of course, you can still use /usr in a separate filesystem from / if you boot with an initrd, but you now almost need half an operating system (busybox, rescue shell and utilities, perhaps support for lvm and/or RAID) just to boot your real operating system.

      Why would you want /usr on a separate filesytem? Perhaps you want it in LVM, so you can resize it easily if necessary (maybe to make room for installing a new desktop environment, for example), but don't want you root file system in LVM. Perhaps you want to periodically fsck /usr on boot, and fall into single-user mode if it fails. Perhaps you want /usr (which is a read-mainly file system) on a small SSD, and all other file systems (which are written to more frequently) on spinning disk storage. Perhaps you want to mount /usr over NFS. Not that I can still see many people doing this but it seems a pity to prevent something that has worked fine in the past - and in these days of "running applications in the cloud" it seems Linux will no longer run applications in the local network (ie. NFS-mounted /usr).

      Seriously, read the level of professionalism and maturity on that page. This is the level or maturity to which Linux slowly seems to be sinking. As a long-time Linux user and supporter I find this deeply disappointing.

      And what's the reason for all this? Because the udev developers can't wipe their own a{r|s}es, put their house in order, and properly sort out which files go where (or at least sort out what needs to be done to mount any necessary non-root filesystems, mount them, and then continue with any programs/scripts which use them). Instead, all of that gets pushed out to initrd (ie. oh no it's hard, let's give it to someone else to do). Seriously, they're like a bunch of 8-year-olds bragging to their friends that they won't clean their bedrooms, even when mummy thinks they should.

  16. Fedora BM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Somehow Beefy Miracle was not the 2 words I was thinking. Great job on making yourself even more irrelevant and chasing the herd mentality.

    -Gentoo user since 2006

    1. Re:Fedora BM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      even more irrelevant

      Ha, you're a moron. Fedora has more users than any distro.

      Gentoo user since 2006

      Gentoo?? Talk about irrelevant! But at least we now know the year when you lost all your brain cells.

    2. Re:Fedora BM by DaVince21 · · Score: 1

      Bah, you're just using their funny name as a reason to bitch about Fedora in general and praise whatever you like using.

      --
      I am not devoid of humor.
  17. Goodbye Ubuntu. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was a great ride while it lasted. Too bad about your interface. Hope it heals soon.

    Hello Fedora!

  18. rpm, yumm & package managers by unixisc · · Score: 2

    One thing I'm wondering - how improved is their package management? As I've noted in the past, apt-get is far more advanced, and on the BSD side of things, so is PBI. So has Fedora/Red Hat done anything to enable packages in rpm format to be more easily installed, as in not run into dependency hell?

    Also, how does Fedora compare w/ other rpm based distros, such as Mageia, Mandriva, PCLinuxOS and so on?

    1. Re:rpm, yumm & package managers by domatic · · Score: 4, Informative

      It isn't the packaging tools that make Debian and the BSDs more consistent in package installation. If anything, RPM has more advanced features than either debs or ports. The Debian and various ports repositories have standard practices for naming, versioning, dependencies, and integration that are adhered to year after year. It is concern for the long term integrity of these package repositories AS A WHOLE that make them easy to deal with. But bullet point differences between Deb and RPM? Not so much.

      Debian based distros also tend to limit themselves in how they diverge from the Debian Mothership and periodically resync in any case. I routinely port source packages between Ubuntu and Debian all the time. Since the naming and dependency maps don't diverge much, I mostly succeed at doing this. On the other hand, a SUSE SRPM isn't likely to port easily to Fedora absent a lot of low level surgery on the package metadata. Each RPM distro tends to be an island universe. Deb based distros all have Debian for a parent or grandparent hence the high compatibility at the source level.

      For that matter RHEL and spinoffs like Centos and Scientific mostly achieve this as well though the experience is mostly like using Debian Stable without the option of (easily) backporting SRPMS from newer distros.

    2. Re:rpm, yumm & package managers by CynicTheHedgehog · · Score: 1

      Yum is pretty solid. There are only two things that kind of bug me about it:

      1. Sometimes (especially when dealing with third-party repos e.g. RPM Fusion) you'll see what looks like the same package listed 4 times. My guess is that there is a separate package for each architecture. Simply omitting the package portion from the name when you run the install command seems to pick the correct package(s). Still a bit confusing though, especially in cases where there are other compounding factors like different graphics card chipsets (I think I saw 16-20 different packages for NVidia drivers at one point).

      2. You are kind of forced to use third-party repos, because the official repos don't contain any non-free stuff (MP3 codecs, binary drivers for NVidia and AMD cards, etc.) Setting up the third-party repos isn't as dummy-proof as setting up PPAs in Ubuntu. (It's a pretty straightforward but largely manual process, unless I'm missing something. And if I'm missing something, then that is a problem in itself.)

      And for a while the KDE Package Manager integration was broken as well, but I think that's been fixed for a while now. Overall it's much better than it was, but I'm still more comfortable using apt in Ubuntu (although as a distro I like FC better).

    3. Re:rpm, yumm & package managers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      People who still ask this question tend not to have used yum/rpm in about a decade.

    4. Re:rpm, yumm & package managers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As I've noted in the past, apt-get is far more advanced, and on the BSD side of things, so is PBI.

      >

      how is it so?

    5. Re:rpm, yumm & package managers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As I've mistakenly opined in the past

      FTFY. Sorry, but I doubt you've used yum in the last several years. Yum is actually more advanced than apt-get, and dependency hell is a thing of the past. Keep up with the times, gramps.

    6. Re:rpm, yumm & package managers by MSG · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if you're trolling, but apt-get has never been more advanced than yum (at least, not since yum was included in Fedora). Notable features of yum that apt-get lacks include the ability to install a package from a local file, resolving and installing its dependencies from repositories, and the ability to resolve and install a package given a path or the name of a feature it "Provides". Yum's a little slower than apt-get, but it's definitely the more capable of the two.

      As for dependency hell: that term refered to the pain caused by downloading a package, attempting installation, learning that there are unmet dependencies, manually locating those packages, and potentially repeating the process. That hasn't been a concern on Red Hat or Fedora systems for literally about ten years.

      Compared to other rpm based distributions, Fedora tends to have new software first, and demonstrates a superior commitment to the Free aspects of Free Software. GNU still doesn't recommend it because they include binary blobs in their kernels. That aside, it's easily the best distribution for Free Software users.

    7. Re:rpm, yumm & package managers by cerberusss · · Score: 1

      One thing I'm wondering - how improved is their package management? As I've noted in the past, apt-get is far more advanced

      People who still ask this question tend not to have used yum/rpm in about a decade.

      That is just not true. I've used a cheap virtual machine with limited memory ( 512 MB) for hosting stuff, and I'm waiting for my Raspberry Pi to arrive which has 256 MB memory.

      Using yum on such systems is utter, and complete, pain. It will simply not work with anything less than a gig of memory. Apt however, will work flawlessly. There is VERY MUCH room for improvement concerning package management.

      --
      8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
    8. Re:rpm, yumm & package managers by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      Setting up the third-party repos isn't as dummy-proof as setting up PPAs in Ubuntu. (It's a pretty straightforward but largely manual process, unless I'm missing something. And if I'm missing something, then that is a problem in itself.)

      It's one click in a web browser, though it would be nice if the system itself had a option to install it, even if it gave you a "you're being naughty and installing non-free stuff" warning. You also have to know it exists in the first place.

    9. Re:rpm, yumm & package managers by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      Using yum on such systems is utter, and complete, pain. It will simply not work with anything less than a gig of memory.

      Sure it wil, though some plugins will slow it down. I've personally used yum on a ps3.

    10. Re:rpm, yumm & package managers by Compaqt · · Score: 1

      Wait, which binary blobs would those be?

      --
      I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    11. Re:rpm, yumm & package managers by cerberusss · · Score: 1

      Perhaps for the incidental installation of an editor that has hardly any libraries it depends on.

      --
      8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
    12. Re:rpm, yumm & package managers by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      I've pulled down large updates including openoffice on a Linux equipped PS3 so I know yum works on systems with low RAM. The real stickler is protectbase if you use ps3bodega, protectbase slows yum down a lot. But the thing works with less than a gig of RAM.

    13. Re:rpm, yumm & package managers by MSG · · Score: 1

      $ find /lib/firmware/ -type f | wc -l
      709

    14. Re:rpm, yumm & package managers by cerberusss · · Score: 1

      Interesting; apparently your use case precludes the memory problems I've seen. Have you ever run "yum update", in which it encountered a libc update? Or perhaps an update to an X library? Basically anything that has a large number of dependencies. Also, you're increasing the memory we're talking about, we started with 512 MB, and you're now saying it works with less than a gig of RAM.

      By contrast, apt-get works perfectly with 128 MB of ram.

      --
      8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
    15. Re:rpm, yumm & package managers by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      Yes, I've ran updates that pulled down large amounts of stuff...and secondly the PS3 only has 256MB of RAM.

      When was the last time you used yum anyway? Yes, the more RAM you have the faster it'll be, but it IS usable on low RAM systems.

    16. Re:rpm, yumm & package managers by cerberusss · · Score: 1

      For about two years, I've administrated three RedHat 5 systems, which were upgraded every now and then until they reached 5.5. The memory on those systems varied between 128 and 512 MB memory, two were virtualized with Xen. It seemed that 384 MB was the lower limit for these systems to run "yum update" without hitting swap. These were standard LAMP webservers. Often, I'd shut down MySQL, Apache and Postfix to run yum.

      Anyway, since you say you did fine with 256 MB, I'm going to revisit the scenario, and see if the latest yum versions are better.

      --
      8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
  19. RHEL 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    RHEL7 ( Based on "Beefy Miracle")

  20. Why use openbox with xfce anyway? by Marrow · · Score: 2

    Plain old xfce works just fine without any trickery. Except for the creation of custom icons. That requires a few more steps than I like, but I'll live. Its very very stable.

    1. Re:Why use openbox with xfce anyway? by hockpatooie · · Score: 1

      That's a fair question. I use Openbox with XFCE because you can customize keybindings for any kind of window manipulation you like - shoving windows to the left and right border, resizing, vertical maximizing, flipping between workspaces...

      It's a nice middle-of-the-road solution for people who are sick and tired of fiddling with windows with the mouse but aren't ready to go whole hog with a tiling WM or setting up a desktop with panels, etc. from scratch.

  21. Please... by AdamWill · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...don't turn yet another Fedora release thread into a GNOME Shell argument, people. It's just a desktop. We have lots of them.

    If you don't like GNOME, don't use it. You can pick GNOME, KDE, Xfce, LXDE or Sugar right from the package customization screen of a Fedora 17 DVD install, or you can download any one of those desktops as a live spin at https://fedoraproject.org/en/get-fedora-options#desktops or https://spins.fedoraproject.org/ .

    If you don't like GNOME, don't use it, but that doesn't mean you can't use Fedora, or that Fedora is bad.

    1. Re:Please... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yahbutbutbutbut, GNOME3 is bad!

    2. Re:Please... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't like GNOME, don't use it.

      There's another benefit to that attitude, as I discovered.

      I was a GNOME 2 user for many years. Then GNOME 3 forced me to look at alternative desktops. When I found KDE, I knew it's what I should have been using all along.

      Without GNOME 3, I'm not sure I would have ever had a reason to seek out and switch to KDE.

    3. Re:Please... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...don't turn yet another Fedora release thread into a GNOME Shell argument, people. It's just a desktop. We have lots of them.

      Usually I'd agree with you but any argument surrounding GNOME Shell is partially Fedora's own fault. Alternative spins are not really advertised on fedoraproject.org. IIRC it was different in the past and https://fedoraproject.org/en/get-fedora had at least a big "Looking for KDE?" button instead of being hidden under "More download options". Compare that to http://software.opensuse.org/

    4. Re:Please... by walshy007 · · Score: 1

      You don't need another spin, since kde/xfce etc come on the install dvd.

      Aside from emergency recovery situations, there is no reason to use livecds any more. If you are going to install an os do a full install, not an extermely gimped install just so your install media is the size of an old school cd.

      With developer tools and a whole lot more stuff than most sane people need my fedora installs tend to hit 6-8gb max, this is nothing for hard disks/ssd today.

    5. Re:Please... by DaVince21 · · Score: 1

      Oh, if only Fedora 17 provided Sugar Spin...

      --
      I am not devoid of humor.
  22. 12.4 Precise Pangolin should have been Pretty Pony by leftie · · Score: 1

    The Gods cried when 12.4 wasn't named Pretty Pony.

  23. Sadly it still has godawful gnome3, add cinnamon by EPDowd · · Score: 1

    I was able to get rid of most of the dumb stuff in gnome3, and return Fedora 16 to a useful state by adding cinnamon.

    --
    73 49 111 01001001
  24. I hate this summary, can we mod it "flamebait"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Personally, I still find Gnome 3 to be an 'unholy mess' so I'm loving XFCE with Openbox."

    So, now we have Flamebait even in an article summary? What the heck. I am really pissed off by all this. This should be an article about the release of a nice, community-led distro, and instead some idiot manages to slip into it a trolling comment against GNOME 3.

    I don't care about OpenBox, XFCE, XMonad or whatever else you like to use. The title says "Fedora 17 Released", not "Random user finds GNOME 3 an unholy mess". If you really want to cite alternatives to the default DE, at least link to the relevant articles on the Fedora Wiki that document how to install them!

    ekimd, you really couldn't do without, heh?

    1. Re:I hate this summary, can we mod it "flamebait"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yum install @kde

    2. Re:I hate this summary, can we mod it "flamebait"? by varkk · · Score: 1

      Or just download and install the KDE spin, or the LXDE or XFCE spin for that matter.

    3. Re:I hate this summary, can we mod it "flamebait"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In general, I agree that summaries should be void of personal opinion. However, in this case I think this sort of thing is completely acceptable.

      The Gnome developers have basically driven their product off a cliff. MY DESKTOP IS NOT A SMART PHONE! Nor do I want the user interface to act like it's one. They've basically taken the best desktop environment and ruined it for some imagined improvement that makes the interface worse for 95% of users.

      Hopefully someday the developers will recognize this. But it will take persistent prodding (e.g. the summary of this article) to get there.

  25. Emacs 24 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...is now included with Fedora 17. Yay!

  26. GNOME3 by unixisc · · Score: 1

    Speaking of GNOME3, does Fedora offer it only in Fallback mode (due to the issue of liberated GPU 3D accelaration drivers), or does it come fully featured?

  27. Re:Sadly it still has godawful gnome3, add cinnamo by EPDowd · · Score: 1

    I just find that everything I do in gnome 3 takes more steps...ie more clicks, more resizing, more drilling down, and on top of it all one additional click that does nothing more then get you off that useless page that is your faux desktop. For me and the way I use my computers this is not a step forward, but two steps back. If gnome 3 was on a smart phone, or a tablet, and I ran one application at a time, it would be pretty, and get the job done. But I run this on a desktop computer with fair horse power, lots of memory, and with a BIG monitor, just so that I can have several things going on at once and see them all without a lot of dragging, drilling down, resizing, and general piddling around every time I sit down. I can do everything I need to with Gnome 3, it is just more work. Not sure what the gnome folks were thinking. I've heard it said that they were enamored with OS-X, don't know. However at work I have a very nice brand new iMac with Lion on it, and it is much easier to use and has a very different orientation then gnome 3.

    --
    73 49 111 01001001
  28. Re:Sadly it still has godawful gnome3, add cinnamo by Compaqt · · Score: 1

    What kind of system do you have, and what size monitor? Just wondering.

    --
    I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
  29. Just wanted to thank... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Just wanted to thank all the Fedora developers to have eased the migration of this 18-years-of-hardcore-Linux user to Mac OS X. I had to work on a OS X machine for a bit and was surprised just how many elements were blatantly ripped off that interface to make it into Gnome 3. Also I discovered that many good/acceptable parts were lifted straight off OS X (top bar, app icons bar, attached modal dialogs, simpler system settings) while many of the things I hated about Gnome 3 appear to be "original" (lack of settings, unmovable center clock where every other desktop has it to the right, no power off in menu, the idiotic notification bottom bar that forces constant mouse-checking in the right corner).

    Frankly, if Gnome 3 is the Linux of the future then OS X is already there and I don't have to grieve and moan while the developers agree on what other ways they could ruin the UI to improve "adoption".

  30. Re:Sadly it still has godawful gnome3, add cinnamo by EPDowd · · Score: 1

    The smallest is is dual core P4 with 3gb of memory and a 22 inch flat screen monitor. The largest is a 64 bit quad core (intel) with 4gb of memory and a 27 inch monitor.

    --
    73 49 111 01001001