Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Fedora Project Releases Fedora 24 Beta; Stable Version Comes Next Month (betanews.com)

Posted by msmash on from the affinity-for-Fedora dept.

A month ahead of its final release, Fedora Project on Tuesday released Fedora 24 beta for users and enthusiasts to try. An anonymous reader writes: The workstation version -- the one most home users will target -- offers GNOME 3.20 preview as a desktop environment. The GNOME environment has improved leaps and bounds over the years, becoming one of the best UIs of any operating system. Wayland is available as preview, but not default. The display server protocol is still poised to replace X, but it will not yet be ready for Fedora 24. The team explains that it should be ready for 'future versions'. Whether that means version 25 is something that remains to be seen."We're pleased to announce that Fedora 24, the latest version of the Fedora operating system, is now available in beta. The Fedora Project is a global community that works together to lead the advancement of free and open source software. As part of the community's mission the project delivers three editions, each one a free, Linux-based operating system tailored to meet specific use cases: Fedora 24 Cloud Beta, Fedora 24 Server Beta, and Fedora 24 Workstation Beta," said Matthew Miller, Fedora Project Leader.

78 comments

  1. Nvidia support? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fedora 23 supported fewer cards than FC 21. Hope FC24 improves this.

    1. Re:Nvidia support? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have the say the Nouveau driver for Nvidia is one of the most unstable drivers I've ever come across. It's completely unusable with my 750Ti when hardware acceleration is enabled. And looking at the redhat/freedesktop bugzilla makes me wonder if I'd be better off with a AMD gpu.

      So I have to use the nouveau.noaccel=1 kernel option for work. My CPU is barely powerful enough to play 1080p via VLC without lag (after tweaking).

    2. Re:Nvidia support? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      VLC has been getting more features, at the expense of performance;
      the VLC team doesn't seem to do performance regression testing.
      4k video is a complete show-stopper; mpv can play some 4k stuff that
      VLC stops after the first frame or so.

      CAP === 'diagonal'

  2. Fedora is irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does anyone still use Fedora? It sucks. Use Slackware instead. Better yet, run Windows

    1. Re:Fedora is irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go play in traffic, dingleberry.

    2. Re: Fedora is irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for your informative and insightful post. I will immediately run over to that distro you mentioned. Hopefully i can do more than chatops with it

  3. VNC by SurfMan · · Score: 1

    Will it *finally* allow me to use Gnome via VNC without the dreaded "Oh no, something went wrong?"

  4. The Alpha has been stable so far by Jim+Hall · · Score: 4, Interesting

    For those of you wondering if the Beta is okay to use, I'll share that I've been running Fedora 24 Alpha since it was released at the end of March, and the Alpha has been stable for me. I'm looking forward to installing the Beta this weekend.

    (My Linux system is a Thinkpad X1 Carbon, 1st gen.)

  5. Did they by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    get rid of systemd yet?

    1. Re:Did they by mike2006 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Beat me to it. I am a bit biased though after losing my first production system cut over to Centos 7 from Centos 6 due to XFS - systemd corruption.

    2. Re:Did they by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fedora was one of the very first distributions that featured systemd. I don't see a systemd-free future for Fedora unless some very heavy stuff hits the fan.

    3. Re:Did they by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      Of course. Lennart is RedHat's golden boy. In the eyes of their management, he can do no wrong. No matter how much of their user base he pisses off...

    4. Re:Did they by Martin+Blank · · Score: 3, Informative

      You're a vocal minority that is shrinking. I know several Linux admins who have changed their minds about systemd once they started writing scripts for it.

      Ubuntu, RHEL/CentOS, Fedora, Debian, openSUSE, Arch, and Mint all default to systemd, are planning to, or have it as the only option in the most recent versions. Gentoo maintains it as an option. Among major distros (for various definitions of "major") only Slackware seems not to have moved yet. One could call Amazon Linux AMI a major distro given its relatively widespread use, but IIRC it's based on RHEL6, so the next version could easily use systemd.

      That list will grow as other software starts using systemd by default instead of an option. You can continue resisting systemd, but it will require a great deal of ongoing work to do so.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    5. Re:Did they by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Beat me to it. I am a bit biased though after losing my first production system cut over to Centos 7 from Centos 6 due to XFS - systemd corruption.

      XFS - systemd corruption?

      What?

    6. Re:Did they by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So, why aren't there any protesters outside Red Hat's office? Why do people keep coming to Red Hat Summit? Why do they keep switching to RHEL 7? Maybe you're actually wrong and that not that many people actually have a problem with systemd. I mean if it actually pissed of so many then maybe we would see more of that outside of Slashdot and the likes, you know out there in the real world.

    7. Re:Did they by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Adults don't protest. That is a tactic used by BLM and Bernie voters. We have told our RH account manager that we have no interest in upgrading to 7, and that they will need to support 6 until we say so. For now, that call is made by old-school Unix folks like me. Once management gets rid of us all and our big fat salaries, I'm sure the Indian consulting firm that gets the contract will not care.

    8. Re:Did they by geek · · Score: 2

      So, why aren't there any protesters outside Red Hat's office? Why do people keep coming to Red Hat Summit? Why do they keep switching to RHEL 7? Maybe you're actually wrong and that not that many people actually have a problem with systemd. I mean if it actually pissed of so many then maybe we would see more of that outside of Slashdot and the likes, you know out there in the real world.

      Don't really want to stir the pot here but my 2 cents are this. People are protesting in their own way. I've seen a huge uptake in BSD lately. But you're right that RHEL is growing. I attribute that to a lot of people simply not knowing or caring about the issue.

      I happen to like systemd. I do not like the developers. I find them to be childish amateurs with extremely poor people skills. I also have huge problems with Lennart trying to replace the core OS with systemd. He's given presentations to this effect. He mocks rather than debates and actively belittles people who disagree with him. This is in stark contrast to Linus Torvalds who will call something stupid based on its technical merits or demerits. Linus doesn't show up to other peoples presentations, actively disrupt them and belittle the speakers on a regular basis for example.

      If systemd was being developed by anyone other then Lennart the controversy would not be an issue. Rather than get out ahead of this Red Hat has stood back and let their guy make a mockery of the open source community. Had Lennart been working where I work instead he would at best have been told to step back and stop speaking and at worst been giving his walking papers.

      There are legitimate questions about systemd. Many distros have adopted it because it makes creating and maintaining a distro easier. No other reason. It adds nothing to security and very little to functionality that wasn't already being done elsewhere. That said, I don't actually care. If the systemd shit hits the fan I can replace it very quickly in my systems. I have other security controls in place to negate it (layered approach) and I rather enjoy using it (although I have issues with journalctl).

    9. Re:Did they by jon3k · · Score: 2

      This is such a mindboggling position for people to take. The entire concept of open source is about flexibility but people think it's fine to blindly force one option down everyone's throats, regardless of what they want. It's surreal to watch. We have 9,000 distributions but only One True Init, apparently.

      I use Fedora and CentOS 7, so I'm using systemd on every system I touch now. And it's annoying, I certainly prefer the simplicify of the old init system. I'm really not sure what problem this was supposed to solve. Everyone talks about fast bootup times, but my servers uptimes are measured in years. Why should I add all this complexity to save a couple of seconds a year? I've spent hours reading about and learning systemd, to gain what exactly?

      And I'm not saying no one should use systemd. If it solves some problem for you, great, use it. I completely support you. But why don't you also support my desire to use the init system that I want to use?

    10. Re:Did they by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have an answer.

      The cool kids are behind the gym are collectively scratching their heads trying to figure out why folks were so miffed at the systemd debacle. They didn't notice when their smarter peers quietly left for BSD (either then or years earlier).

      Of course you didn't notice that at Redhat World FanboyCon or whatever, because you were too busy circle jerking with other like minded folks.

      Face it. Linux is boring and corporate now.

    11. Re:Did they by LichtSpektren · · Score: 1

      This is such a mindboggling position for people to take. The entire concept of open source is about flexibility but people think it's fine to blindly force one option down everyone's throats, regardless of what they want. It's surreal to watch. We have 9,000 distributions but only One True Init, apparently. I use Fedora and CentOS 7, so I'm using systemd on every system I touch now. And it's annoying, I certainly prefer the simplicify of the old init system. I'm really not sure what problem this was supposed to solve. Everyone talks about fast bootup times, but my servers uptimes are measured in years. Why should I add all this complexity to save a couple of seconds a year? I've spent hours reading about and learning systemd, to gain what exactly? And I'm not saying no one should use systemd. If it solves some problem for you, great, use it. I completely support you. But why don't you also support my desire to use the init system that I want to use?

      This isn't Microsoft or Apple, nothing is forced down anyone's throats. Use Slackware or Devuan if you want to avoid systemd, or hack it out of whatever your preferred distro is. Just please stop acting like it was forced upon you and you had no recluse.

    12. Re:Did they by LichtSpektren · · Score: 1

      Yeah, Linux is boring. If I wanted to play around with my system for educational purposes, I'd use OpenBSD because it's well documented and cleanly written. I use Linux because it "just works" and I don't have to spend hours toying with config scripts getting anything to work.

    13. Re:Did they by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know several Linux admins

      "I'm not racist, several of my best friends are niggers"
      Yeah, right. Doesn't sound suspicious at all. No sir, I'm totally going to take your word for it. Or maybe your "Linux admins" are converted Windows hacks who know as little about Linux as they did about Windows? That could explain it because something about systemd makes me think of svchost.exe more than anything else.

    14. Re:Did they by Microlith · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is such a mindboggling position for people to take. The entire concept of open source is about flexibility but people think it's fine to blindly force one option down everyone's throats, regardless of what they want. It's surreal to watch. We have 9,000 distributions but only One True Init, apparently.

      So do your own. The entire concept of open source is flexibility, and absolutely nothing is stopping you. Distros making decisions inherently remove some flexibility for the sake of delivering a functional platform.

      And it's annoying

      Is it existentially annoying, in that "it's there, and it bothers me" sense or is there a tangible criticism you have against it?

      I'm really not sure what problem this was supposed to solve.

      Reduced resource usage, reduced system overhead, increased response time, increased manageability, etc.

      Everyone talks about fast bootup times, but my servers uptimes are measured in year.

      Well, fast (parallel) bootup is one bonus, mostly for desktops, laptops, and embedded platforms. Maybe not for servers, because any with sufficient RAM will spend several minutes in the BIOS doing POST.

      But why don't you also support my desire to use the init system that I want to use?

      Use a distro that caters to your desires. Not necessarily needs, obviously, since you failed to make against systemd that isn't the same "It's there, and it bothers me" that has been howled for years now.

    15. Re:Did they by LichtSpektren · · Score: 2

      I know several Linux admins

      Yeah, right. Doesn't sound suspicious at all. No sir, I'm totally going to take your word for it. Or maybe your "Linux admins" are converted Windows hacks who know as little about Linux as they did about Windows? That could explain it because something about systemd makes me think of svchost.exe more than anything else.

      Perhaps you haven't noticed, but Red Hat, SUSE, and Canonical are all growing, and the usage share for RHEL/CentOS, SUSE, and Ubuntu have all risen as well. Where are all these hordes of systemd refugees that anonymous cowards on Slashdot keep telling me about?

    16. Re:Did they by MSG · · Score: 2

      The entire concept of open source is about flexibility

      "flexibility" does not mean "the community will do your work for you." It means that you have the means and the right to modify the software that you use so that it works the way you need/want it to.

      You still have those means and rights.

    17. Re:Did they by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And systemd's support for SELinux is just terrible. For example, many programs access /usr/lib/locale/locale-archive and work just fine from the command line, but if you start them through systemd, then you'll get something like this in /var/log/audit/audit.log :


      type=AVC msg=audit(1462853165.878:367): avc: denied { execute } for pid=3072 comm="mongod" path="/usr/lib/locale/locale-archive" dev="dm-1" ino=201328568 scontext=system_u:system_r:mysql_t:s0 tcontext=unconfined_u:object_r:locale_t:s0 tclass=file

      And, of course they fail. Most of them fail with an exit status of 0 so you don't know about the failure. Also, none of them that I've seen logged the real reason for the failure. Swallowing of error messages make it very hard to troubleshoot problems.

    18. Re: Did they by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The exit status bug is just terrible. We setup servers with Puppet, and it has no way of knowing services didn't start because Lennart has said he doesn't want it fixed.

    19. Re:Did they by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I'm not saying no one should use systemd. If it solves some problem for you, great, use it. I completely support you. But why don't you also support my desire to use the init system that I want to use?

      Why the hell would I support your desire to do anything? You want to pay me enough money, and sure, I'll do whatever you want. But Redhat is a commercial product that is INCREDIBLY successful, even after switching to systemd, so they're obviously doing things right at a corporate level, and everything else is primarily a community supported project (you could say Fedora too, but we all know Redhat would step in if that ship started going off course.)

      You want to use another init, go ahead, the source code is out there.

    20. Re: Did they by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Swallow is the right word. Logging messages just disappear.

    21. Re: Did they by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have to be very inexperienced to not understand why getting the exit status correct is so critical.

    22. Re:Did they by hierofalcon · · Score: 2

      While your comment is true, the Unix/Linux philosophy grew from do one small thing well and interoperate. Even extra keystrokes were omitted in the interest of keeping things small and fast - rm, cp, mv, ls and the like come to mind.

      systemd is getting its paws into everything. I too see a use case for some of its features - particularly for mobile users. But their ease of use has really made a mess of some interconnected servers. I'm sure that this will settle down as the code base gets more stable and quits changing, but it has had an impact particularly in trying to find out if an interface is up for some definition of up and waiting till that is true before starting other critical services.

      As systemd impacts and worms its way into more and more packages, the ability to "write your own" becomes just about impossible for any small group of people. If any software package maintainer decides - hey - I could use systemd this way and makes the changes, that person understands the software and knows what to change for their package. Multiply that by hundreds of packages. From the other side, in order to undo the encroachment - you not only have to understand how to write an init system, but you have to understand every package that you need that has built a dependency on systemd and unroll all of the systemd related changes which may have occurred over months or at some point years and put your own hooks in without breaking it and then maintain those hundreds of packages. As it works its way into desktops, the number of packages is growing.

      The get the source code and modify philosophy was really meant for fixing a problem or two before the end maintainers got around to fixing it or modifying a package or two and taking over those packages for internal operations. Duplicating the programmers of RH or the like really isn't in the cards for any normal person or group. Maybe it is for Mr. Pottering, but not for most everyone else.

      A decade from now when systemd has all the bugs worked out and the system admins are happy again, somebody will decide to build a systemg and it will start all over. It would be nice to think that they will remember the systemd mess and do better, but then again they're probably in grade school now - or their parents or grandparents are. That's the sort of init history that got flushed away in the name of new and shiny.

    23. Re:Did they by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      The entire concept of open source is about flexibility but people think it's fine to blindly force one option down everyone's throats, regardless of what they want. It's surreal to watch. We have 9,000 distributions but only One True Init, apparently.

      No it's not, never has been and never will be. Open source provides you the flexibility of choosing from a subset of system components and applications that a distribution provides and maintains for you. This has always been the case since the early days of Linux distributions. This is fundamentally the reason why we end up with different distributions and forks of distributions. It is also the reason why there's so many choices (not flexibility, there's a big difference between the two) out there.

      This extends way back long before the idea of replacing the init system was even proposed. It was the reason why one distribution was better than another at certain things. You have choices provided by the maintainer and beyond that you're on your own. In some cases that means compiling from source and bypassing your package manager which is easy enough to do. For other things that means replacing such a fundamental component of the system that it is impossible to make it flexible enough that you can just tick a check box when you first install as to which one you want.

      A Redhat developer said it a bit more technically than I did: https://www.redhat.com/archive... but ultimately I disagree with the words he used. Linux is about choice, but your choice is limited.

      Also there's some 40 distributions out there that don't offer systemd. If that's not the init system for you then Fedora isn't the init system for you. You have a choice to use something else.

    24. Re:Did they by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      because it makes creating and maintaining a distro easier. No other reason. It adds nothing to security and very little to functionality that wasn't already being done elsewhere.

      If that were the case then there would be very little reason people were upset about this. Systemd is a ground-up rethink and change away from how init operated. It also gobbled a huge amount of other parts of the system up and put them under it's wing.

      It's different. Very different. It has wildly different functionality matched only by projects with a similar scope that were trying to do the same thing for all the same technical reasons. To claim it adds no functionality and has no technical merits is downright bizarre given this additional functionality is what is causing most of the complaints.

      The technical merits may not match your use case, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

    25. Re:Did they by Etcetera · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is such a mindboggling position for people to take. The entire concept of open source is about flexibility but people think it's fine to blindly force one option down everyone's throats, regardless of what they want. It's surreal to watch. We have 9,000 distributions but only One True Init, apparently.

      So do your own. The entire concept of open source is flexibility, and absolutely nothing is stopping you. Distros making decisions inherently remove some flexibility for the sake of delivering a functional platform.

      This is highly specious reasoning. systemd's developers' stated intent is to standardize (read: take over) all userspace initialization. They've accomplished (much of) this through a combination of embrace and extend, land grabs, intentionally breaking unapproved setups, tying functionality together unnecessarily or for highly trivial reasons, arm-wrestling other distributions with self-fulfilling prophecies, and generally being assholes. In fact, they've been doing many of the same things that Microsoft did in the late 90's with browser integration and which we all fought heavily against.

      As a result of this, though, and partially as a specific result of their policy banning the packaging (and even OPTIONAL packaging) of initscripts at distro level in Fedora (the subject of this article), that it's become more and more difficult to revert out of it. Nothing may be *stopping* us (hence forks), but it's being intentionally made more and more difficult by a complete ass. Don't pee on my head and tell me it's raining.

      --
      Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
    26. Re:Did they by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing may be *stopping* us (hence forks), but it's being intentionally made more and more difficult by a complete ass.

      So you say.

      Don't pee on my head and tell me it's raining.

      I have no intention of doing so. How about you reciprocate and stop verbally defecating on others?

    27. Re: Did they by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If everything and the kitchen sink is required by systemd then it is shoved down our throats. Why can't we use both like we did before. Linux was all about customizing, not locking your users into using your software or else switch distros. This should not be a goal. Things need to be flexible in OSS, and systemd is not flexible, I'm sorry it just isnt.

    28. Re: Did they by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are doing something very wrong then. Having the knowledge, it takes me no time
      to setup openbsd. Depending on what I want it to do.

      The reason it takes you so much time is because you haven't bothered to learn it. You learned Linux instead, a systemd version of Linux to be exact. So basically you have stepped backwards, you went from using Linux to Windows(systemd makes Linux more Windows like), then brag about how smart you are.

      If you can't set up an openbsd system in less than an hour then gtfoh and go back to Windows. Seriously have all the good Linux admins disappeared? Once you know Linux then learning openbsd should not be that hard.

      For fuck sakes.

    29. Re: Did they by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me explain this. Free software gives you flexibility to change and adapt the software to you needs and desires, it does however not force anyone to do those changes for you. If you were thinking something else then I'm sorry but you were wrong.

    30. Re:Did they by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Maybe you haven't noticed, but a lot of us oldtimers went to various kinds of *BSD, and some even left for Windows, since when the choice is between one monolithic piece of shit and another one, you might as well go with the popular choice. And even if I sincerely doubt that systemd, as you are implying, is responsible for the increased usage of those distributions, it's not a counterargument against my objections against systemd, at all. In fact it makes perfect sense that people who feel lost without svchost.exe but want to try something new feel right at home with systemd.

    31. Re:Did they by jon3k · · Score: 1

      systemd is inevitable. It is winding its tentacles into everything. Sooner or later, it won't be an option. And neither of those distros are seriously workable options, let's be honest. Slackware just barely, Devuan? Come on, man. Be serious.

    32. Re:Did they by jon3k · · Score: 1

      I'm talking about at a macro level, not at the individual distribution level. Obviously it's each individual distros choice as to what software is included.

      What I'm saying is, most distributions support multiple window managers, multiple desktop environments, multiple anything, but only one init system. Why?

    33. Re:Did they by r1348 · · Score: 1

      Open source is not immune to consensus, if a given way to do something is used by a vast majority, it will become the standard. The positive aspect however is that the standard will never be forced on you, as it in having no other options, it would just become more and more difficult to deviate from it ad the non-standard user base's numbers dwindle. So your best course to have a viable alternative to systemd is to build a consensus on it, and the best way to do it is through technical merit.

    34. Re:Did they by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      And that's good for BSD, but it's still a shrinking number of people. If there are as many holdouts as are claimed, we should be seeing a striking rise in the use of non-systemd distros, or of BSD variants, but so far as I can tell, we don't really see that.

      And even if I sincerely doubt that systemd, as you are implying, is responsible for the increased usage of those distributions

      You're probably right. The use of those distros is partially responsible for the rise of systemd, not really the other way around. Most admins don't care. They just want something that works, and systemd-based distros work well enough for them, and so systemd becomes more common because it comes with the distros they use.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    35. Re: Did they by LichtSpektren · · Score: 1

      If everything and the kitchen sink is required by systemd then it is shoved down our throats. Why can't we use both like we did before. Linux was all about customizing, not locking your users into using your software or else switch distros. This should not be a goal. Things need to be flexible in OSS, and systemd is not flexible, I'm sorry it just isnt.

      Only in the same way X Windows and glibc have been "shoved down your throat".

    36. Re:Did they by LichtSpektren · · Score: 1

      Because the reason distros exist is for varying levels of support, updates and customization. They're mostly standardizing on one init because that's plumbing and it's not interesting to most distro maintainers. You could say literally the same thing about almost the entire GNU tool chain.

    37. Re:Did they by LichtSpektren · · Score: 1

      Maybe you haven't noticed, but a lot of us oldtimers went to various kinds of *BSD, and some even left for Windows, since when the choice is between one monolithic piece of shit and another one, you might as well go with the popular choice. And even if I sincerely doubt that systemd, as you are implying, is responsible for the increased usage of those distributions, it's not a counterargument against my objections against systemd, at all. In fact it makes perfect sense that people who feel lost without svchost.exe but want to try something new feel right at home with systemd.

      I'm not saying systemd is why those companies are growing. They're growing at roughly the same rate they did before systemd. I'm merely pointing out that the gloom and doom apocalypse predicted by the anti-systemd anonymous cowards didn't come to pass.

    38. Re: Did they by LichtSpektren · · Score: 1

      You are doing something very wrong then. Having the knowledge, it takes me no time to setup openbsd. Depending on what I want it to do.

      The reason it takes you so much time is because you haven't bothered to learn it. You learned Linux instead, a systemd version of Linux to be exact. So basically you have stepped backwards, you went from using Linux to Windows(systemd makes Linux more Windows like), then brag about how smart you are.

      If you can't set up an openbsd system in less than an hour then gtfoh and go back to Windows. Seriously have all the good Linux admins disappeared? Once you know Linux then learning openbsd should not be that hard.

      For fuck sakes.

      All fine and dandy if I'm just using an old desktop as a server with a tty; OpenBSD isn't hard to set up for that. But the driver, audio, wifi and gfx support are WAY more advanced in Linux, such that everything "just works" if you install it on a laptop.

    39. Re:Did they by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then use something like Alpine Linux. No systemd or GNU there.

      Personally I don't see what the big fuss is about. I use Korora, which is based on Fedora, and it boots and works fine. Is there some specific reason that systemd is bad or do you just fear new things?

    40. Re:Did they by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Because a window manager is an app which just sits in the system. The init system is a core component that requires support and co-operation from every app. It's the same reason why you will have one underlying tool chain / library, i.e. which distributions offer you the choice between glibc, eblibc? None, well Linux from scratch and Gentoo if they count.

      You most definitely do not get "multiple anything", you only get "multiple pluggable independent programs that are easy for distributions to maintain". Even if you traverse up your dependency tree you'll find your options for distribution supported choices rapidly diminishing. e.g. the discussion I linked to was not about systemd or even an init system.

      If something is too hard to maintain as a choice, you don't get that choice.

    41. Re:Did they by jon3k · · Score: 1

      Right, so why isn't there any mainstream distro that still allows init as a choice? I'm excluding slackware from mainstream of course. This seems bizarre to me.

    42. Re:Did they by imort.kz · · Score: 1

      Sure, systemd is a future but why we need to be glad about that?! I'd really like to have a choice here, even a little We have much of examples and tutorials here https://serversuit.com/communi... which inevitably will be useless over time And we spent much of time and effort writing them. So I think at least not to be very glad is a normal :)

    43. Re:Did they by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      There are several dozen distros that have not moved to systemd. You're free to use any of them.

      Tutorials become outdated. This happens with Windows tutorials, Linux tutorials, and BSD tutorials. It's the nature of the moving target that is technology. The ones you mention might still work on some distros, but not on some of those that have moved to systemd.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
  6. KDE by Luthair · · Score: 1

    Only remaining good window manager on any platform.

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

      Fedora has spins available for other desktop environments. For example the KDE spin: https://spins.fedoraproject.org/kde/

      You can live boot into it like a Workstation Live ISO. You've got spins for all the major DE (Cinnamon, LXDE, XFCE, MATE-Compiz),

    2. Re:KDE by Junta · · Score: 1

      I have to say I enjoy KDE, but it seems plagued by crashes for me.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    3. Re:KDE by unrtst · · Score: 2

      Only remaining good window manager on any platform.

      A bit pedantic, but it's a "Desktop Environment", not a "Window Manager".
      KDE includes a window manager, KWin. I don't think anyone can really say it's the only remaining good window manager, but it's arguably one of the good ones.

    4. Re:KDE by LichtSpektren · · Score: 1

      I don't mean to knock other people if they like KDE, but I have to say, it's REALLY buggy for me. Plus Akonadi eats up my system resources like candy.

    5. Re:KDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm afraid KDE really screwed up this time. I was there during the 1.x through all the way to 5.x, and I have to say that KDE 5, or whatever they call it this month is the saddest thing ever.

      KDE 1 was a bit primitive and on the heavy side for its time, but functional.
      KDE 2 was a bit clunky, but it was really getting there.
      KDE 3 was at the end a really functional, reliable desktop, not at all something you'd be afraid to put your grandma in front of.
      KDE 4 decided to basically throw it all away, and had a really rough start. But it eventually it got there, apart from KMail which sadly never recovered.. quite literally. KDE 4 in it's final versions is a really good an polished desktop. I was finally getting really happy again with it and things were beginning to fall in place, rough edges worked out, etc. Que KDE 5.

      One could have expect that they learned something from the debacle with the KDE 4 launch, but apparently nothing was learned. AGAIN large swaths of the DE is simply thrown away and rewritten from scratch in a new way, which frankly isn't very reliable. I'll never get why not just porting over KDE4 to QT5, get a functional desktop out and then go all fancy with the new stuff. As far as I'm concerned KDE5 (or $CURRENT_ACRONYM) is even worse than the early KDE 4 releases. They were sluggish, and frequently crashed, but they still did the job. K$CURRENT_ACRONYM is missing functionality which has been there forever, like middle click paste, and I don't even have to use it to make it crash. Literally, all I have to do is walk away, and come back a while later, and I will be greeted by a popup telling me that plasma this or that has crashed, and my session has died.

      I never thought I'd write this, particularly not after having ridden out KDE4, but.. KDE, as much as I once loved you, I'm sorry. It's over. Get out.

    6. Re:KDE by Dadoo · · Score: 1

      Fedora has spins available for other desktop environments.

      But the KDE spin of Fedora has never worked right. All of Fedora's system management stuff works through Gnome, and is flaky - or downright non-functional - in KDE.

      --
      Sit, Ubuntu, sit. Good dog.
    7. Re:KDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF are you talking about! have you seen KDE lately? It AND Gnome are looking more like Windows 10. HELL NO! That UI sucks big time.

    8. Re:KDE by antdude · · Score: 1

      Which version? V3 which I still prefer.

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  7. Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "The GNOME environment has improved leaps and bounds over the years, becoming one of the best UIs of any operating system"

    "becoming one of the best UIs of any operating system"

    "one of the best UIs"

    1. Re:Huh? by Rob+Riggs · · Score: 2

      "one of the best UIs"

      Yeah... that's why the first thing I do on my Fedora and RHEL installs is switch to Cinnamon. Yes, it is/was Gnome-based. But with all the crack-addled BS fixed, and everything that should work just does. No need to install a bunch of shell extension to get semi-sane behavior from a desktop.

      --
      the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
    2. Re:Huh? by geek · · Score: 3, Informative

      "one of the best UIs"

      Yeah... that's why the first thing I do on my Fedora and RHEL installs is switch to Cinnamon. Yes, it is/was Gnome-based. But with all the crack-addled BS fixed, and everything that should work just does. No need to install a bunch of shell extension to get semi-sane behavior from a desktop.

      Look into Budgie instead. Cinnamon is unsustainable. The Mint folks rarely make commits to it, mostly because they lack the expertise. Budgie is a more realistic alternative to GNOME with longer term ambitions. Its very usable right now also.

    3. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, GNOME is actually great and still very popular among GNU/Linux users. But if you're one of the people that spent the last few years just complaining about it on Slashdot and saying how great life is over at XFCE rather than actually contributing you might very well think that no one uses it anymore.

    4. Re:Huh? by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 2

      "one of the best UIs" - my favorite annoyance.

      It is among the top 100% of interfaces available, ever. Even far into the future.

      It's not a lie, it just means literally nothing. I frequently use it to backhandedly compliment someone's fave band or food.

      "One of the better UIs" would mean it is better than at least one, so I use that instead.

    5. Re:Huh? by leafz · · Score: 1

      Cinnamon is in constant development, the last stable release was just 15 days ago. People like to knock it for being a "windows clone", but that's what that's exactly what many people want. It's simple, clean, intuitive, and works perfectly on Fedora. I'll stop using it when development actually stops.

    6. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I quite like the XFCE spin.

  8. TWM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only remaining good window manager on any platform.

  9. systemd deprecated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    when will we have a sane init system again?

  10. I run Fedora 21... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've tried _newer_ releases, but (some KDE) functionality keeps disappearing without any explanation.

    I think eventually I'll have to move from Fedora just to keep my sanity.

    CAP === 'implied'

  11. H.264 support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://codecs.fedoraproject.org/openh264/24/

    Looks like they will support H.264 in F24. Kind of scary actually.

  12. Some honest thoughts on Gnome 3.20 by LichtSpektren · · Score: 2

    A lot of the things that make GNOME Shell suck are fixed in 3.20, but it's still rather agonizing to have to use the stupid activities page (clearly ripped off from OS X's launchpad...), and the lack of menu buttons is equally frustrating. Plus Nautilus still pales in comparison to Nemo and Dolphin.

    1. Re:Some honest thoughts on Gnome 3.20 by Xtifr · · Score: 2

      it's still rather agonizing to have to use the stupid activities page

      So, launch it in "classic" mode, or use the tweak tool to enable the applications menu. The only thing I use the activities page for is switching workspaces.

      the lack of menu buttons is equally frustrating.

      I'm honestly not sure what you mean here. If I were, I might have suggestions.

    2. Re: Some honest thoughts on Gnome 3.20 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes I know but there's a lot of improvement in 3.20. try that ðY' I love gnome because KDE just like windows, unity just old gnome with its own launcher

    3. Re:Some honest thoughts on Gnome 3.20 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of the things that make GNOME Shell suck are fixed in 3.20,

      And it only took what, five years?</snark>

  13. I didn't mean to cause a flame war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like hell I didn't! I love it. systemd is free software, the German National Socialist way.

  14. Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gnome lost me years ago,switched to kde which soon followed. Currently happy with xfce. Why would I want to go back?