Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Fedora 9 Preview Cleared for Launch

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 6 years ago | from the free-bits dept.

Red Hat Software 158

According to a post made yesterday to the Fedora announce mailing list, a Fedora 9 preview has been cleared for launch. "This is a Preview release, it is fairly close to what the final product will be like. This is the most critical release for the Fedora community to use and test and report bugs on. This is the last major public release before the final GOLD Fedora 9 release on May 13th (we hope). [...] Live images, KDE Live images, CDs and DVD options are available. http://torrent.fedoraproject.org has a section marked 'F9-Preview.'"

cancel ×

158 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The beta was interesting (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23120332)

I found this post [yahoo.com] on Yahoo answers which sold it for me basically.

Re:The beta was interesting (1, Offtopic)

Oxy the moron (770724) | more than 6 years ago | (#23120360)

As usual, mod parent down. Link is a fake. Must be fun to spend all day trolling /. like this...

Re:The beta was interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23120518)

I need an admin to delete that post, it's a virus do not click it.

Re:The beta was interesting (-1, Troll)

Vectronic (1221470) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121316)

http://slashdot.on.nimp.org/unlucky/sucker.html//sucker [nimp.org]

"Trojan" Program:

Exploit.HTML.DialogArg

MOD PARENT OFFTOPIC (1)

gzipped_tar (1151931) | more than 6 years ago | (#23122122)

Don't click that. It may crash your browser.

Re:MOD PARENT OFFTOPIC (1)

Vectronic (1221470) | more than 6 years ago | (#23122718)

Although it is Offtopic of the Article... I was simply being more explicit than the AC poster "It's a virus do not click it"

Thats where the original Yahoo.com link ends up... and what the name of the trojan is...

it wasn't until after I thought about crippling the url incase people might ignorantly click on it...

Re:MOD PARENT OFFTOPIC (1)

gzipped_tar (1151931) | more than 6 years ago | (#23122876)

I'm terribly sorry. I was browsing at +1 and failed to follow the parenting threads, and was wondering why you are getting this to post...

I'm using Fedora 9 right now (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23120350)

to get this first post

but on a more serious note, here is my ode to Slashdot in a haiku:

slashdot.com
return
ctrl-p
ctrl-p
walk walk, step step
big white ring
little brown ring centered
a splash, cold water makes a pucker
slashdot printout, wipe wipe
ah, relief

Perl a big deal for me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23120398)

Perl 5.10 will be integrated with Fedora 9, but not with Ubuntu 8.04. I like both desktops a lot, but I might switch back my home use to Fedora if they're going to be on the cutting edge for Perl releases, especially one so hugely important as 5.10 (if you don't know, 5.10 is the first release to incorporate many features from the spec for 6.0, so it has smart matching, a switch statement, defined-or, and a number of other useful Perl 6isms).

Differences (1)

Oxy the moron (770724) | more than 6 years ago | (#23120412)

Anyone have a link, or know off-hand, the major differences between this and the latest Ubuntu release? I realize there's the APT/RPM difference, but aside from that, what is notable?

Re:Differences (2, Informative)

Phisbut (761268) | more than 6 years ago | (#23120638)

Anyone have a link, or know off-hand, the major differences between this and the latest Ubuntu release? I realize there's the APT/RPM difference, but aside from that, what is notable?

KDE 4 [fedoraproject.org] , among other things.

That's a similarily, not a difference. (3, Informative)

SEMW (967629) | more than 6 years ago | (#23123110)

Anyone have a link, or know off-hand, the major differences between this and the latest Ubuntu release?
KDE 4, among other things.
Both Kubuntu 8.04 RC and Fedora 9 Preview are available with KDE4.

Re:Differences (5, Informative)

zedlander (1271502) | more than 6 years ago | (#23120642)

Fedora vs. Ubuntu [polishlinux.org]

Re:Differences (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23120716)

Thanks! That's a really useful resource. I'm a slackware-till-I-die kinda guy, but for friends-and-family consulting that is perfect.

Re:Differences (1)

Oxy the moron (770724) | more than 6 years ago | (#23120742)

Thanks much, that was a very helpful link!

Re:Differences (1)

arakon (97351) | more than 6 years ago | (#23120902)

That comparison dates from 2006... have anything more current?

Re:Differences (1)

lantastik (877247) | more than 6 years ago | (#23120962)

Distro Kombat!!
dundun..dundun..dundun..dundunDUNdun

Fedora
Ubuntu
Slackware
Gentoo
SUSE
Yellow Dog
etc.

dun.dun.DEN.dun.DEN.dun.dun.DUN
Distro Kombat!!

Re:Differences (2, Informative)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 6 years ago | (#23120698)

Major difference? Well I can't enumerate them, but I can generalize things you'll see in Fedora compared to Ubuntu

  • Continued work SELinux
  • Continued work NetworkManager
  • Continued work on PulseAudio
  • Some other stuff that will make its way to Ubuntu once the bugs get worked out within Fedora (and upstream)
  • Less specialization (ie. as a desktop) just a general operating system with utils and applications
  • Work towards upstart (something Ubuntu already has I believe)
  • Think I saw a few threads about ext4
  • Think I saw a few threads about full disk encryption
  • Jigdo support for sucking down images

SELinux is a pain in the ass. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23120916)

SELinux causes more problems than anything. I always end up disabling it so I can actually use some of my network services.

Re:SELinux is a pain in the ass. (3, Informative)

thule (9041) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121104)

... thus the "continued work". Fedora has been trying to strike a balance and get rid of the separate 'strict' and 'targeted' by making better rules. It takes time, but I can tell you targeted works pretty good for me right now. It was easy for me to add an extended rule for an exception I needed. The 'continued work' is making good progress.

Re:SELinux is a pain in the ass. (1)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121214)

I have been using SELinux on my homeserver without having to do any custom rules. I would imagine that if I was using it as a pure server, and not also as a MythtTV terminal, it would work even better.

Re:SELinux is a pain in the ass. (1)

Znork (31774) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121904)

I'd agree it used to be, but since F8 and CentOS 5.1 I'm using it across most my machines. With setroubleshoot the logging is very clear and many alerts will even tell you exactly what to run to fix the problem. The more complicated stuff isn't worse than following the FAQ link and then sending the actual audit alert through audit2allow and some other commands to update the policy to allow whatever it was complaining about.

Personally I think it's painless enough now that I can use it to coddle my inner paranoid.

Re:SELinux is a pain in the ass. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23122690)

The more complicated stuff isn't worse than following the FAQ link and then sending the actual audit alert through audit2allow and some other commands to update the policy to allow whatever it was complaining about.

So now, with a few clicks of the mouse, you can make changes to the core security policy without fully comprehending either the cause of the alert or the impact of allowing access? Yea, that's real good security all right.

BTW, what's to keep some malicious code running with root rights from changing the security policy? I'm guessing absolutely nothing.

If I enable it, SELinux doesn't allow a lot of programs to function correctly. If I make SELinux passive, it fills my log file with alerts. If I disable it, life is good.

Re:Differences (1)

kripkenstein (913150) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121782)

Major difference? Well I can't enumerate them, but I can generalize things you'll see in Fedora compared to Ubuntu


[...]
  • Continued work on PulseAudio
Not sure what you mean by that. Both Fedora and Ubuntu use PulseAudio these days. But of course there might be differences between them in how well they use it.

So, I just booted up the Fedora Preview to see just that, the reason being that in Ubuntu sound stutters if your CPU isn't very powerful (typically when you minimize/maximize a window or some other activity that causes a brief spike in CPU). Here is the bug [launchpad.net] , which I guess won't be fixed before release.

Sadly I was unable to test PulseAudio on the Fedora 9 Preview. First, I couldn't get my microphone to work, even after fiddling with all the little options for quite a while (note that this is a desktop - the mic hardware is very standard). So my plan failed to record something then play it back and see if it was smooth.

Next I tried to go to one of my existing partitions, to play a music file from there. Fedora wasn't able to mount them, and gave an embarrassing error message, I don't remember the exact words, but something along the lines of "Don't show these error messages".

And sadly the Fedora live cd doesn't come with any sound samples in the Music or Movies folders.

So I have no idea how well PulseAudio works in Fedora, sadly, because I was considering installing it if it did better than Ubuntu Hardy, whose stuttering sound bug is quite annoying. Looks like I'll stick with Ubuntu for now.

Re:Differences (3, Interesting)

QuantumRiff (120817) | more than 6 years ago | (#23120724)

the Apt/RPM is a huge difference. I used to love Fedora, and (still) run RHEL at the office on our servers. RHEL is fine, as I don't play and experement and try new things on it, but Fedora got to be a real pain in the ass with RPM Dependancies. I would find an RPM of something I wanted to install, it required me to first find and install another RPM, etc. Sometimes one of the dependant RPM's would not install, because I had a newer/older version for another program. Apt-get has worked flawlessly for me, and the HUGE pool of apps that just work has made it so I almost never have to search for .DEB files. I think the only change I had to do was add google's APT repository to Ubuntu, and it keeps picasa and google-earth up to date.

If the RPM system gets a huge makeover, I would probably play with Fedora again. It may have already been done, I switched to Ubuntu at 6.04.

Re:Differences (2, Informative)

QuantumRiff (120817) | more than 6 years ago | (#23120936)

after looking at the reply above to Fedora vs. Ubuntu [polishlinux.org] it appears that the package management has been drastically improved with Apt-Yum. I will have to play with Fedora again.

Re:Differences (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23122806)

Never mind the X vs Y package management argument, can somebody tell me why Fedora's own GUI updater program (and most of RH/Fedora's configuration programs) can't repaint the GUI properly?

I use a modern dual-core PC and the RH/Fedora configuration programs leave the screen unpainted for up to 30 seconds. What's up with that?!

Re:Differences (5, Informative)

Phisbut (761268) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121046)

I would find an RPM of something I wanted to install, it required me to first find and install another RPM, etc. Sometimes one of the dependant RPM's would not install, because I had a newer/older version for another program. Apt-get has worked flawlessly for me, and the HUGE pool of apps that just work has made it so I almost never have to search for .DEB files.

Comparing RPM to apt-get is apples to oranges. Either compare RPM to DEB, or yum to apt-get. I never had to bother with dependencies when using yum, just as you've never had to bother with dependencies using apt-get.

Re:Differences (4, Informative)

proxima (165692) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121806)

Comparing RPM to apt-get is apples to oranges. Either compare RPM to DEB, or yum to apt-get. I never had to bother with dependencies when using yum, just as you've never had to bother with dependencies using apt-get.

I completely agree. Since my distros of choice over the last 5 years have been Fedora and Debian/Ubuntu, I've had a fair bit of experience with both yum and apt-get. Yum, at least as of the Fedora 8 install on my desktop, is simply not as good (IMO) as apt-get in Debian or Ubuntu for two reasons:

1.) yum is slow, horribly horribly slow. I think it may have gotten a little better in Fedora 8, and I've heard that they're putting serious work into it. Hopefully Fedora 9 will be better, but it never ceases to amaze me how long it takes to do a "yum search" to look for a package compared to "apt-cache search".

2.) The package repositories for Ubuntu (which is derived from the huge repository from Debian) are larger and more complete, at least for the random software I tend to look for. Again, Fedora is gaining in this regard, the community-supported package setup is starting to rival Ubuntu's universe, making this a huge step up over the old RedHat 7/8/9 days compared to Debian at that time. When it comes to software outside of either repository, RPMs tend to be more common than debs, which is an advantage for Fedora.

So yum (and the standard underlying repositories) are behind in those respects compared to apt-get, but the difference is shrinking. In yum's defense, I think they implemented package signing as a default requirement before Debian did, but I could be wrong on that.

I've run Fedora on my desktop for a while, but Kubuntu on my laptop. I honestly don't know what I'll install on my desktop next. I usually skip every other release, and since I'm on FC 8, that means waiting until FC10. This might be good anyway; I'm a KDE user, and KDE 4.0 just doesn't look feature complete. Best to wait until KDE 4.1 polishes everything a bit more, perhaps. I'm debating whether to try out the latest Kubuntu on my laptop when it's released this month to try out KDE 4.0.

Re:Differences (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23122124)

Reminds me of when Eric S. Raymond loudly complained that his Fedora system unaccountably stopped working ... when all that he had done was to log in as root and start deleting random system libraries.

calling 2005 (1)

thule (9041) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121144)

The merging of core and extras has helped quite a bit with this. I personally never really had much problems with rpm hell. I've had even a less problem ever since apt-rpm and yum. Now I have even lesser problems with a single huge repository and a couple of extra repos for proprietary codecs and drivers. It's been *really* smooth for me.

Re:calling 2005 (2, Informative)

cbart387 (1192883) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121422)

Now I have even lesser problems with a single huge repository and a couple of extra repos for proprietary codecs and drivers. It's been *really* smooth for me.
I agree. The only issue I've had was with a livna package overriding a package from an 'official' repository and causing yum to not complete an update. If you use the extra repositories I'd recommend the protectbase [centos.org] plugin. It provides a way to give precedence over certain repos so that you don't make yum mad.

Re:calling 2005 (1)

Znork (31774) | more than 6 years ago | (#23122006)

Even better, use priorities [centos.org] so you can protect repos you are more dependent upon over peripheral ones.

After setting up yum priorities I don't think yum has had any dependency problems even with three or four external repos active.

Re:calling 2005 (1)

cbart387 (1192883) | more than 6 years ago | (#23122224)

It sounds like it accomplishes the same task. Is there a particular reason that you advocate priorities over protectbase?

Re:Differences (1)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121270)

A discussion about RPM and DEB, and suprise suprise, you mention Apt but not yum. Here's a tip: `yum localinstall RpmIManuallyDloaded.rpm`. The size pool of apps have little to do with RPM v. DEB as far as I know.

Re:Differences (0)

Warbothong (905464) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121532)

It seems pretty accepted that RPM has "dependancy hell" issues. The HUGE problem with package management, for me, is that there are a lot of people saying RPM should be ditched in favour of Dpkg or some yet-to-be-made system, but ALL of those arguments are essentially arguing for a packaging standard.

Well, RPM *IS* the packaging standard in the Linux Standard Base (see http://refspecs.linux-foundation.org/LSB_3.2.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/pkgformat.html [linux-foundation.org] ). Thus a standard Linux system should either use the RPM package system or have an equivalent system which can install RPM packages in addition to its own (note: dpkg can't do this, and alien doesn't count).

Therefore the call for standards is essentially a call for everyone to use RPM, whilst it seems pretty well known that RPM has serious problems. Of course, RPM has a *HUGE* inertia which means it won't be leaving anytime soon either.

PS: When I used Fedora back in the Core 3 days I used Apt4RPM and Synaptic (this is before I discovered Debian), don't know if it's still going though.

Re:Differences (2, Insightful)

Znork (31774) | more than 6 years ago | (#23122180)

"dependancy hell" issues

Dependency hell isn't really a function of the package format, the issue is intrinsic to reasonably complex software dependency environments, and the hell is what you get for not using an automatic depsolver. Of course, as there originally wasn't one that handled RPM's (like apt for debs), it's tended to get the blame.

When I used Fedora back in the Core 3 days I used Apt4RPM and Synaptic

These days you'd probably use yum and yumex. Using yum-priorites for repos and you'll have very little trouble even with several third party repos active.

Re:Differences (2)

nzeer (968326) | more than 6 years ago | (#23122968)

Comparing rpm to apt is just wrong. rpm is a packaging format, while apt is a package management system. Comparing rpm to deb would be fine. Comparing yum to apt would be fine. As a side note... yum is a very capable package management system nowadays.

Re:Differences (2, Informative)

fyrie (604735) | more than 6 years ago | (#23120786)

First huge difference between the two is that Ubuntu has professional support if you want it. Another huge difference between the two is that Ubuntu typically only gets security updates and major bug fixes during a version lifespan whereas Fedora continually gets application updates over its version lifespan as new versions of individual apps are released.

So you could say that Fedora stays a little more bleeding edge throughout the version lifespan, and Ubuntu stays a bit more stable throughout the lifespan of a version.

Re:Differences (1)

Wowsers (1151731) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121498)

Fedora continually gets application updates over its version lifespan as new versions of individual apps are released.
You've described how Mandriva works. Does anyone other than me actually use that distro? It was released a few days ago an I must have blinked and missed any mention of it's release here. Still, installing the development branch to test applications or all of Mandriva before release is... interesting.

Re:Differences (1)

lsolano (398432) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121730)

I've use Mandriva for quite a long time. I've tested many distros, and Mandriva is the one I like most. Fedora is a great choice too.

Re:Differences (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121604)

Another important difference, is that Fedora is much closer to a server distro, RHEL, and so learning how to administer one will have you pretty much sorted on the other.

Re:Differences (1)

morcego (260031) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121684)

Which is entirely expected, if you consider (I do) Fedora as the development version of RHEL.

Hey. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23120474)

Bring me back some moon rocks.

Fedora 9 is more innovative (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23120572)

Fedora is one step ahead. Fedora 8 already included PulseAudio which other distributions are only including in their recent/upcoming releases.

Now in Fedora 9,

There are a number of major new features
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/9/FeatureList

http://freeipa.org is one. The new GDM is another. The amount of virtualization improvements have surpassed any other linux distro by far.There are also other minor enhancemen
ts like kerneloops package installed by default. Refer http://kerneloops.org for more details.

Fedora 9 Not Ready (5, Funny)

nmb3000 (741169) | more than 6 years ago | (#23120622)

I dunno. I hear that Fedora 9 is really lacking [redhat.com] in important functionality. Why would I want to install something so obviously half-baked like this?

With serious issues like this, obviously 2008 won't be The Year of the Linux Desktop (Really This Time, We Mean It).

selinux (4, Funny)

Crispy Critters (226798) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121016)

I really like selinux. The best part about it is this: Whenever something is broken, I uninstall selinux, and then whatever-it-is works again. I wouldn't know how to fix the system if I couldn't uninstall selinux.

(I am not denying that it is important or useful. I just can't understand how to make it work.)

Re:selinux (1)

davidkv (302725) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121596)

Try using setroubleshoot, if I remember correctly it's even installed default in Fedora 8.
Anyway, it pops up a notice saying what was denied access and why, and more or less how you can grant permission for that program or what have you.

Then again, you could also run SELinux in permissive mode by running "setenforce 0 (or Permissive instead of 0)". Absolutetly no need to uninstall. Permissive will let you se what would have been denied.

I'm running Fedora 8 here and most of the time SELinux does not complain. The few tweaks I've made were mostly no-brainers.

Re:Fedora 9 Not Ready (1)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121272)

OMGWTFNooooooooo! YouTube won't work with one of the alternatives for playing SWFs that isn't even going to be shipped in F9 by default. What a tragic loss that will be

If your life revolves around YouTube then what's wrong with going to Adobe and getting their Flash/Shockwave plugin? It works perfectly, it has the same version number as the Windows one, and it's basically the same process as Windows for newbies (download, install, use).

As for half-baked - a quick skim of the thread seemed to imply that it's partly the fault of upstream (the original authors) and not necessarily Fedora (although its "completely free" ethos wouldn't have helped with the Livna repo requirements).

Re:Fedora 9 Not Ready (1)

abirdman (557790) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121358)

There's no 64 bit version? At least the last time I tried, and had to dick around with ndiswrapper. I still don't know exactly what I did, but for now it works. I don't want to try and explain how to do it to anyone. And I'm not sure I want to try it again-- I don't even know if I'm using the swf alternative or the Adobe version. But for now, Fedora 8 works pretty fine for me.

Re:Fedora 9 Not Ready (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121700)

There arnt many 32bit plug-in, its probably easiest to install a 32bit browser (hell even firefox aint going to break the 4GB limit).

Re:Fedora 9 Not Ready (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121674)

He got moded informative? I thought he was going for funny tbh!

Its not fedoras fault they cant package adobe flash and that gnu flash replacements arnt ready yet.
If you want flash just install adobe flash32 to firefox32, all you need is tar, if anything flash is going to install easily on a fedora system because adobe offer a rpm, but even on a 64bit ubuntu system i have 0 problems setting up flash.

like it, but (5, Insightful)

thermian (1267986) | more than 6 years ago | (#23120732)

This issue of not having media codecs other then the free ones is a real deal breaker for me.

Yes I know, they aren't 'free as in freedom'. Sad, but true. However, when I install desktop linux I don't want to fart about trying to find media codecs. They should be there, in the install, or immediately available via an obvious link once installation is complete. It should be a one click and done experience, has to be really.

Yes I could find them myself, but I'm not really the problem, since I'm pretty much addicted to linux for everything but desktop. I'll remain a fan, and live in hope of a decent out of the box desktop experience.

No, the problem is the vast numbers of techno numpties who won't use linux as long as it has this glaring hole in its out of the box state.

Mark me as troll if you wish, but this is a serious issue that the purists don't want to confront. In spite of what they beleive, ogg is not enough...

Re:like it, but (4, Informative)

fyrie (604735) | more than 6 years ago | (#23120838)

Most of that stuff is available in the livna repository. Standard procedure is to install the livna repo immediately and download the non free packages.

Re:like it, but (1)

thermian (1267986) | more than 6 years ago | (#23120926)

Yup, but would the aforementioned person new to linux and uninformed of such things know about this? I'm not disputing that repositories exist, its more that they aren't made seamlessly available.

The problem is that the desktop experience has become, thanks to the almighty Microsoft, (whose name we speak in hushed tones, lest they smite us with their stick of smiting), have defined the desktop as being a place where even a moron can get a decent experience with minimal work, or none, in some cases.

It's that we have to beat. It's ok for us technically aware folk to be impressed by the superior process scheduling of linux compared to windows (well, gets me hot), but a numptie is unlikely to even know such things occur, they're going to try and play an mp3, dvd, or video (with a non free codec), find that it doesn't work and give up in disgust.

Re:like it, but (1)

Nushio (951488) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121054)

Yup, but would the aforementioned person new to linux and uninformed of such things know about this?
I'm sorry, but I highly doubt that a person "new to linux and uninformed of such things" would install linux.

If indeed said person were to install linux, he'd follow a guide. There are plenty guides available that list as part of the installation instructions, instructions on how to get mp3, xvid, dvd, realplayer, java and flash running on your system, be it Fedora, Ubuntu or Mandriva.

More often than not, its a "Linux-Hippie" the guy that ends up installing Linux. Said "Hippies" usually know their way around the distro they install, and tend to install everything the end user will ever need.

Re:like it, but (2, Interesting)

thermian (1267986) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121232)

I'm sorry, but I highly doubt that a person "new to linux and uninformed of such things" would install linux.

Yes, and they never will until it becomes so simple that a person with little or no knowledge can do it.

This is what I'm getting at. Those people are in microsofts pocket, and will be until a fully media capable linux distro can be installed easily, without detailed knowledge.

People can, and do, install newer verions of windows who fall into this catagory. It's them, the ones who want to upgrade, that we should be attracting.

Re:like it, but (2, Insightful)

jd (1658) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121100)

I think conventional wisdom is that in Microsoft's case, it is a chair of smiting. It's not simply a Microsoft problem, however. It has a lot to do with software patents, price gouging and dodgy attitudes towards reverse engineering throughout the industry. Yes, it costs money to develop high-end codecs, and it is entirely reasonable for corporations to try to make a profit from their work, but that argument only goes so far and current practices go way beyond reasonable.

Re:like it, but (1)

Phisbut (761268) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121200)

Yup, but would the aforementioned person new to linux and uninformed of such things know about this? I'm not disputing that repositories exist, its more that they aren't made seamlessly available.

The aforementionned person new to linux will get Ubuntu. Fedora is not a distro aimed to ease desktop use at all cost, it is a general purpose operating system with lots of tools that happens to have a desktop. Ubuntu, on the other hand, is trying to deliver the full desktop experience to the user.

Re:like it, but (5, Insightful)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121950)

The aforementionned person new to linux will get Ubuntu.


I've been using Fedora along with Windows for a number of years now. My sister has an older machine (800mhz) and Win2K was getting slower and slower, even with all the firewall, anti-virus and anti-spyware stuph. In fact, it was the anti-virus that was slowing it down more than anything else; the daily scans took forever and made it almost unresponsive. Then, she tried a Live CD of Ubuntu. In less than 15 minutes she knew it was for her. The next morning, she installed it. The first time it rebooted, it let her know she needed proprietary drivers for her nVidia Geoforce video card and got them. It's now her main OS, and Win2K is the Dark Side to her. I'm happy with Fedora, and will be moving from 8 to 9 when the time comes, but I'd never have suggested it to her. Fedora's a geeky, bleeding edge test bed of a distro, and all she wants or needs is something that Just Works. That's why there are so many Linux distros: different people need and/or want different things, and no matter what you want in the way of Linux, there's at least one distro that's right for you.

Re:like it, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23122254)

Your sister runs Linux? Can I ask her out?

Re:like it, but (2, Funny)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 6 years ago | (#23122530)

I don't know. I have no idea if you're capable of asking her out. However, I seriously doubt that any AC would meet her standards, or that you're old enough to interest her. (Hint, here: I'm a 'Nam vet and she's my older sister.)

Re:like it, but (1)

Pros_n_Cons (535669) | more than 6 years ago | (#23122480)

They find out how to install MP3 by typing... "fedora mp3" into google which returns a webpage called "How to play MP3 files in Fedora" That gives you step by step instructions with screenshots.
Hey did you know that people use to have to download winrar or winzip to unzip files? no no its true! people actually can figure out how to search the net for software. Windows users even can find things like divx on their own or what a pps, pdf or a .torrent file is or what a nero .nrg file is.
sheesh people will figure out how to type in fedora mp3, or fedora faq into google.. its okay they will figure it out i promise. "newbies" are alot more likely to search google with "fedora mp3" than sitting down at an ubuntu box and typing in "apt-get search *mp3*" or whatever the command would be to install mp3 support.

Re:like it, but (1)

thermian (1267986) | more than 6 years ago | (#23122814)

sheesh people will figure out how to type in fedora mp3, or fedora faq into google.. its okay they will figure it out i promise
Sorry, but you're wrong.

You and I could, because we know about such things. However you are labouring under the misapprehension that most computer users even know you need extra software to run certain types of files.

Thanks to the wonders of Microsoft Windows, many computer users don't even know about things as basic as partitions or folders outside 'my documents'. If you don't believe this, you obviously haven't spent any time working in tech support...

Re:like it, but (2, Interesting)

fyrie (604735) | more than 6 years ago | (#23120930)

I do need to add that I do agree with the OP in the sense that it would be great if there was a way right out of the box to automatically go and download this type of stuff, maybe with a disclaimer saying that they aren't sanctioned as free that would be a CYA for Fedora.

Re:like it, but (1)

robmv (855035) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121026)

Fedora has exactly what you want http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureCodecBuddy [fedoraproject.org]

Re:like it, but (1)

fyrie (604735) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121550)

I was under the impression that Codec buddy points the user to purchasable codecs, not the free (as in beer) codecs in the livna repo.

Re:like it, but (1)

robmv (855035) | more than 6 years ago | (#23122244)

you are right, it points to the Fluendo codecs, I do not think it will ever point to Livna, because they are not legal in some countries (stupid software patents)

Re:like it, but (1)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121332)

The only problem with that is that it leaves Fedora in basically the same situation as shipping them. They ship as a "completely free" distro (i.e. no non-free software, including stuff they can't ship because they're US based and there may be patent restrictions) to keep clean and legal. If they started saying "press this button to get free codecs that may breach patents" then they've lost that position.

At the end of the day there are two choices: 1) pick another distro (probably European based like SuSe) that doesn't have such a strict "free software only" ethos or 2) do the simple thing and add the Livna repos like I did. A couple of minutes adding the repo and picking packages and you gain MP3, MPEG, WMV, QuickTime and everything else, plus drivers (if you want them and don't build them yourself) VLC and a number of other apps.

Re:like it, but (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121760)

Does Suse ship with codecs?
I know ubuntu doesnt but they recently changed the default repos to include them, so end users who click though end up pressing a ""press this button to get free codecs that may breach patents" and dont complain.

Re:like it, but (1)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121826)

I'm not sure. A guy at work uses it but I've never tried it much. From what I've picked up it might not ship with them but it's a bit closer to Ubuntu's "Restricted Packages" than Fedora's "they're out there, but because of potential legal issues and lack of freedom then we can't tell you where".

Re:like it, but (1)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121560)

Will you contribute to RedHat and Fedora's legal defense if/when they are sued?

Re:like it, but (5, Informative)

the COW OF DOOM (tm) (1531) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121692)

Yeah. It'd be great, if it wasn't illegal.

Here's the thing: it's not solely a matter of principle. Fedora has to play by a harder set of rules than Ubuntu. Fedora is backed by a public company, based in the US, so they answer to US law and Red Hat stockholders. And under US law, CYA just isn't enough, especially when there's multi-billion-dollar global megacorps who will take any opportunity they can find to sue you into oblivion.

Everyone would dearly love to be able to include mp3 codecs and ffmpeg and all that non-Free stuff. But they can't. So Red Hat and Fedora keep fighting the good fight - lobbying against software patents, pushing for open standards - and still people give them shit because they have to click two places instead of one to get MP3 support.

Way to focus on the big problems, people.

Re:like it, but (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23120988)

As a fedora user, I'll bite.

First, blame those that made the codecs non-free, not those who suffer because of it. There is nothing that they can do about non-free codecs and there's no use complaining.

Beyond that, it's not exactly hard to add non-free codecs. Add the livna repository and you'll be able to get them off your package manager. There may not be any flashing banners telling you how and where to download non-free codecs, but it's not hard to do either.

Finally, you shouldn't need non-free codecs as soon as you install the operating system.

Re:like it, but (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23121772)

Then go buy a copy of Linspire, it has the non-free codecs installed.

Re:like it, but (1)

radl33t (900691) | more than 6 years ago | (#23122050)

It should be a one click and done experience, has to be really.
I have feisty and the version before feisty on my 2 machines. I think they both presented me with an obvious link when I first played an mp3. Told me I should be aware of the laws of my country or some such nonsense.

Have they taken this feature away? I think my ubuntu must be at least a year out of date.

Re:like it, but (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23122066)

It's not because of them being purists. The relevant codecs in fact are free software and all that.

Fedora is based in the US. In the US, we are blessed with these lovely things called patent laws. In particular, it is legally iffy for Fedora to distribute things like MP3 codecs and such. Really, the way to fix this is to get rid of the stupid things altogether... software patents are ridiculous.

(And a lot of the non-free stuff isn't re-distributable anyway, so they can't package it. Ubuntu's flash "package" is just a script that downloads and installs it. Might as well use the rpm Adobe provides.)

Re:like it, but (1)

Murrquan (1161441) | more than 6 years ago | (#23122672)

The times are changing ... for a lot of people, the web is their media player, and so long as they can access YouTube and the TV networks' websites they're good to go.

By default Fedora does includes CodecBuddy, which explains the situation to new users and points them at Fluendo's webstore, where they can buy legit media codecs. Notably, the Fluendo .mp3 codec costs 0 Euros.

Having said all that, I wouldn't recommend that a new user try out Fedora anyway, simply because there's so much setup work to be done. And I say this as a Linux newb who went to Fedora cold-turkey, straight from Windows XP, and lived there for over a month. I was determined; but for anyone else, I might recommend Ubuntu. That, or a custom Fedora install set up by a person who knows what she's doing.

what about youtube ? is it working ? (4, Funny)

C0vardeAn0nim0 (232451) | more than 6 years ago | (#23120734)

if it doesn't work tove may end up killing linus... and since she's 5 time finnish karate champion, that'll be pretty damn easy for her.

like he said: youtube no workee, wife no happy.

Re:what about youtube ? is it working ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23121790)


*6*-time Finnish karate champion, according to wikipedia:

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Torvalds)

Re:what about youtube ? is it working ? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23122074)

YouTube functionality works just fine once you add the adobe-linux repo and install flash-plugin-9.0.124.0. It does on occasion flip out, but thats been the case with the adobe linux port for quite some time.

What is broken in Fedora x86_64 variants is Java plugin support from Sun. The icedtea plugin works great in most circumstances for small stuff, however larger java applets wont run without the Sun JRE. That JRE works fine in i386 but breaks because Sun has not released a 64 bit port for it yet.

'looks' good (2, Interesting)

linuxbeta (837266) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121034)

some screenshots over at The Coding Studio [thecodingstudio.com]

Re:'looks' good (1)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121406)

I wish they'd do something better for the window titles. Yes, I know it's different to the other distros, but it just doesn't look good. It may just be the compression on those images, but the new version looks even stranger.

On the plus side, at least they ditched some of the original 'Sulphur' desktops [fedoraproject.org] . Those would have just made the default desktop look terrible.

Did the yum-based upgrade make it into the tag? (1)

ZedNaught (533388) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121314)

There was talk of a yum-based upgrade path that cleanly updated the necessary libraries first and then the executables. Was that implemented with this tag?

Re:Did the yum-based upgrade make it into the tag? (4, Informative)

the COW OF DOOM (tm) (1531) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121460)

There was never any talk about yum-based upgrades. Upgrading a live system is total insanity.

You're probably thinking of PreUpgrade, which is like a yum-based upgrade but without the insanity.

See the interview here for more info:
http://www.redhatmagazine.com/2008/04/15/interview-fedora-developers-seth-vidal-and-will-woods/ [redhatmagazine.com]

Re:Did the yum-based upgrade make it into the tag? (1)

ZedNaught (533388) | more than 6 years ago | (#23122836)

Yes PreUpgrade, that's what I had read about - in a post saying that live upgrading via yum was insanity even though possible. Thanks for setting me straight . My memory works in strange ways : )

Distribution biais (0, Flamebait)

fcrozat (444723) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121446)

Strangely, no Slashdot moderator have approved stories about Mandriva Linux 2008 Spring being released last week but they approve a story on a release candidate for next Fedora.

Looks like Slashdot want to favor some distributions.

Re:Distribution biais (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23121566)

Mand-who?

(easy there pardner... I'm just a foolin' with ya)

Re:Distribution biais (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23121942)

Maybe it has something to do with Manda.. Manwich.. Mandriva.. whatever being a bugged shitless piece of crap distro from the cheese eating surrender monkey Frogophone empire?

Seriously, I'd rather hear about Gentoo and Slackware than Mandriva. It only makes sense that distros like Suse, Ubuntu, and Fedora are going to get the limelight. Mandriva has nothing to offer over them.

Re:Distribution biais (1)

n0dna (939092) | more than 6 years ago | (#23122128)

I downloaded the ManDribble live cd last week. Checked the md5, burned the image and verified it. It hung during the boot process. I threw it away.

Same as it ever was.

Changing the name from Manrape to ManDribble didn't seem to help.

I know I'm flaming but the distro has always been, and always will be, crap.

Release Candidate? (2, Interesting)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121530)

I'm a bit confused about the "final release" thing at the moment. I was going to wait for the RC ("22 April 2008 - Release Candidate 1" according to the schedule [fedoraproject.org] ) and possibly install that, but now they're saying

This is the last major public release before the final GOLD Fedora 9 release on May 13th

which implies the Release Candidate might not be a 'release' as such, just a specially tagged nightly build.

Oh well, I guess at least it'll get the spit-and-polish it deserves. I just need to wait until May to install it now.

Re:Release Candidate? (4, Informative)

the COW OF DOOM (tm) (1531) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121862)

Correct: RC builds are not announced or mirrored worldwide. They're candidate images for testers to work with. They are publically available, though - anyone who's interested in helping can be a tester.

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA [fedoraproject.org] is a good place to start if you're interested in testing Fedora.

Otherwise, the next major public release is F9 final, scheduled for May 13.

Debian/Ubuntu User asks: What's the big deal? (1)

Qbertino (265505) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121902)

I'm serious: What's the big deal?

What does Fedora offer?

Does Fedora have a neat zero-fuss hardware recognition and will it install and run out of the box just as fritionless as Ubuntu or Knoppix?

And what about switching desktops and WMs? Can I switch from Gnome/Metacity to KDE/Kwin to Fluxbox to Enlightenment with zero fuss without the Fedora desktop manager (whichever it chooses) looking like shit or X-Free, X-Org or whatever fucking up my screen-resolution?

Will multi-source audio work out of the box? (wether with esound demon or whatever ... gosh, just asking this question brings back those memories ... )

What about generic wireless stuff and extra function keys and all that? Especially on those new sub 1000 Euro laptops popping up everywhere? If I get a fairly cheap generic laptop with all of todays bells and wistles, will I be able to scrap Windows Fister and slap Fedore over it and utilize all the extra features or will it take a week of expert-tweaking (which I don't have time and nerve for anymore) to get those things running?

What's with Flash? Java? The server stack, LAMPhp ( ... I'm a web-developer)? Zero fuss install/uninstall/upgrade/dependancy tracking and resolution? Or will I be hand-hacking my way to a safely running PDT Eclipse roundtrip debugging enviroment with XDebug (as with every other OS on this planet)?

What's with DVDs? Will I have to install 6 players of which only two kinda-sorta-maybe work 75% of the time or will there be *ONE* (1) DVD player that actually plays DVDs without getting into a hissy fit over CSS (I'm willing to install a Fedora DeCSS package by hand from a 'non-offical' source for that or do any other documented non-hacky actions in order to prepare for that)

What's with Video? What's with 3D?

Fedore Fan Crew - here's your chance to get a Debian/Ubuntu guy to give Fedora a try next time around. I'd like to read your thought on the issues above. Thanks.

Re:Debian/Ubuntu User asks: What's the big deal? (1)

bockelboy (824282) | more than 6 years ago | (#23122346)

For me, it's simple - it gives me an idea of what RHEL might look like in a couple of years. I have access to a couple tens of thousands of servers which run various RHEL derivatives. I have access to none that are Debian derivatives.

Re:Debian/Ubuntu User asks: What's the big deal? (2, Informative)

427_ci_505 (1009677) | more than 6 years ago | (#23122874)

>Does Fedora have a neat zero-fuss hardware recognition and will it install and run out of the box just as >fritionless as Ubuntu or Knoppix?

Multiple monitor setups are problematic, but other stuff works well.

>Will multi-source audio work out of the box? (wether with esound demon or whatever ... gosh, just asking this >question brings back those memories ... )

If by this you mean multiple programs can output sound at the same time, then yes.

>What about generic wireless stuff and extra function keys and all that? Especially on those new sub 1000 Euro >laptops popping up everywhere? If I get a fairly cheap generic laptop with all of todays bells and wistles, will >I be able to scrap Windows Fister and slap Fedore over it and utilize all the extra features or will it take a >week of expert-tweaking (which I don't have time and nerve for anymore) to get those things running?

On F8, with a Broadcom wireless card, I needed to cut the firmware out of the windows driver. That was annoying. After that it works well. I wish I had an intel card.

>>What's with Flash?

On an i386 it works fine. Just make sure to install an extra package that allows the sound to work with Pulse Audio. With that said, at least one of the versions of Adobe's plugin isn't too stable...

>>Java?

Seems to be doing ok.

>>Zero fuss install/uninstall/upgrade/dependancy tracking and resolution?

Yum does seem slower than apt-get, but I haven't had any problems with it besides.

>>What's with DVDs? Will I have to install 6 players of which only two kinda-sorta-maybe work 75% of the time or >>will there be *ONE* (1) DVD player that actually plays DVDs without getting into a hissy fit over CSS (I'm >>willing to install a Fedora DeCSS package by hand from a 'non-offical' source for that or do any other >>documented non-hacky actions in order to prepare for that)

mplayer or vlc should handle it, after installing the necessary pkgs.

>>What's with Video? What's with 3D?

The open source radeon driver seems to be working well with my older hardware.

>>Fedore Fan Crew - here's your chance to get a Debian/Ubuntu guy to give Fedora a try next time around. I'd like >>to read your thought on the issues above. Thanks.

I'd try a livecd. Just be aware that most of the software won't be there, since there is only so much that can fit on a livecd. I use debian on my other computer. So far, I'm liking fedora better. But debian is still pretty good.

Cool, I thought slashdot was hiding fedora (1)

Pros_n_Cons (535669) | more than 6 years ago | (#23122026)

When fedora beta didn't make slashdot (not even linux section) and ubuntu beta was front page 2 days later i thought slashdot had a bias. Was kinda surprised to see this.

I been using this release fedora 9 since alpha and everytime I updated i saw alot of improvement. Still need to report a laptop bug (with mouse pads not working right) but other than that this release should be good to go on my box by release date.

madwifi replaced by ath5k (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 6 years ago | (#23122900)

It seems that Fedora 9 uses ath5k instead of the good old madwifi for Atheros chipsets. Given that ath5k is far from stable [madwifi.org] yet, I wonder why?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>