Slashdot Mirror
Fedora 19 Released
hypnosec writes "The Fedora Project has officially announced the release of Fedora 19 'Schrödinger's Cat' today. New features for the open source distribution include the developer's assistant, which accelerates development efforts by providing templates, samples and toolchains for a different languages; OpenShift Origin, which allows easy building of Platform-as-a-Service infrastructure; node.js; Ruby 2.0.0; MariaDB; Checkpoint & Restore, which allows users to checkpoint and restore processes; and OpenLMI, which makes remote management of machines simpler. The distribution also packs GNOME 3.8, KDE Plasma Workspace 4.10 and MATE Desktop 1.6."
Damn. Now I'll never know if my system is up or down w/o opening the case.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
I'm not going to click the link; I don't want to risk killing it.
I'm better off not knowing.
>> Schrödinger's Cat
Thus testing the character parsing and storage of half the blog sites left on the Internet. (With an apostrophe and an umlaut.)
It occurs to me to wonder about Oracle copying Red Hat's work and releasing it as a different distribution. The particular thing I'm wondering about is MariaDB, now part of Fedora, while Oracle is supporting MySQL. Eventually the two projects will go separate ways, and then what will Oracle do?
Is this true? One could think that at this point they would have gotten something as basic as a package management (rpm & yum) to work correctly. I have done a couple of basic Fedora installations and the package management has mostly worked fine.
I've said it before, and I'll said it again: Fedora's GNOME has really lost me. I've been a longtime Fedora user, and I still like the distro, but I'm giving GNOME a pass in Fedora 19 and going back to Xfce.
Fedora 19 includes GNOME 3.8 as the graphical desktop, and I've previously noted that GNOME 3 has poor usability. The GNOME developers have continued this poor usability trend in GNOME 3, which fails to meet two of the four themes of successful usability: Consistency and Menus. Where are the menus? There is no "File" menu that allows me to do operations on files. There is no "Help" menu that I can use when I get stuck. The updated file manager (Nautilus) doesn't have a menu, but other programs in GNOME 3 do (Gedit has menus, and is part of GNOME). Also: when you maximize a Nautilus window, either to the full screen or to half of the screen, the title bar disappears. I don't understand why. The programs do not act consistently.
I will give a positive comment that the updated GNOME file manager now makes it easier to connect to a remote server. This used to be an obvious action under the "File" menu, but in GNOME 3 it is an action directly inside the navigation area. So that's a step in the right direction.
The updated GNOME desktop environment seems to avoid familiar "desktop" conventions, tending towards a "tablet-like" interface. This further removes the obviousness of the new desktop, and it's familiarity.
So it's not really that "Fedora has lost me," but the GNOME desktop. I consider Xfce to have much better usability than GNOME. While I haven't done a formal usability study of Xfce, my heuristic usability evaluation is that Xfce meets all four of the key themes: Familiarity, Consistency, Menus, and Obviousness. The menus are there, and everything is consistent. The default Xfce uses a theme that is familiar to most users, and actions are obvious. Sure, a few areas still need some polish (like the Applications menu, and some icons) but Xfce already seems better than GNOME.
Additionally, if you are technically capable, you can dramatically modify the appearance of Xfce to make it look and act according to your preferences. At home, I've modified my Xfce desktop to something similar to Google's Chromebook (see example and instructions). It works really well and I find it is even easier to use than the default Xfce desktop.
I approve of the code name of this release
More importantly, testing the character parsing and handling of both the installer and multiple other parts of the distribution. Whether it was a good idea to pick a challenging name is probably dependent on the observer.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
They're both fine. What's more surprising to me is that both of them have completely missed the functionality that puppet, cfengine, et. al. provide.
It used to be that distros would adopt and integrate such functionality. So many of the Fedora 'spins' could simply be expressed as a puppet script. Having a well-supported "make me a mailserver" etc. would be great too.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
No, it isn't true. Package formats are simple things, indeed. It's really just a tarball with some metadata.
What is still arguably true is that Debian has a wider range of packages than just about any other distro, and Debian also has extremely stringent policies about ensuring upgrade paths and avoiding dependency problems and the like. If you run one of the more stable incarnations of Debian and don't cheat by using external repositories or grabbing packages before they make it through the testing process, you will probably experience fewer packaging problems than on virtually any other distro. But this has nothing at all to do with the package *format*, very little to do with the packaging *tools*, and everything to do with the *package maintenance process*. If Debian used RPM, that would still hold true; if Fedora used .deb, it would still hold true.
Years and years and years ago it was true that RPM-based distros did not have dependency solving package managers with all the capabilities of apt. They do now, and have done for many years. But no community RPM-based distro has packaging policies as robust as the ones applied against the stable branches of Debian (RHEL's are very similar, though, within the same constraints - stick with the official RHEL repos and update channels, no cheating), so they still tend to have a few more cases where a maintainer makes a mistake with a dependency in an update or whatever, and this has led to the eternal life of the 'RPM is inferior to deb' meme, when that's not actually the issue at all.
It would not make sense for a distro like Fedora to be as stringent with packaging policies as stable Debian is, simply because of the differing goals and timeframes involved. But we have been working to make things better, consistently, and the rate of occurrence of packaging errors in modern Fedora is I think significantly lower than it used to be, especially if you don't use the 'updates-testing' repository where updates are validated before being sent to the stable 'updates' repository. (Though we much appreciate it if you *do* enable updates-testing on a testbed machine, and help us to test the updates and catch errors in them before they go to the stable updates repository).
In Ubuntu that would be
$ sudo apt-get install mail-server^
And whether you really really want it to always display correctly on the login screen on VTs...sigh.
Personally, I've found yum to be much much slower than apt under normal/default usage.
However, rpm has been MUCH MUCH easier to use than dpkg and it runs quite well. I LOVE the syntax of rpm. I also love apt and its syntax for what it does. If those two could get married, I'd be very happy.
Another one that's pretty darn awesome is emerge. I feel like they got it right almost all around, except that it wasn't made with binary packages in mind, so that part isn't as elegant (IMO).
If you're doing basic stuff, F18 is working for you, and you don't see any shiny features in the newer version of whatever desktop you use that you really want, there's no pressing reason to upgrade, but you would probably be fine if you did upgrade. For my work, F19 works fine, so did F18, so would any other distro, really.
Give me debdelta and we can talk. Everyone say apt is faster that yum, but until deb based distributions give me the equivalent of deltarpm as an stable feature, yum will always be faster for me on my awful internet connection that apt
The 'real' difference between apt and yum is not as large as it seems, because apt 'cheats' - it has a cron job to download metadata in the background. yum refreshes its metadata only when you run a yum command, so if you don't run them very often, every time you do, you have to wait through a metadata refresh. That's usually what people are complaining about when they complain about yum being slow.
Having said that, even after accounting for that factor, yum's performance could stand improvement, and in fact we're working on that. The package manager currently called 'DNF' is really 'the next major version of yum' being developed in a sort of stealth mode. yum itself is in maintenance-only mode, and all new work is being done on DNF. Once it's mature enough, it will become The New Yum in a future Fedora release. If you're impatient, you can install dnf on Fedora 18 or Fedora 19 and use it instead of yum, with most of the same syntax. It has not yet reached feature parity with yum - including some significant features like 'yum history' - but what it does, it does noticeably faster than yum does it.
I think it was a good decision to continue using that name when bugs started to appear, like this bug Fedora 19 bugs cannot be reported because the server side cannot handle the release name "Schrödinger's Cat"
Funnily enough, on Fedora:
yum groupinstall mail-server
Puppet is really for *site-specific* configuration stuff, in my way of looking at things.
And no, Fedora spins could not simply be expressed as puppet scripts, unfortunately. We are considering various proposals for updating how Fedora images are generated (the current system for building live images is pretty hideous behind the scenes), some of which incorporate the use of something like puppet, but something like puppet in itself is not sufficient infrastructure for generating operating system images, it requires rather more bits.
Fedora has never been an end-user distro. It always been targeted for the tester, the bleeding-edge power user, the tweakers and tinkerers. As an use everyday OS with a minimum of hassle, you'd be better off using Debian stable, or even Ubuntu or its derivatives, or OpenSuse etc. Fedora is for testing the next tech going into Red Hat's next version of RHEL. It always has been no matter what Red Hat acolytes say.
Are the install errors! Nobody is chock full 'o install errors like Fedora! Error 17, error 19, error 20! Each install attempt is like an easter egg hunt! Makes installing Gentoo a sunday afternoon stroll in the park by comparison! SE Linux is also a favorite! A security feature brought to you by the NSA, because they really care!
"SO we bide our time, waiting for a purer kick to bloom and the future is still bleak, uncertain and beautiful" -GSYBE
To be honest, you need more than just a puppet recipe to make a mail server. There is several how to because everybody has a different view on what to use. Dovecot, cyrus, ldap/mysql/simple user, postfix/exim/sendmail, what spam filtering, how, etc, etc. People are asking what module they should use to do this or that, and everybody is replicating module because the current one do not work like they want. So the issue is not solved, it just moved elsewhere.
The live spin are made using kickstart. So someone could already use that to replicate the setup, and there was some proposal to use ansible on the fedora-devel ist, not sure how far this went.
No, lots of people do. Just the ones who don't are loud and annoying.
I do love being told I don't know anything by ACs.
"Fedora is for testing the next tech going into Red Hat's next version of RHEL. It always has been no matter what Red Hat acolytes say."
if this were true, Fedora would not have something like 5x as many packages as RHEL does.
Agreed; it grew on me as well. When it was first released, I was actually excited for something trying to be different than Windows and Mac OS X -- much like with tiling window managers and E17. But, the people at Fedora don't live in a box, they provide many different ISOs with different default DEs, and they provide easy groups/collections to install different DEs using yum. I have GNOME and LXDE installed and don't have a problem. If I need blazing speed, I log in using the LXDE session, else I use GNOME.
The G
Eh, apt is so much faster than yum, it doesn't need delta packages!
It speeds up network connections? Where can I get this magical software?!
I haven't looked at this yet, but it seems Redhat has their own spin on things:
http://spacewalk.redhat.com/
It doesn't look as flexible or powerful as puppet, cfengine, etc., but it looks like a start at least.
"if this were true, Fedora would not have something like 5x as many packages as RHEL does."
See?
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?cid=17443218&sid=214388
Fonts on Linux these days look better than Windows 7 (in my opinion) and on par or better than OSX. If you want to tweak to your hearts content (or just set an aesthetically pleasing default) then use Infinality.
No, lots of people do. Just the ones who don't are loud and annoying.
I get the impression you're involved with either Fedora or GNOME development. That's cool; I don't care for either project (I'm primarily a Debian/KDE user), but they still have a place, and it's good that you're involved in something you like. Still, when one is very close to the creation of something, one tends to have trouble being impartial, and you're showing that here.
You should probably take a deep breath, put down the keyboard, and go take a walk or something. You've spent over an hour in this discussion telling everybody how they're 'wrong' for having opinions you disagree with or for not having nice things to say about your pet project, and now you're starting down the path of insulting people for having different opinions. That's not a good way to represent a project, no matter how passionately you may disagree. All you're doing is giving FOSS haters more ammunition, so they can go "see, look how those freetards act! Look how unprofessional they are!"
The best thing you could have done was stay hands-off and not post anything, or maybe one post somewhere in here to provide a counter-example to the nay-sayers. Instead, you've chosen to single-handedly make a bad impression with many of the people reading these comments. At best, you're making people think ill of you personally, and at worst, you're making them bitter about Fedora or GNOME, because you're representing them by being combative, and people will think of that when they think about the projects.
FWIW, I'm not writing this in response to anything specific said, or any particular comment made; this has been my only post and I have no real investment in the overall topic beyond hating seeing open source misrepresented by someone with misplaced good intentions.
Anyway, good luck and try to relax.
I'm just wondering what is perceived as missing., as producing images from releases has been pretty trivial for me. I use xCAT to deploy them, but I presume cobbler is comparably equipped in this regard. Driver injection and all when I'm producing images for environments requiring out of tree drivers, but that's a pretty rare circumstance while tracking modern distros...
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
None of the above, since they don't track Fedora before RedHat does?
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Yes it would. That's part of the test. Gauging relative interest in packages is part of the whole situation. Sure, enthusiasts get to come along for the ride and the developers get to try out things they would otherwise be forbidden from trying that they *want* to do, but the core mission of Fedora is, effectively, a proving ground.
It's the nature of the beast. Ubuntu is the same way, there is an ulterior motive at play. It's the simple truth of commercial linux. The question is to what degree the ulterior motives conflict, do nothing, or align with user goals. Fedora delivers cutting edge function first which causes some consternation as it fails, but for a respectable sized audience, that is a fine price of admission for experiencing new things first and, in some cases, getting to shape how immature technologies ripen.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Add rpm-fusion and livna and you have everything you may want on the codec front.
I agree that Fedora could make this easier, but it isn't too onerous as it stands, install two rpms and things get in order.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
I really miss window title search, and show only one application from my compiz/kde experiences. This is after a lot of extensions which I think is a pretty atrocious replacement for simple configurabilty, but it isn't hopeless... the 'activities view' concept seems good and, most critically the alt-tab makes larger window counts actually manageable.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Can we mod him up because he used the adverb, "funnily".
There is several how to because everybody has a different view on what to use
There doesn't need to be a single solution for any of these, but having all the setup be manual doesn't help most users. That's why we went with deb/rpm in the first place.
As far as the choices - all of my clients just tell me "make me a mailserver". They don't choose the specs, they tell me the requirements and I choose the specs. Frankly most people don't care why underlies their tools, for better or worse. Of the hundreds or thousands of packages I use, I can say I've only studied the .specs of dozens of them, so at a certain level apparently I don't care either.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I'm going to second this. I've been running the KDE edition of F19 for a while now on my secondary work machine (Phenom II x4, 8GB RAM, Geforce 9800GT) without issue. While I don't do everything on there I do on my main machine, I haven't experienced a single crash or hint of instability. (Main machine is a FX-8130, 16GB RAM, Radeon HD 5770. I also have Steam and VMWare workstation installed on here. Almost all of the issues I have stability wise are related to the ATI graphics card (though systemd and GRUB 2 still cause me grief. Firewalld has not been an issue, I will note)).
I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
FedUp still the recommended method to upgrade Fedora?
http://askaralikhan.blogspot.com/
I think that's really more of a GNOME 3 complaint than a Fedora complaint. I've just spun up a Debian Wheezy install on my main system, since I'm fleeing Ubuntu (stuck with 10.04 LTS until the desktop updates stopped coming). I've been trying to like GNOME 3, but I'm about ready to shitcan it. I'm using the "classic" mode at the moment (I found that I flat-out hated the new, not-so-improved interface), but even in classic mode there's still a whole lot of dumbing-down that I find simply infuriating.
Example: I prefer to NOT have my screen blank on idle, since that plays hell with my KVM switch, and I prefer to turn off the monitor when I decide to, not when the computer thinks I should. When GNOME 3 (either Classic or Fisher-Price) goes into screen blanking when the KVM switch is switched to a different system, it will come back in 640x480 mode, this on a 1920x1200 monitor. Unfortunately, the GNOME 3 crew has decided that "Never" is not a valid setting for screen blanking, which means I had to 1) add a script to /etc/Xsession.d/ that runs xset -dpms and then run dconf-editor, navigate to org.gnome.desktop.screensaver, and shut off the idle-activation-enabled toggle. WTF? I shouldn't have to go through such gyrations just to turn of the damned screen blanking.
I've been running Cinnamon elsewhere, and that's pretty good (but a bit rough around the edges). I'm debating between MATE, Cinnamon, or XFCE for this Debian box. GNOME has jumped so many sharks that it's running out of sharks to jump.
Oh, no! You have walked into the slavering fangs of a lurking grue!
What's ironic is that it broke because of the "Ã" which is a legal character in the release string, but not because of "'" which isn't - the definition states that quotes must be escaped. And they still haven't fixed that - the text string doesn't say "SchrÃdinger\'s Cat", as it should.
And even more ironic is that slashdot still can't handle UTF-8...
Spending countless man--hours on rounded corners and bandwidth-eating Ajax is apparently more important than fixing the broken text input.
FUCKING SPLIT THE PARIGAM, FUCKING OBVIOUS ISN'T IT?
I'm sorry, but it must be so obvious that I don't see it.
What is a PARIGAM and how do I split it? Is it like an atom?
It would not make sense for a distro like Fedora to be as stringent with packaging policies as stable Debian is,
Have you packaged something for fedora before? It's packaging policies are quite stringent.
Here's a portion of it
It isn't integrated into apt but debdelta exists and is used daily:
http://packages.debian.org/sid/debdelta
Spacewalk (which is the 'upstream' version of RH's Satellite, btw) and puppet aren't exactly intended to do the same things, AFAIK. Google has some useful results, inc. http://www.brightprocess.com/?p=306 and http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2009-November/085138.html . I'm no expert on the field (I'm much more down at the duct tape end) but it looks like people actually tend to use both together.
Yes. I work on Fedora. For Red Hat. I've done seven package builds in the last week - https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/userinfo?userID=954 . I'm still official maintainer for a few. I contributed to several rounds of discussion on revising the packaging guidelines. And I'm the team lead for the RH team which works on the automated testing system which is ultimately intended to *enforce* some of the packaging guidelines. Credentials enough for you?
It's *partly* that, but not *entirely* that. That ought to be pretty obvious to anyone involved in both projects.
There's clearly a relationship between Fedora and RHEL, but Fedora has its own identity as well.
I'm perfectly relaxed, thanks. I made two simple assertions which are amply backed by evidence in this very discussion: that more people than just the sub-thread OP (and myself) like GNOME 3, and that people who don't tend to be loud and annoying. Ample evidence for both of those, found right here. I'm feeling just fine about that post, thanks.
I am very involved in the production of Fedora. I am not involved in the production of GNOME, beyond testing it and reporting bugs - but then, I do that for KDE, MATE, LXDE, Xfce and Sugar too. I have tested all of those, reported bugs in them, and fixed bugs in several of them. I just happen to like GNOME, myself. I am not Required To Like it: RH staff working on Fedora are entirely free to use whatever the hell we like as long as our jobs get done. I know for a fact there are RH Fedora staff using every desktop/WM under the sun, and some blackhearts running OS X. I just like GNOME. I like GNOME on my spare time. No-one is paying me for it, though if the GNOME Foundation has some spare cash rattling around, I wouldn't object. :P
Oh, and again, this is Slashdot. "Combative" is the price of admission around here.
Maybe it's more like an infinitive? Ooh, this is a fun game!
I'll make sure to file a bug tomorrow suggesting that we FUCKING SPLIT THE PARIGAM
Why not 3.10, Fedora 18 also running on 3.9.4 code.
http://askaralikhan.blogspot.com/
The only thing I could imagine not being as good in Fedora compared to Debian is the repositories themselves. Debian has a hell of a lot of packages, it's hard to compete with. Unless you consider "non-free" stuff that Debian doesn't include by default. But the package management system and package format? Come on, seriously, by now they both work fine. The main thing that matters is what package management tools you like best, and that is nothing more than a personal preference.
The endless Gnome 3 vs 2 discussions are all very well (I ditched Fedora because of it), but in the end let the voters decide:
Apparently in 2010 Fedora was the 2nd most used distro (from http://www.pcworld.com/article/2021273/another-year-another-totally-different-top-10-linux-distros.html).
In 2011 it was 3rd. In 2012 it was 4th.
And looking at the latest Distrowatch page hit rankings (which is what that article was using):
http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=popularity,
it now is 5th.
Am I the only person in the world that thinks Gnome 3 is actually pretty cool? Once I stopped bellyaching about being forced to do things a different way I actually started getting things done faster and with less mucking about. It still beats out the 'Metro' interface if you ask me and it seems like they are getting ready for touch which seems reasonable at this point in the road.
No, I've liked Gnome 3 from day 1 - I had hated the "windows-alike" DEs like Gnome 2 and had been using Enlightenment 17 (development release) for years, but when Gnome 3 came along it seemed like about the best DE I'd used so I switched. There are, of course, niggles and WTFs (things like not being able to disable the screen blanker - I mean, really, would it have been way too confusing for users if there was a "never" option in the screen timeout dropdown?), but you get niggles with all DEs.
What I don't get is why every time Slashdot has an article about Fedora, most of the posts boil down to "Fedora's shit because it has Gnome 3" - seriously, no one's forcing you to use Gnome 3, if you don't like it there are plenty of other DEs packaged for Fedora; don't condemn the whole distro just because one of its defaults doesn't sit well with you and you're too lazy to do the trivial job of changing it.
http://blog.nexusuk.org
Do the "New Generation" of programmers, Have no fucking clue?
These idiots that have taken for granted the existing stable conventions, One's they cut their teeth on.
And now thinking they know better - By going down this Tablet interface path - With everyone along with it?
Who's going down a "tablet interface path"? I'm assuming you're talking about Gnome 3, and whilst it looks *vaguely* "tablety" I don't think I'd want to use it without a keyboard and mouse (and FWIW I find it works very well on both my desktop and laptop - I've not tried it on a tablet so I can't comment there but on my normal workstations it seems to work better for me than any other DE I've used).
2. Desktops - Stable. (We really wan't DESKTOP's in their traditional sense. We don't want hybrid touch screen desktops or tablet interfaces.
Desktops are where hard and complicated work is done. Multi Screen - ie. Multi reference info while you work etc.)
My multi-screen desktop seems to work just fine with Fedora running Gnome 3. I'm not sure what your point is supposed to be...
2.5. Desktops - Yuppy. There will be some that want BLING on their desktop, So as long as the Tablet UI can be installed on a desktop
AS an OPTION then this will keep those happy too. Key word here is OPTION. It's not the default for a "Desktop".
Again, assuming you're referring to Gnome 3 as a "tablet UI" (I'm not sure why you think it's a tablet UI, but lets ignore that for a minute), in what way is it not optional? If you don't like it, there are plenty of other DEs packaged for fedora, why not switch to one of them instead of bitching that you somehow don't have an option (which seems to equate to "I can't be arsed to change the defaults, all computers must come pre-configured exactly how I like them and everyone else be damned").
http://blog.nexusuk.org
Can I hit you with something to take back to the Fedora team. Right now there is no Live Linux distribution that is set to run well on Retina. There really is no Linux that is targeting Apple since Yellow Dog dropped out after the switch away from PPC chips. Apple currently sells about 85-90% of all computers over $1k, that is they own the enthusiast market. In particular they have a nice chunk of the system admins.
From a marketing perspective I think it makes a lot of sense to make the experience on retina smooth. That is a one click installer for an image that can DDed onto a USB key to use on the retina. I think you have most of the pieces and creating an app that does nothing more than a basic partition plus DD is probably under a days work for a Cocoa programmer.
I think Gnome 3 is really cool as well. I think the Gnome developers did the right in the direction they went. I think the Gnome political structures did a truly terrible job in alienating Canonical and creating a fork as well as not doing something like Mate and keeping Gnome 2 a viable option during the rough initial years for Gnome 3.
Mostly though /. has become ultra conservative, they don't like any sorts of changes whether it be Gnome3, Metro, IPV6.... 12 years of IT stagnation have created a generation of IT workers who like stagnation and support stagnation. It is a pity.
This is /. . Last time I checked we talk to engineers and they are combative. When you want to talk to PR people go to a trade show. I think Adam has the right to say what he thinks and if that means believing the critics are morons, and calling them morons so be it.
He doesn't represent anything more than his own opinion. Anyone who judges a product's customer facing personality based on the personality of the engineering team lacks the experience to lead RFI/RFP processes.
GP does have a point about separating the paradigm, which I agree with, though he did so not as coherently as he could have.
Though as many have said, if one doesn't like the tablet-ization of Gnome 3, it's not like there aren't lots of other options.
I'm something between a "user" and "power user" and have been running Fedora as a basic desktop since F12. Haven't had too much trouble with it... in fact as time goes on I have to make fewer tweaks because things get fixed.
For example on the F17 to F18 upgrade my sound stopped working... because they fixed how HDMI sound works so I didn't have to set my HDMI output number a la (1,3) manually. A simple deletion of one line I had added to get it to work previously made it work automagically.
For media and the nvidia driver I just add the rpmfusion repo, install the stuff I want and it "just works".
I don't even have to manually set up printers... they're set up automagically without me doing anything...what's the fun in that? Though I've got a LaserJet 1200 which works better with PCL hpijs than the default Postscript because it's got the minimum RAM.. so I do have to change that.
But we have been working to make things better, consistently, and the rate of occurrence of packaging errors in modern Fedora is I think significantly lower than it used to be, especially if you don't use the 'updates-testing' repository where updates are validated before being sent to the stable 'updates' repository.
I've been running Fedora since F12 and there are fewer packaging errors, and problems are usually fixed within a day.
Oh? didn't know about DNF...
(sudo yum install dnf)
hmm doesn't seem that much faster than yum to me... though yum always worked fairly quickly, for me anyway at least more recently it has. So not that large of a performance jump for me...not yet... it is slightly faster, I agree on that.
One of the points of dnf is that it will share a dependency solving backend with zypper (libsolv), that was an intentional and co-ordinated decision to reduce NIH. We can't really just use each other's tools wholesale, though, there are various bits of unique functionality each needs to maintain, AIUI.
That's not my job description, that's a (jokey) job description I wrote for a position we were hiring for. Why would I write a hiring notice for my own position?
You can bold the word 'publicise' as much as you like, but this thread is not a 'community-focused [QA] event', and I ain't on the clock.
As it happens, I don't think I've called anyone a moron in this thread. (Might be a first!)
The design of GNOME 3 has very little to do with tablets, I really don't know where that meme came from. You can read through the whole design document and about all it says about tablets is 'yeah, there's these tablet things kinda happening, maybe we should keep them in mind, kinda'. I mean, look at the top panel: does that look like something you'd want to use on a tablet?
It was designed for computers, pure and simple. You're perfectly free not to like it, but it doesn't have anything to do with tablets.
The design of GNOME 3 has very little to do with tablets, I really don't know where that meme came from.
It comes from how it looks and behaves, it looks much more like a mobile interface than any other desktop environment I have seen. Only Win8 looks more like a mobile interface.
You can read through the whole design document and about all it says about tablets is 'yeah, there's these tablet things kinda happening, maybe we should keep them in mind, kinda'.
More than "in mind" I think. What I personally think is some Gnome Developers saw how popular tablets were getting and were wanting to prepare for the future of Mobile Linux and decided that mobile-izing Gnome 3 was a good first step.
It's wasn't... the CDE/Win9x/2000/XP/Vista/7/Gnome2/KDE/XFCE interface paradigms are popular and became pretty much THE standard for a reason. There's a reason RHEL is sticking with "Gnome Classic" and not "Modern".
I mean, look at the top panel: does that look like something you'd want to use on a tablet?
Gingerbread? Honeycomb? Sure Gnome3 isn't exactly the same but there most certainly are similarities especially in how applications are presented to the user. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say Gnome 3 has "mobile inspiration"
It was designed for computers, pure and simple.
Yes, but that doesn't mean it's not "mobile inspired" in the same way that Unity on Ubuntu and Metro/Modern on Windows 8 are.
You're perfectly free not to like it, but it doesn't have anything to do with tablets.
Rahul Sundaram also keeps saying the same thing.
But ......you just said, " 'yeah, there's these tablet things kinda happening, maybe we should keep them in mind, kinda'". Fedora and Gnome developers can't have it both ways! That's one of things that annoys some of us the most.
And I do not like or use Gnome 3, switched to XFCE in F16 once I tried out Gnome 3. XFCE behaves properly with a proper applications menu, quick launch buttons, application switcher, volume/network/notification/clock area and proper minimize/maximize/close buttons. Yes, I'm a UI traditionalist, I know.
Adam I'm not one to get overly loud about Gnome3, I think RHEL made a good choice with sticking with the new classic mode. I expected RH to force development on something like that to replace "fallback" because Gnome 3 totally breaks from the standard UI paradigm for business use.
Why not just use MINT if you like Cinnamon?
"I mean, look at the top panel: does that look like something you'd want to use on a tablet?
Gingerbread? Honeycomb?"
Well, no. There's a very superficial similarity, but in practice the difference is huge. On Android there is a top panel with icons in it, but you're not expected to actually touch those icons. They're purely indicators. They'd be terrible touch targets; far too small.
In GNOME 3 the stuff on the top panel isn't just informational, it is a bunch of targets you're actually supposed to use. You click on the network icon to configure the network, you click on your user name to get the User menu, etc etc. This would make a terrible tablet UI; those elements are far too tiny to be viable targets for finger touching.
"Sure Gnome3 isn't exactly the same but there most certainly are similarities especially in how applications are presented to the user.""
Here is the design document for the overview: https://wiki.gnome.org/GnomeShell/Design#Activities_Overview . Here is the reasoning for the application picker design: "This enables new applications to be launched and open applications to be switched to. The avoidance of exclusive application categories and nested sub-menus is a distinct advantage of application launching in the shell compared with the GNOME 2 desktop. Users do not have to guess which category an application is in, and the motor control demands of the application picker are lower than those of menus. The application picker also utilises spatial memory, making it quick and easy to relocate applications." Nothing at all about tablets. (The key point is the thing about 'motor control demands': IIRC, the GNOME team did some usability testing on GNOME 2, and found testers often made errors in launching applications through nested menus, especially when using touchpads, because of how close items are together and how easy it is to move the pointer a bit wrongly and lose your spot in the menus).
"Yes, but that doesn't mean it's not "mobile inspired" in the same way that Unity on Ubuntu and Metro/Modern on Windows 8 are."
It just isn't. I don't know why you're so determined to believe something to be the case which is not, in fact, the case. It's not like the Shell design is some kind of huge top secret, the files are right there on the Wiki. You can go and look at them. If it was 'mobile inspired', they would say so. It just isn't. This is a plain fact, it isn't up for debate.
"Rahul Sundaram also keeps saying the same thing."
He keeps saying the same thing because it's true. I really don't understand why people have such a hard time accepting that. Why would we lie about it? If GNOME Shell was 'mobile inspired' I'd say it was. I don't see what mileage there'd be in lying about it.
"But ......you just said, " 'yeah, there's these tablet things kinda happening, maybe we should keep them in mind, kinda'". Fedora and Gnome developers can't have it both ways!"
I don't know why you keep trying to lump us together, we are not the same thing at all. As I've said a thousand times, I like to talk about GNOME 3 because I like GNOME 3, I think it gets an unfair rap around here. It's entirely a personal choice, and has nothing to do with Fedora in particular. I was using GNOME Shell (the very early versions) before I ever used Fedora, on Mandriva, which is generally considered a KDE-native distro.
What I meant by the 'keep them in mind, kinda' thing was this single bit from the design document I linked above:
"Effectively works on contemporary hardware: the Shell will provide an excellent experience on touch-based devices and will scale down to small screen sizes. It has also been designed with wide-screen in mind"
That's it, that's all it has to say about 'tablets'. It's the last bullet point in a six bullet point list of 'Goals and advantages'. If you think that makes it 'mobile inspired', well, I dunno what to say.
Is installing with encrypted btrfs / partition supported ? I can't find an answer in the documentation.
I installed the beta in a VM with a live MATE image (where I created the boot and / partition in the installer itself). It allowed the btrfs encrypted /, though it was not obvious at first.
When I tried installing using the same image on my physical machine - where boot is a existing partition I don't want to format during install, and / is another existing partition (ext4, not encrypted), it is just not giving an option for btrfs in the drop-down for file system.
Same thing working very differently in VM and physical machine. It would be great if you could point a solution. I'm fine with text install, but please no kickstart for me. I'd ask it in fedora forums too , if I don't find an answer anywhere else.
thanks
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
I get that there can be people who would like Gnome 3. The problem I have is - it got "marketed" to people who were using Gnome 2. I say marketed because there were people who were using the distributions with default DE which was Gnome , or even choosing Gnome out of other options. Same people, using same options, one fine day started ending up with Gnome 3. Mate and Cinnamon didn't even exist then, and are buggy even now (tried MATE and Cinnamon on Mint 14 LMDE, upgraded to latest, lots of basic bugs).
If Gnome 3 were being "marketed" as a completely different DE(an understatement) , it would have been fine. It would have been used by people who were looking for change. But instead it went to people who were looking for either no change, or more features. Gnome 3 provided neither.
Consider people who stay nearly on the cutting edge because they want the newer features being developed in the open-source world. They are vocal because they are involved - sometimes even develop, but almost all of them testing the limits of the new software. Typically it doesn't happen that new development deprives people of features. Even the infamous PulseAudio episode - people had an option to keep using OSS / ALSA for a long time after PulseAudio became available, and even default. I never blamed Fedora for early inclusion of PulseAudio even though there were rough edges. That was because, if you fought with it just a little, you could re-enable OSS/ ALSA - or sometimes even get all the features with PulseAudio. Fedora, and other cutting edge distribution users won't grudge the fight.
Gnome 3 was different because there the lack of features were by design - and going back to Gnome 2 at the time meant staying with old releases of distributions, or a lot of software building.
Maybe the dissatisfaction should have been directed at the distribution maintainers - but maybe not. Not, because the distribution maintainers were providing what they promised - cutting edge software. The cutting edge software ended up with less features wasn't their responsibility, directly.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
I agree with you. The Gnome 2 crowd was a terrible crowd for Gnome 3. I honestly am of the opinion the Gnome 2 crowd wasn't good crowd for Gnome 2. Part of the problem was Ubuntu having picked Gnome over KDE. Ubuntu had developed a community of Linux enthusiasts. Gnome foundation never envisioned Gnome as a DE for computer enthusiasts of any stripe. Gnome for them was meant to be a general purpose desktop where functionality for Linux powerusers was sacrificed to ease of use for the general population.
Gnome in the Gnome 1 and Gnome 2 days had been very focused on winning the battle for usage among Linux desktop users and system admins (i.e. generally computer enthusiasts) against KDE. And that had constrained it somewhat. Gnome 3 wasn't going to be similarly constrained because at the time Gnome 3 was defined Gnome's problem was getting to non-enthusiasts and beating systems like iOS or BB7.
The Gnome foundation should have encouraged distributions to have maintained Gnome 2 particularly Ubuntu. In many ways the same mistake KDE made with KDE 4. The real problem was compounded by the fact their relationship with Canonical was in the toilette at the time.
Sorry for probably coming off as belittling, it was not intended in that manner. It just came across as you were saying fedoras standards were lax, which as a testament to the work you and others are doing I would say they are most definitely not.
Overall I've been very pleased with koji/mock/etc and the level of quality control present.