Slashdot Mirror
Fedora 19 Alpha Released
hypnosec writes "Following delays due to UEFI, the alpha version of Fedora 19 'Schrödinger's Cat' has been released. The alpha version brings with it all the features of Fedora 19, including the updated desktop options – GNOME 3.8, KDE Plasma 4.10 and MATE 1.6. Other new features include Developer's Assistant – a tool that would allow developers to code easily with ready templates, samples and more; OpenShift Origin – through which users will be able to deploy their own Platform-as-a-Service infrastructure; Ruby 2.0.0; Scratch; Syslinux – provides for simplified booting of Fedora; systemd Resource Control – which allows for modification of service settings without requiring a reboot; and Checkpoint & Restore. Downloads and release notes available at the Fedora Project site."
You will not know if it will erase your disk until you try to boot it.
Does that mean that it will be both good and shit at the same time?
Or grab the source and build a GNOME 2. It's not necessarily simple to do, but nothing stops you.
What's sad about the whole thing is that no distro seams to be able to offer BOTH 2 and 3 at least for now, so that users can use an environment that actually works instead of a slightly less working environment which may become better in a couple of years or so.
Did they fix the installer? Once I got it installed, Fedora 18 (with KDE) is pretty good, but the installation was a bitch. The installer choked on my hard drive, because it was already partitioned. I had to get to the shell and delete the partitions manually to get it to work.
Sit, Ubuntu, sit. Good dog.
And a little further down, MATE 1.6. Fixed.
It's a bit like Windows 8.1 re-introducing the Start menu.
Maybe one day we'll wake up and the Gnome shell and Windows 8 were all a bad dream.
No one offers GNOME 2 because it's effectively dead. MATE is the replacement.
Gnome 3.8 comes with "Classic mode" which re-introduces features like the top-left App menu and the window switcher panel at the bottom of the screen, but built on Gnome3 technology.
It's a bit like Windows 8.1 re-introducing the Start menu.
Maybe one day we'll wake up and the Gnome shell and Windows 8 were all a bad dream.
Stop ruining his bitching session.
They've fixed a few annoyances in Anaconda in F19 Alpha including actually offering MATE as a desktop option (F18 never showed it in Anaconda - you had to know to groupinstall it later on). Still no package version numbers or install time remaining when the packages are being installed though - both blatantly obvious requirements!
The Anaconda interface is still LUDICROUSLY SHOUTY (yes, much of it is fully capitalised and even adds bolding on top of that!) and the custom disk partitioning still needs further work. It has a nasty mixture of size units (yes, it's possible to see K, MB and GB all on the same screen) and the option - if it exists - to "use all remaining space on device" when creating a new partition (which you're surely almost always going to need?) didn't jump out at me.
Q: Is Fedora dead? A: Yes and no.
No one offers GNOME 2 because it's effectively dead.
At least Red Hat will support GNOME 2 on RHEL 6 until 2020.
MATE is the replacement.
It would have been so much better if things had just worked. We have a lot of multiuser machines and not everyone wants to switch to GNOME 2 yet. We would have been so much happier if we could have GNOME 2 and GNOME 3 available in the login window and let users choose which one they wanted. It's just ridiculous that we have to rename everything just to get things to work side by side.
MariaBD will replace MySQL
After wikipedia (on *. yesterday) and of course my revered Slackware, MariaDB really seems to be getting traction.
Maybe time to have a look...
Gnome 2 just won't work with the new gimp and vice versa. After so many decades of applications being able to co-exist so long as the right bits were available, the gnome people managed to finally being something that may as well be DLL hell to *nix. They really did base it on WinME, but theirs, without the hookers and blackjack.
It doesn't matter if things do break, we'll never find out thanks to this ;-)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=922433
Can anyone explain to me the reasoning behind the hatred of gnome 3?
Besides the whole "my gui doesn't work like win95 anymore and I really want to use something named gnome" crybaby shtick, I mean. Is there something besides that which I'm missing?
Some of us manages hundred or thousands of Linux desktops and workstations. One of the reasons why we were able to deploy Linux at all and throw out Windows XP was in large parts thanks to GNOME and all the great work that has been used to refine it.
GNOME 3 is at a stage where it might work on someones personal laptop, but it's not yet something which you want to deploy it in a large enterprise environment. There's a lot of good ideas in GNOME 3, but it's not yet ready. This would have been a non-issue if we had been able to have both GNOME 2 and GNOME 3 installed side by side in a setup supported by the distributions. I know that MATE exists, and that's good; but it's sad that we had to rename everything and break a lot of things that worked.
Interesting. Can you have both of them installed at the same time?
Gnome 2 just won't work with the new gimp and vice versa.
Gimp works just fine with MATE or XFCE, heck, all of these use gtk-2 rather than the pile of regressions called gtk-3. On most distributions you can't install "real" Gnome 2 any more because Gnome 3 hijacked its names despite having little to do with it, but that's been worked around.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Its pretty much impossible to install gnome2 and gnome3 on the same system, or have them both in the same repo (unlike plenty of other similar sized projects what you can have multiple versions installed (KDE3 and 4, as many GCC, python and kernel versions as you want))
https://lwn.net/Articles/466872/
mate solved this difficult technical problem, mostly by doing 's/gnome/mate/g' (since then they have modernised the code, removed most of the deprecated libraries, and added useful features)
It's been a while since I actually tried, but I'm under the impression that it should work as long as you install it under a different prefix, such as /opt.
dear gnome 2 users. here is gnome 3.0. we have changed everything, and it wont run on you 3 year old laptop any more. hope you like it because it will be really hard to keep using gnome2 while keeping up to date with other packages.if you don't like it please just wait a few years and we'll bring back some of the old features as a classic mode. hey, where have you all gone?
I basically completely agree with this.
I like gnome 3 specifically for these reasons. I like the ideas, and I like where it's going, and I actually think it's great for personal use.
I'm 100% sympathetic to it's effect on larger, centrally-administered networks, but I still don't really understand the hate for it. Can't you just keep using gnome 2, or xfce, or kde, or whatever? Is the fallback mode that awful?
I agree that it's not ready for primetime, but that doesn't explain the vitriol, especially since so many people hint to it being fundamentally flawed or immoral, as opposed to new and not suitable for corporate use.
it is very different. some people prefer gnome2 over gnome3, just like some people prefer kde or e17 or xfce or xmonad. it would be odd for a distro to say we are removing gnome, you will use e17 now. (you can't parallel install gnome2 and gnome3, or easily have them both in the same distro).
it has higher system requirements. on my netbook i could no longer use an external display, because my GPU did not support large enough openGL textures. with gnome2 it was fine. llvmpipe may be a solution now, but i can't imagine the performance is good on a 32bit atom.
it has new bugs. gnome3 used to crash a lot for me. sometimes the only way to get it to log back in after was to delete the config file. i assume its better in 3.8, but i am happy with mate these days.
i think a good analogy is to image that the kernel developers removed ext4 now that they have btrfs. they could argue that btrfs has lots of new features, and that you would be stupid to want to use an old deadend file system that did not even have data checksumming and snapshots. that would go down well. (i use btrfs :-) )
might be doable. but i suspect not in a way that a distro could offer them both and have selecting between them at gdm work (most distros would not accept the kind of hacks you would need).
Absolutely, that's the problem. If the distributions could offer both GNOME 2 and 3, hopefully even at the same time, then I would be very happy.
That is my point - old distros with a real gnome 2 (eg. RHEL, CentOS) cannot use the new gimp so the only way is to remove gnome 2 and use a "workalike" which doesn't yet support everything that gnome 2 does.
That's the problem. We shouldn't have to rename something to MATE. It should have just worked.
1. If you're looking for an idiot, you should probably look in a mirror.
2. If you can seriously defend the way for instance virtual desktops are handled, and how you're forced to continuously race your mouse-pointer back and forth across your widescreen monitor to accomplish anything with them, you're welcome. And NO, keyboard shortcuts or plugins and what not does NOT qualify as "solutions". Those are epic fail workarounds.
3. That's just the beginning. If you're serious about finding out what's wrong with it, you should contact a university near you, where they train any kind of students within cognitive science, or do anything related to HCI. Just don't forget to take your pills.
I'll just keep using dwm like I always have. If you've never used a tiling window manager, check it out. You'll never be able to go back to manually managing the size and location of windows after you use it.
Thanks for your viewpoint. I basically agree with this on the major points completely.
It sounds like I had similar experiences when I first tried it for one of the earlier 3.x releases (not the original rollout, which sounded like an extinction-level event). It crashed frequently, there were module incompatibilities that would cause it to hang with gdm, there were usability issues that seemed like they were obviously of the "we'll get to that later" nature, etc. It had issues with certain graphics cards. But it wasn't fundamentally flawed -- it just wasn't there yet, like many other things linux.
They probably should have done a better job retiring gnome2 from the sound of it, like a more graceful handoff to something like MATE. I just don't really understand the hatred. If you want to use gnome2, and you want gnome2 to stay the same, then it's probably better off to be forked into some kind of long-term retirement plan. I mean, does anyone really think gnome2 is the be-all, end-all of computer desktops? For me, it was always just a fairly nice desktop, that worked, but didn't particularly have anything special about it. There are others which not only perform similar tasks, but do lots of them better. And now gnome can make the major leap to something new.
I understand liking the old and familiar, but I don't quite get why that causes so much outrage? If people want something like that, they can keep using what they were using, or use a fork like MATE, or use something similar like xfce. Or they can be like one of those people that still uses fvwm or blackbox or whatever for decades.
I feel similarly about unity and windows 8, although I find both of those to be less interesting, if more stable and refined, than gnome3. And after my initial experiences with gnome 3.earlyversion, which were mediocre but interesting, gnome 3.6 seems like an incredible improvement over it. Hopefully 3.8 and further continue to improve it like that.
To start if off -- we had a report of pyramid_debugtoolbar failing with a UnicodeDecodeError this morning (on Python 2, where platform.platform() returns a non-7-bit-clean bytestring rather than a Unicode string, causing code to blow up later in the templating layer; on Python 3, it works perfectly).
I'm expressly not looking for idiots. I wanted a real answer to why the hatred for gnome3 is so strong, but it seems like the only strong criticisms of it are idiotic in nature.
how is that a fundamental flaw? It's an implementation detail. It can be annoying to repeatedly move your mouse from the top-left to the bottom-right, sure. It would be nice if the "hotspot" for it were configurable or something in case you found it more convenient somewhere else. Same goes for the notification try thing at the bottom. If you're basing your hatred of it on this, you're (surprise) an idiot! Gnome3 is interesting because of its overviews and workspaces, not because of which key-combinations and mouse-clicks it currently has you perform. Note that this is especially annoying if you are fighting the ui (i want my windows 95 back!!!!!), instead of just using it -- if you don't know that you can drag the background up and down in the activities overview similar to how you can drag-and-drop individual windows, then yes, this is tedious. But scrolling the workspaces by dragging is convenient, doesn't require you to move your mouse all the way across your widescreen monitor, and is one of those things you find to be so intuitive that you quickly forget you can't do it in other environments and begin to take it for granted.
also, keyboard shortcuts do not qualify as solutions? what?
This is linux. Keypresses shouldn't be absolutely necessary in a gui environment, and it'd be nice if there were more, or they were more configurable, but what the hell are you talking about if you only consider mouse input for everything? One of the truly interesting things about gnome3, especially compared to other desktop environments, is that keyboard shortcuts actually feel powerful and integrated. In older environments, keyboard shortcuts are essentially shortcuts to let you not use the gui anymore, like a launcher, or alt-tabbing and its virtual desktop equivalent. Gnome-shell is the first environment I've used where the super key is a blessing instead of an afterthought, where pressing it doesn't make you feel like somebody dropped something on your mouse and right-clicked somewhere.
so this is one of those "there are so many reasons I hate it, I can't even think of any" things. Alright, buddy. I hope your freshman year in that program with an HCI class is going well for you.
well that's basically how I feel, too. Except I've found gnome-shell to be pleasnat and usable, especially after installing a newer version and just trying it out for a bit. I originally found myself excessively having to switch to the activities/workspace overview mode because of, say, having a bunch of pdf or documents open whose thumbnails were difficult to distinguish between or because the thumbnails felt like they had a randomness to their ordering. And not knowing that I could slide between workspaces by click-and-dragging the shaded background area in the overview.
but that's not really hate. I mean, it would stop you from using it, yeah, but if that's the problem then people can just switch to something like Cinnamon or MATE or xfce, which all seem to be fine enough and offer the familiar desktop paradigm. There are lots of comments and hatred for it in a way that makes it sound like it must so fundamentally flawed that the source code should be deleted and forgotten, but nobody seems to ever be able to back up their strong feelings for it.
thanks for your input, as well.
I 100% understand and sympathize with this. The release of gnome3 was completely mismanaged and caused all kinds of collateral damage, but for me, the reaction to it is separate from the desktop. I like the product, just not how it was done.
It's especially true for me with Fedora. RHEL and CentOS are great, in my opinion, but Fedora is basically a non-starter because of issues like this that ripple their way throughout an entire installation. I originally tried installing a Fedora release so that I could test out gnome-shell, just to see what it was like, and it was just an awful experience. Trying it out on other "experimental" or more DIY distro installs like Debian wheezy and gentoo required poking and prodding, but it was a more comfortable style of effort to get it working. And after it was, it was great.
The way gnome3, Fedora, and Canonical (with unity, and moving which side the close buttons on windows are) have tried to move forward by cannonballing the pool is aggravating and very reminiscent of 1990s Microsoft or 2000s Apple for sure, so I hate it too. But I'm also sick of the traditional desktop ("i want my windows95") enough to want some progress, so I am very interested in gnome-shell. Hopefully the gnome guys can take it to heart.
To me Gnome 3 still feels like a beta, with a bunch of features planned but not implemented yet that were working in Gnome 2. Also, it looks like shit because most of the machines I use don't have particularly good graphics cards and Gnome 3's fallback mode doesn't work for beans.
I read the internet for the articles.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/19/FeatureList
Ok, I'll keep this brief.
Anything that makes you move your cursor back and forth for miles during a day is just plain fail. It's not just bloody annoying, it's an ergonomic problem, and it shows that you actually didn't think things through.
I specifically dismissed plugins and keyboard shortcuts because they are A) far from intuitively discoverable, B) indistinguishable from magic to any non-hard core user, and C) it's the absolute favorite excuse for gnome-apologists when you point out a flaw in the UI. I'd be a wealthy man if I had a penny every time I've heard "there's a shortcut for that!", or "there's a plugin for that!".
You see, the point is that these things are meant to be things you can learn if you're a serious user willing to invest some time to increase your productivity. That's why VI/VIM is absolutely fine. It's an expert tool. I thought the entire idea with Gnome was not to fall into that category. Or is it constantly losing those "confusing" features (see the new Natuilus for a fresh example) because it's used by easily confused experts? Shortcuts are indeed not meant to be used as escape routes for anyone who wants to keep their sanity. In fact, just the fact that people keep referring to them as "the way to do it" in a GUI, should ring a metric ton of alarm-bells. Or does Gnome claim to have reinvented DOS?
I don't get this harping about "Windows 95", btw. Attempt at "guilt by association"? An obvious fallacy, which doesn't do anything positive for your position. (As a side note, I'd like to point out that Microsoft has produced a lot of turds over the years, but the "Windows 95" UI is (also used in W2k until they ruined it in XP but I guess it doesn't sound as bad to accuse people of wanting their w2k back, right?), despite its warts a very clean and useable UI.)
Stuff that relies on magic, stuff that does things just because you happen to park your mouse cursor somewhere arbitrarily decided to be "special", stuff which forces you to run the desktop marathon daily for the most basic usage or learn magic codes, or just in general totally gets in your way (one display, one window, one Führer, MAXIMIZE EVERYTHING! FULLSCREEN IS NORMAL!!ONEONEELVENTY!!!) because you're supposed to do things "the gnome" way are just failures in comparison. Fancy graphics and a later date of packaging is completely irrelevant, what matters is if you can do your job without tearing your hair out.
TL;DR, it needs to be effective, reasonably intuitive and above all discoverable, unless you're talking about expert systems. Gnome3 is none of that.
Thank you for your attempt at being condescending, epic fail there too. And no, I don't take HCI classes, but I know people who have. Amusingly, they tell me explicitly Gnome is frequently held up in class as an example of how not to do. And they are not freshmen, btw.
Now, if you want to keep flinging insults around, fine. I've told you were you can find plenty of valid criticism of Gnome3, but I somehow get the feeling you're not really interested in it.
And that's kind of the core of it afaic, I guess. What grates me about Gnome3, isn't so much it's pretty obvious problems, but the absolute arrogant, narrow minded, condescending and childish attitude of it's developers and their remaining sycophants. Their reaction to criticism has from day one been to accuse people who speak up of being "haters", "trolls", or "ignorant", "we know better than you", or, when everything else fails, just act like ostriches.
Anyway, it's water under the bridge. They've flat out refused to listening to the users they had, and now they barely have any ones left, to their great surprise. Well, the rest of us aren't, we've moved on.
And with that, I'm out. Peace.
after about 12 years of Red Hat then Fedora,
I switched to Fuduntu, and very pleased about it.
gnome 2, bottom panel the way I want it :)
(only thing still missing is the netspeed applet)
We're not talking about some convoluted 5-key shortcuts here. We're talking about pressing the super key.
I mention people wanting win95 because win95 has set the standard for what graphical interfaces should be like. Win7, despite all of its changes, is essentially a windows 95 interface on a fundamental level. Same goes for gnome2. If you feel insulted by it, maybe it's because clamoring for a 20 year old interface that wasn't particularly great when it first came out is a little embarassing after it's been pointed out to you. Sure, it's "clean" or "usable", but so is twm or blackbox or whatever. Like I said, no one's really going to hold it against you for being one of the diehards who wants those until you feel the need to hold everyone back because of it.
Yes, yes, yes, we get it! Moving your mouse to the top-left corner is a crime against humanity. The people demand the ability to move their mouse to the corner and clicking on the button there instead.
well, at least you admitted you're one of the people who can't distinguish their annoyance with the gnome people's management skills from anything else and takes it out on the UI. It would be preferable for you to do this in a way similar to the other responses my question got instead of being insulted by it, of course.