Fedora 21 Beta Released

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday November 4, 2014 @08:52AM from the onward-and-upward dept.

An anonymous reader writes: The Fedora Project has been critical to the development Red Hat Enterprise Linux — RHEL version 7 was largely based off Fedora version 19. Fedora is continuing to evolve with the announcement of Fedora 21 Beta, now available from the Fedora Project website. To make the release ready for Beta testing required addressing 50 beta blocker bugs. If the Fedora Project developers are able to keep up with the final release blocker bugs, then Fedora 21 is expected to be released on December 9th. As a result, support for Fedora 19 is expected to end around the beginning of 2015. Released back in July 2013, Fedora 19 will have been supported for over 540 days by 2015. Previously, the longest a Fedora release was supported was Fedora Core 5 at 469 days. Users of Fedora 19 will be encouraged to upgrade to Fedora 20 or 21 to continue to get critical updates.

25 of 56 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

beta blockers? what have they smoked? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-04 08:57 · Score: 3, Funny

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
Next week: systemd announces integration of drugs.
1. Re:beta blockers? what have they smoked? by tlambert · 2014-11-04 09:44 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Next week: systemd announces integration of drugs.
  Beta blockers are for reducing blood pressure; systemd is for raising it. };-)
2. Re:beta blockers? what have they smoked? by wangmaster · 2014-11-04 09:57 · Score: 2
  
  You know what amuses me about all this systemd hate.
  Fedora was the first distro to go systemd by default back in F15. There were a few growing pains, but there wasn't the coordinated systemd hatred until pretty much recently when RHEL7 went out the door and debian said we're going systemd.
  I know Fedora isn't as popular a distro as some others but it still seems amusing to me.
3. Re:beta blockers? what have they smoked? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-04 10:19 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  And the usual complaints about systemd are hilarious hypocritical. X.org, Emacs, GCC, KDE/Gnome/Whatever, etc. all violate the "Unix philosophy" by doing far more than one thing and yet strangely the frothing-at-the-mouth systemd haters are silent when it comes to criticizing said software for the same reason. Nor have any forks of Debian been threatened over those and numerous other pieces of included software that violate the same "philosophy".
4. Re:beta blockers? what have they smoked? by unrtst · 2014-11-04 10:37 · Score: 1
  
  Fedora was the first distro to go systemd by default back in F15. There were a few growing pains, but there wasn't the coordinated systemd hatred until pretty much recently when RHEL7 went out the door and debian said we're going systemd.
  I don't know why this would be amusing or surprising. Any distro could adopt any new feature/system/etc and, while there may be criticism, the majority will not be up in arms regardless of the decision is there are still a wide variety of other acceptable distros that retain the previous feature.
  For example, if RHEL (and thus CentOS), and Suse, and Fedora, and Ubuntu, and Debian all went to Gnome 3 at the same time and did so with tight integration (ie. not simple to downgrade to Gnome 2), then everyone would be up in arms. However, if the change is staggered across different distros, and others using those have time to make well supported forks (e. Cinnamon and MATE based distros like Mint), then the backlash is kept to a minimum. IE. people will still complain, but it's useless complaining because they can easily move to Mint MATE and continue to enjoy a Unbutu-based experience with Gnome 2.
  Systemd's widespread adoption by distros is, contrary to what many may think, causing a lot of the issues. Lots of people tend to think that, if only development/management/maintenance/etc effort were not spread across these different competing projects, then so much more advancement would be made in Linux. IMO, that is a very misguided philosophy. Competition in OSS projects allows each to try things they would otherwise not try if EVERYONE used it, thus allowing significant advancements to be made; and due to similar licenses and/or devs etc, features can be cherry picked and brought to all as they are proven.
  A rough example: I used ESD (enlightenment sound daemon) with OSS (Open Sound System) when ESD first came out. I later used ARTS (analog real time synthesizer) instead of ESD, then replaced OSS with ALSA (Advanced Linux Sound Architecture) and went back to ESD, and also used straight up ALSA for a while. Pulse made a lot of that flexibility more difficult. It was still possible to replace pulse, and many people did, but it wasn't as easy as swapping ESD and ARTS or OSS and ALSA (not to mention the many other similar projects like NAS and MPD).
  Another example: I used to use whatever window manager with my desktop environment that I wanted. It was all very mix-and-match, as was moving between straight startx and XDM/GDM/KDM. That's all changed quite a bit. Much of that can still be done, but it's no longer clear and obvious and trivial (AFAICT). However, we don't see Unity+Mir being pushed out as the default on all distros. Some people using ubuntu may groan, but they can use any other flavor of ubuntu they like (kubuntu, xubuntu, lubuntu, or a fork like mint + their wide selection of DM's).
  One of the issues with systemd is that, if you don't want to use it for whatever reason, where do you turn? What if one doesn't want to use systemd for init, but still wants logind and/or systemd-dbus? or just systemd-syslog? or wants systemd for init but doesn't want it for syslog/cron/dbus/etc? (uselessd may answer the latter, but I don't know of any distros using it yet). This may all be answered in time, but the wide adoption, broad feature list, tight bindings, and relative immaturity (as in age of the project) make this difficult to accept. More people involved all at once = more grumbling.
5. Re:beta blockers? what have they smoked? by unrtst · 2014-11-04 11:00 · Score: 2
  
  What if one doesn't want to use systemd for init, but still wants logind and/or systemd-dbus?
  You don't. Just like you can't use XRender without an X11 implementation.
  So you can, since you could use XFree86 or Xorg or Kdrive and probably others.
6. Re:beta blockers? what have they smoked? by raxx7 · 2014-11-04 12:24 · Score: 2
  
  You can try and use them. But a modern X desktop on anything but Xorg's Xserver is untested and unsupported. If it works at all.
  Effectively, modern X desktops depend on Xorg's Xserver as the others (XFree86, Kdrive) lag too behind in development.
  Regarding your first question.
  A number of distributions (including RHEL6) used systemd-logind without running systemd as init.
  However, to do so with a modern kernel, you need to implement systemd' cgroup proxy functionality.
  Ubuntu has done just that, in the form of cgmanager, as they plan to use upstrart for a few more releases before migrating to systemd.
  If you don't run systemd as init, you can use the good old dbus-daemon.
  Like Xorg's Xserver, systemd provides features that developers/maintainers want to exploit.
  And those developer maintainers are not willing to put in the extra work needed to achieve their goals without those features.
  And although there's a very vocal outcry against systemd, it's not being translated into actual work to provide those features, only into complains and demands that others stop depending on systemd.
7. Re:beta blockers? what have they smoked? by eWarz · 2014-11-04 16:57 · Score: 1
  
  I finally figured out why my blood pressure shot up to critical, near stroke levels....systemd. ;) Let's just say it has made my life a bit more than...interesting...;)
8. Re:beta blockers? what have they smoked? by RabidReindeer · 2014-11-05 00:35 · Score: 1
  
  You know what amuses me about all this systemd hate.
  Fedora was the first distro to go systemd by default back in F15. There were a few growing pains, but there wasn't the coordinated systemd hatred until pretty much recently when RHEL7 went out the door and debian said we're going systemd.
  Well, some of it was simply that I had better things to do with my time than upgrade Fedora.
  When I did, that's when I encountered systemd.
9. Re: beta blockers? what have they smoked? by jc79 · 2014-11-05 11:08 · Score: 2
  
  Yep. Nobody is forcing you at gunpoint to use a systemd based distro. You can always roll your own. THe software is free and out there. Nobody is going to take the source code for SysV init from you. You have complete and utter freedom to use whatever software you want. Just don't expect your favourite distro to bend over backwards just to please you.
"Blocker bugs" - just ignore them like Ubuntu by Animats · 2014-11-04 09:23 · Score: 1, Informative

At least they acknowlege the concept of "blocker bugs". Those doesn't seem to bother Ubuntu. See "Bug #1274672: Fresh install of 12.04.3 fails to upgrade to 14.04" You can't upgrade Ubuntu because of a packaging problem related to Xorg. Ubuntu developers tried to deny the problem, which has a few thousand hits on Google. Finally somebody installed the old version in an empty virtual machine and demonstrated that, even after a completely clean install, the upgrade wouldn't work.
(There's a workaround. Completely install Xorg and the GUI, and, from the command line, do the upgrade. Then re-install the GUI. Really. Wonder why Linux can't make it on the desktop? It's stuff like this.)
1. Re:"Blocker bugs" - just ignore them like Ubuntu by Animats · 2014-11-04 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  (Correction: uninstall Xorg and the GUI)
2. Re:"Blocker bugs" - just ignore them like Ubuntu by donaldm · 2014-11-04 10:00 · Score: 1
  
  While I can't comment on Debian based Linux distributions I have found Fedora with GUI's like KDE (my preferred GUI), Gnome, Xfce etc to be a very good desktop and been using it Professionally as one for over 6 years. Personally I have never had a problem installing Fedora (since Fedora core 7) and it usually runs fine. As for upgrades I never do them I always do a fresh "overlay" (keep the original file-systems and only install in the systems ones) install since it is actually quicker and easier to do.
  
  There's a workaround. Completely install Xorg and the GUI, and, from the command line, do the upgrade. Then re-install the GUI. Really. Wonder why Linux can't make it on the desktop? It's stuff like this
  I have never had an issue like this with Fedora (the discussion is Fedora not Debian based Linux) and that is going back to the late 1990's. As for the Desktop I would have to assume you are aware of what is commonly called the "Microsoft Tax".
  
  --
  There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
3. Re:"Blocker bugs" - just ignore them like Ubuntu by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-04 11:15 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Geezus, you're an idiot. How long did you search before found a bug bash Ubuntu with?
  1. The bug report is from January and 14.04 was still in Alpha. Guess what? Alpha software is fucking buggy, just ask your Fedora friends.
  2. The upgrade problem had to do with only those systems that had Ubuntu's hardware enablement stack enabled. Most don't.
  3. Ubuntu's official policy for LTS to LTS upgrades is to wait until xx.xx.1 version is released. 14.04.1 was released near the end of July. Upgrading 12.04.5 with HWE to 14.04.1 was a fucking cinch.
  Leave it to Fedora fucks to bash another distribution to try and deflect the fact that despite the support of Red Hat, Fedora devs still can't meet their delivery deadlines.
4. Re:"Blocker bugs" - just ignore them like Ubuntu by iggymanz · 2014-11-04 11:45 · Score: 2
  
  So why didn't you first go to 12.04.5 and then to 14.04 with no issues like you were supposed to. Instead you whine about jumping from a weird start point. The biggest blocker bug is between your ears. Linux made it as my desktop years ago, it's obvious what your problem is.
Re:Why be a guinea pig for Red Hat? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-04 09:25 · Score: 1

Screw Red Hat
Sorry, no. When you actually look at the delta between Red Hat and Fedora it's pretty easy to understand the separation. Red Hat sucks on the desktop; library and kernel versions are ancient, whereas Fedora is very current; if it doesn't build on a recent Fedora it is probably a terrible piece of work. On the other hand, Fedora would be a real horror show in an enterprise environment that requires stability, while any given release of Red Hat offers 10 years of production support and binary compatibility.
Red Hat isn't wrong to do it this way. Your anger belies your ignorance.
Re:Why be a guinea pig for Red Hat? by donaldm · 2014-11-04 09:36 · Score: 1

From the Fedora home page "Fedora is sponsored by Red Hat".

There is a big difference between "sponsoring" and "owning". Sure some of the features of Fedora get incorporated into a commercial release of Redhat Linux but because Fedora is open source those same features can be incorporated into other Linux distros.

You will always find that commercial releases of a Linux distro are at least one to two years behind a stable release and a development release can be a couple of months to a year ahead of a stable release. As for Rehat making a separate distro (supported up to 10 years) to Fedora I fail to see that this is a problem.

--
There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
Re:Why be a guinea pig for Red Hat? by juanfgs · 2014-11-04 09:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

And to be fair, Fedora is rock solid as a workstation. At least for me it has been the least complicated distro to install, upgrading one time per year on my desktop and each 6 months in my laptop.
You have to get used to change, but if you are a developer not concerned with learning a few new things every year it's ok.
It should receive some more love on the desktop side, it's getting unintuitive for beginners.
About time by AdamWill · 2014-11-04 11:23 · Score: 1

A Fedora community member releases periodic respins of Fedora stable releases; they're not official releases and they don't go through QA but FWIW I'd trust the guy if I needed a respun image in a pinch. http://jbwillia.wordpress.com/ is his site, you can find the spins at https://alt.fedoraproject.org/... .
Re:Beta? by jones_supa · 2014-11-04 18:03 · Score: 1

Actually from Fedora I get least the beta feeling. They have a good amount of developers working on the components and fixing bugs, and they at least pretend to have some kind of real quality assurance.
Re:Why be a guinea pig for Red Hat? by Gavagai80 · 2014-11-04 18:54 · Score: 2

There's less difference between sponsoring and owning when Red Hat employees do a lot of the Fedora work.

--
This space intentionally left blank
There is X even on MS Windows by dbIII · 2014-11-04 23:01 · Score: 1

Rubbish, there is XWin32 and many others. If some rare edge cases of gnome3 don't work on it then that's more likely a sign of not fully tested new parts of gnome3 than a lack of support for a "modern X desktop".
Re:have they removed systemd yet? by jc79 · 2014-11-05 11:13 · Score: 1

Fedora Server: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki...
It's still got systemd in it, but you can always choose to use a different distro. That's the great thing about Free software.
Fedora 21 Beta Screenshots by linuxscreenshot · 2014-11-15 03:27 · Score: 1

http://www.linuxscreenshots.or...
Re:Why be a guinea pig for Red Hat? by rubycodez · 2014-11-16 03:59 · Score: 1

Wrong, they should have one distro. Other superior distros show how. Alternative new kernel version could be in the repository, for example, as can alternative newer versions of scripting languages,etc as seperate package sets. Not following this strategy is why people have fled Red Hat in droves in the server space.