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 a Bit Behind the Curve On Installation

timothy posted more than 6 years ago | from the click-here-but-only-once dept.

Red Hat Software 110

bsk_cw writes "Today, many Linux users are getting blasé about the ease with which they can install Linux. Possibly, they've been spoiled by distributions such as Ubuntu, which is actually easier to install than Windows. Unfortunately, Fedora 9, the latest version of this community edition of Red Hat, was a bit too much of a blast from the past for Computerworld's James Turner." (Except for bits about the installation, the review is actually quite positive.)

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

Shoot! (5, Funny)

XanC (644172) | more than 6 years ago | (#23411386)

Imagine what Fedora 9 would have done to UbuntuDupe's hard drive!!

Re:Shoot! (1)

JohnBailey (1092697) | more than 6 years ago | (#23411966)

Imagine what Fedora 9 would have done to UbuntuDupe's hard drive!!
Shhhhh!! He would have to change his user name on some other forum to UbuntuMacFedoraDupe only to run out of space for his user name and and have to make a forum himself to complain about it. And then one to complain about the complaint forum.

Of course it's easier to instal than Windows! (4, Insightful)

croddy (659025) | more than 6 years ago | (#23411410)

"actually easier to install than Windows" (!!)

I'm not sure what rock he's been living under, but Linux has been a lot easier to install than windows for ages. Ubiquity, Anaconda, Debian-Installer... sure, the old Debian boot-floppies installer was kind of a pain, but when you want to get your OS installed quickly and easily you don't exactly reach for silvers from Microsoft.

Lately I got a bit tired of Wine's partial support for Steam so I've been trying to get some kind of Windows installed on my system to run some games. It's been a comic horror show of 0000007B this, 80070241 that, swapping out different optical drives and dumbing down BIOS settings to try to get either the XP or Vista installer to not bluescreen or otherwise give up on life trying to copy data from the installation media.

Thankfully, when I need a sane, easy OS to regroup and try to find out what the cryptic hex codes barfed out by Microsoft's fragile-as-glass, no-system-logs-provided installers, I only have to reach for one of my Linux discs to get things up straight away.

And let's face it... if your goal is to quickly get a quality browser, IM client, office suite, and some basic development tools installed, you're going to have an easier time popping in an Ubuntu disc to get there even if Windows is preinstalled on the box!

Re:Of course it's easier to instal than Windows! (4, Interesting)

satoshi1 (794000) | more than 6 years ago | (#23411490)

I have never had Windows fail to install for any reason.. The only problem I have ever had with Windows is when I install Linux first and then Windows wipes out GRUB. Then I gotta find a GRUB ISO and figure out the GRUB commands to restore the bootloader (floppies? what are those? while I have a floppy drive still, I have a hell of a time finding disks, even at a tech school). So now I always install Windows first so it's all happy and in place and then let Linux have its way. Windows doesn't even have a clue. It's really best this way.

Re:Of course it's easier to instal than Windows! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23411658)

"I have a hell of a time finding disks, even at a tech school" that's exactly where you won't fin floppies, try in the literature school or something you might find it there...

Re:Of course it's easier to instal than Windows! (4, Informative)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 6 years ago | (#23411830)

Installing Windows on most IDE/SATA interfaces cards requires a floppy. Grub does not require a floppy to reinstall, at least not for Fedora.

Re:Of course it's easier to instal than Windows! (2, Informative)

secolactico (519805) | more than 6 years ago | (#23413664)

Installing Windows on most IDE/SATA interfaces cards requires a floppy.

I think SP2 slipstreamed into the install disk recognizes SATA and SAS. Or you could slipstream the drivers themselves, which I don't recommend to anybody who isn't comfortable mucking with inf files.

Re:Of course it's easier to instal than Windows! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23414112)

It's obvious you haven't done a Windows install in a while. You're fortunate, but still posting out of your ass. Please only post about topics about which you have a clue.

Re:Of course it's easier to instal than Windows! (1)

TheThiefMaster (992038) | more than 6 years ago | (#23414768)

If you get a good embedded sata controller like the one built in to modern nvidia nforce motherboards, each sata socket shows up as an standard IDE channel to the OS, allowing you to use it without specialist drivers (if you're not using raid).

XP's installer's insistence on floppy disks or slipstreaming for new drivers is a pain, but Vista's installer is a major improvement and takes drivers on any media during the installer.

Re:Of course it's easier to instal than Windows! (2, Interesting)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 6 years ago | (#23414976)

If you get a good embedded sata controller like the one built in to modern nvidia nforce motherboards, each sata socket shows up as an standard IDE channel to the OS, allowing you to use it without specialist drivers (if you're not using raid).
Surely you mean just in "real mode" (only at boot) and not all the time and durring "protect mode" operation (once the 32bit OS is running and the bias no longer controls the SATA channel) right? Otherwise you would lose a lot of the benefits of the SATA channels and possibly never see drive speeds close to their rated potential.

I'm betting they just provide an int hook that a generic IDE driver can use until a protect mode driver gets loaded. I'm wondering if XP and Vista have the same problems of not getting the speeds of protect mode drivers when a single real mode driver is present like windows 9x and ME did? Or maybe they moved to a generic 32 bit IDE driver and don't piss around with it anymore except when looking for the kernel to load. Hmm.. I wonder if someone knows or if I will have to hunt it down for myself. Anyways, don't rely on the generic drivers for windows because they can't limit your hardware and give you a slower experience as well as sometimes BSODs in operation.

XP's installer's insistence on floppy disks or slipstreaming for new drivers is a pain, but Vista's installer is a major improvement and takes drivers on any media during the installer.
Year, XP's sort of sucked but I'm not sure Vista is much better. You set the driver CDs in a box somewhere and either lose them or they won't work in 4 or 5 years when you need to reinstall which means loading linux or at least using a bootable version to download the drivers and set it so the installer can handle it(extract-whatever).

Re:Of course it's easier to instal than Windows! (3, Informative)

amorsen (7485) | more than 6 years ago | (#23415886)

I'm betting they just provide an int hook that a generic IDE driver can use until a protect mode driver gets loaded.
It's much worse than that. AHCI-controllers can emulate regular IDE controllers in hardware. Not some BIOS-INT-thing, but actual emulation. Most computers I have seen with AHCI-controllers run them in IDE-emulation-mode.

Re:Of course it's easier to instal than Windows! (1)

greed (112493) | more than 6 years ago | (#23417948)

We ran into this at work; particularly on a workstation that was being used as a Web server for ClearQuest (*shudder*). Anyway, Linux I/O just _sucked_ on it. Perusal of the boot messages showed it couldn't bind the SATA driver because the IDE driver was already bound at that PCI address; and the IDE driver wasn't happy with the hardware so was running in 16-bit PIO mode.

Flipping "SATA Support" from "Compatible" to "High Performance" in the BIOS got that fixed real fast. But I'll bet Windows XP won't install on that machine now. In fact, I'll bet they haven't even got SATA support for booting and installing XP SP3... if they ever re-fresh the CDs in retail channels.

(Windows gurus may know how to make new Windows CDs with more drivers. I only know how to do what it says in the retail box instructions.)

Re:Of course it's easier to instal than Windows! (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420454)

Thanks for the info on that. I think it might prove extremely useful to me.

Of course running the controllers in an IDE-emulation-mode would probably slow the devices attached down to a crawl compared to the IO speeds it should be capable of. I usually use the drivers during install so I think I'm safe on it but I guess I should double check in case the windows plug and play code can't switch the device out of the compatibility/emulation mode when the real driver support is installed. I have about thirty- third party white boxes running XP that seem slower then they should be one large file operations like opening huge accounting apps with 200+ meg data sets (I hate quick books and with a passion for anything other then 1-10 employee mom and pop shops). I wonder if the local shops that built the systems didn't bother with the "real" drivers. It would make sense because they are spec'd similarly with the computers I build and don't seem to be able to keep up with them on some tasks.

Re:Of course it's easier to instal than Windows! (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23415552)

No, it doesn't. I have had SATA since 2003 and never had to install a disc for this reason. For Vista, all you do is boot off the cd, put in your key and let it install. There are no choices to make (which may or may not be good, but it is easy) and its simple to do.

Re:Of course it's easier to instal than Windows! (5, Informative)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 6 years ago | (#23412532)

Super Grub Disk is a nice way to semi-automatically reinstall GRUB.

It also teaches you the commands, and tells you what it's doing. Very cool little ISO file.

Re:Of course it's easier to instal than Windows! (1)

Dancindan84 (1056246) | more than 6 years ago | (#23416912)

Very nice headache solver for a problem I've been recently having with Ubuntu 10.04 and XP. If you weren't already I'd mod you up more. Thanks.

Re:Of course it's easier to instal than Windows! (1)

Clueless Nick (883532) | more than 6 years ago | (#23416966)

I have installed Fedora 8 under dual booting with XP on my office laptop. I could not afford to let the admin view the installation at bootup, so I have installed GRUB on sda3, and so the Windows bootloader is untouched.

I always boot the computer through a Super Grub Disc and choose XP or Fedora as I want. SGD can search for and find the partition where GRUB is installed by itself. It always saves the day.

Re:Of course it's easier to instal than Windows! (4, Informative)

kryptkpr (180196) | more than 6 years ago | (#23412542)

I have never had Windows fail to install for any reason..

While the plural of anecdote is not data, I think I know what the GP is talking about and have experienced it myself.

There are some known AHCI problems [microsoft.com] with a common ATI southbridge chipset which made installing Vista impossible unless you first disable AHCI (I assume this is what the GP meant by having to dumb-down BIOS settings).

So, lets try XP I thought. Too bad it has no drivers for the sata controller at all, and I have no floppy drive. I ended up having to inject the controller drivers into the XP CD and re-burn it. The XP installer then saw my disk in IDE mode, but not AHCI mode..

I gave up and left the controller in IDE mode.

For reference, Ubuntu 7.10 had no trouble on the same machine.

Re:Of course it's easier to instal than Windows! (3, Insightful)

MMC Monster (602931) | more than 6 years ago | (#23413018)

I never had a problem installing Windows 2K or XP on my machine either.

That being said, I *always* had a problem getting them into a usable state once they were installed.

Problems include:
1. Having to install multiple service packs and other packages, often with multiple reboots.

2. Searching for the right version of drivers for my hardware on the internet. (Why can't they just use repositories like debian?)

3. Installing all the applications I generally use. (Again, central repositories make it much easier. They can even be used by proprietary applications with a validation on first run.)

Re:Of course it's easier to instal than Windows! (2, Insightful)

k33l0r (808028) | more than 6 years ago | (#23415208)

That being said, I *always* had a problem getting them into a usable state once they were installed.

True enough, Getting Windows installed isn't even half the work (though until Vista, it took at least 45 - 60 minutes).

Once you had Windows running you'd have a tedious couple of hours installing drivers and updates, and of course every driver you install would require a reboot.

I'm amazed that installing pretty much ANYTHING on Windows still requires a reboot.


Re:Of course it's easier to instal than Windows! (1)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | more than 6 years ago | (#23416774)

Because Microsoft do not write drivers, do not take any responsibility for them and only redistribute the ones they build onto the distribution CD

the repositories contain everything because they have to - they are theoretically the only place you can install from ...

Re:Of course it's easier to instal than Windows! (2, Insightful)

immcintosh (1089551) | more than 6 years ago | (#23422268)

Because Microsoft do not write drivers, do not take any responsibility for them and only redistribute the ones they build onto the distribution CD

That's something of a non sequitur. Ubuntu, Fedora, and all the rest also do not write the drivers. They do not take any responsibility for them. Yet the fact remains that their installations have much more complete driver support without all the hunting and fishing around. But still, their installation CDs aren't really different in nature from any Windows installation CD.

the repositories contain everything because they have to - they are theoretically the only place you can install from ...
That's not even remotely true. You can install software (including drivers) downloaded off the internet under Linux just like you can in any other OS. The repositories just make it easier and more centralized. If you want the very latest nVidia beta driver though (for example), you can get it right off their web site just like the Windows counterpart.

Re:Of course it's easier to instal than Windows! (1)

Tenebrousedge (1226584) | more than 6 years ago | (#23418514)

Don't forget loading it up with all of the antivirus and antispyware software. AVG, Ad-Aware, Spybot, firewall, firefox+noscript, all before you can feel safe connecting the thing to the internet. Then creating an image of the system so you can revert back to it when the system gets pwned by the virus of the week.

Re:Of course it's easier to instal than Windows! (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 6 years ago | (#23413822)

I've had two problems I had an old computer at work in 2003 that blue screened during win xp install. Also recently Win xp failed to install on a low end motherboard I bought on new egg. Just wouldn't do it. It didn't seem to have some of the drivers for the chip set. I spent a day trying to figure it out, couldn't installed ubuntu with out a hitch. Thats not to say that modern linux is always better. I've had it run into problems during install as well. They are what they are, computers can be fickle.

Re:Of course it's easier to instal than Windows! (4, Insightful)

ratboy666 (104074) | more than 6 years ago | (#23416268)

And your experience is an anecdote. Here's mine.

I am a Solaris/Linux user. Around two years ago, I decided to build a PVR (personal video recorder). I had heard good things about Windows XP, and the mainboard I had chosen had a note in it stating that "USB 2.0 function can only be obtained with Windows XP". And all the hardware (video input devices, video display) came with drivers for Windows XP. So I bought a copy of Windows XP (retail). Assembled the system, and attempted to load Windows XP.

After loading from the DVD drive, XP booted. However, the DVD did not show up. I reinstalled. Same thing. I assumed that the DVD was defective, and replaced it. Same thing. Tried a CD. Same thing. Turns out I need a driver from the CD supplied with the mainboard in order to use the CD/DVD. How do I get it there? XP also doesn't recognize the network adapter (same deal, I need a driver). The drivers are too large to put on a floppy.

I gave up on trying to use XP for this application, and installed Linux. At least it recognized the DVD and network "out of the box" (Fedora). I then put on MythTV (I had wanted to try a Windows PVR program, but, hey... Windows didn't work).

I tried XP on another box. It also didn't work. Turns out to need a "hard disc driver". In fact, the only thing that XP works on (for me) is a VMware session. Hell, even Mac OS works there. And that's where that copy is running today (along with MS Office and some other Microsoft stuff -- development tools, and a laser printer driver).

The only thing I conclude is that you must be a Windows XP expert. Or, that Windows XP came pre-installed. I understand that VISTA supports additional (modern) devices, but I am not going to pay hundreds more to find out it doesn't.

Re:Of course it's easier to instal than Windows! (1)

donaldm (919619) | more than 6 years ago | (#23417168)

So now I always install Windows first so it's all happy and in place and then let Linux have its way. Windows doesn't even have a clue. It's really best this way.
Fully agree with that.

I have a dual boot on my work laptop running XP (we are not allowed MS Vista) and PCLinuxOS which works well except it is getting harder to use Linux because many applications I need to use are Microsoft centric so basically my dual boot is really a single boot into XP (Sigh!).

My home laptop came with Vista Ultimate which actually works fine except it had nothing except the OS and a lot of crap-ware (8GB all up), which leaves me to download Open Source or pirate. I backed up MS Vista (good for when I sell my laptop) and installed Fedora 7 (no dual boot) and a few months later I installed Fedora 8 and very soon I will install Fedora 9. Personally I won't have any problems doing the backup of my data, a fresh install of Fedora 9, recovery of my data and some minor customisation. All up for me approx 4 hours of very easy work most of the time waiting, so I will end up putting in about three and a half hours worth of gaming.

From the article I would question the expertise of the writer since anyone with any sense will repartition (you can use the default if you want - I don't but that's me) and format the part of the disk you want to install the Linux distro on (I use the whole disk but again that's me).

Would I recommend Fedora to a novice? Probably not but all members of my family use the machine I have Fedora on and no one has any issues. I even give everyone the choice of KDE or Gnome which can be selectable on login. I am the only one who uses the command line but for some things I do a GUI works great, it all depends on what I want to do. A properly installed Linux (Fedora, Ubunto, OpenSuse, ...) can work really well but one thing Fedora has that will turn off the novice is the number of package updates you get every week and every third week you get a new kernel. To me this is one of the fun parts of Fedora and it does not take much of my time. Of course if you want you don't have to update any packages, but is that any more different to not updating a Microsoft OS.

Personally I have found Fedora and many Linux distributions very easy to install however you should have some knowledge of how to setup /boot (100MB) and / (rest of the partition/disk) since that is basically all you need for a working Linux Distribution and Fedora is no different, so when in doubt just accept the defaults but please format the partitions.

Re:Of course it's easier to instal than Windows! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23417796)

Buhahaha, every time I install windows I have to go to at least 3 or 4 different sites to get drivers so network will work, so video will work properly, so sound will work. Its annoying and a joke.

Re:Of course it's easier to instal than Windows! (1)

glens (6413) | more than 6 years ago | (#23419208)

Why not simply

dd if=/dev/xxx of=/mnt/thumb/xxx.mbr count=1
beforehand, and

cat /mnt/thumb/xxx.mbr > /dev/xxx
later?

Also, it's adviseable to pre-partition the hard drive, assigning the available-for-Windows area to the tail (slow) end of the disk, whichever order you install the systems. After all, why relegate the better system to the slow(er) part of the media and allow the junk (which is pretty much kept around mainly for BIOS updates anyway) to occupy the best part of the platter(s)?

Re:Of course it's easier to instal than Windows! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23411600)

Wow, congrats on having faulty hardware and being terrible with computers I guess.

Re:Of course it's easier to instal than Windows! (2, Interesting)

croddy (659025) | more than 6 years ago | (#23411654)

Well, the hardware is all fine. Linux runs on it as solid as a rock. The XP installer apparently doesn't crash as long as I disable AHCI. Of course, it wouldn't install at all until my Windows-using friend helpfully reassembled my installer, being sure to include the SATA drivers that Microsoft apparently never cared to add when they updated their installation media. I guess you need a floppy disk drive if you want to do that at install time and don't care to remaster the damned installation media before you even have a system to work on.

Well, then there's the Vista installation problem. The hardware's all definitely fine, with I guess the possible exception of the optical drive. Then again I would dispute that a chock-full DVD-ROM that must be read flawlessly from end to end in a single pass without any chance to retry a missed block is any kind of way to install an OS. I guess I'm just used to the Debian network installer.

Re:Of course it's easier to instal than Windows! (4, Insightful)

L0rdJedi (65690) | more than 6 years ago | (#23412246)

So your big complaint is that a 7 year old OS (SP2 was released in 2004) doesn't install on a device that was released 3 years after it was? And of course, that hardware wasn't widely available until probably a year or two later.

Have you tried installing Red Hat 5 on anything modern recently with much success?

Yes, it's so horrible that an OS from 2001, when floppies were still pretty common, needs a floppy to install a driver that didn't even exist at the time.

Oops, I forgot, this is Slashdot. We're suppose to complain whether it makes sense or not.

Re:Of course it's easier to instal than Windows! (4, Funny)

swillden (191260) | more than 6 years ago | (#23412766)

So your big complaint is that a 7 year old OS (SP2 was released in 2004) doesn't install on a device that was released 3 years after it was? And of course, that hardware wasn't widely available until probably a year or two later.

Damned right. If these idiots would just download a more recent release of Windows XP, with all of the updated drivers in place, they'd have no trouble at all.

Re:Of course it's easier to instal than Windows! (1)

lnjasdpppun (625899) | more than 6 years ago | (#23413022)

It's possible to slipstream [wikipedia.org] drivers into a Windows Install disk.

Re:Of course it's easier to instal than Windows! (1)

mashade (912744) | more than 6 years ago | (#23413460)

It's possible to slipstream drivers into a Windows Install disk.

Not without an existing Windows install.

Re:Of course it's easier to instal than Windows! (1)

Saval (39101) | more than 6 years ago | (#23415056)

It's possible to slipstream drivers into a Windows Install disk.

Not without an existing Windows install.
Actually somehow it's likely to be possible. For Sun Ultra 24 and 40, there is unix (works with linux and solaris) utility in tools cd which creates new windows image from existing windows install cd. And it installs all necessary drivers into that new windows image.

I don't know how it works, but I suppose it does some kind of slipstream operation.

Central repository for updated Windows install... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23419372)

Found on the Pirate Bay.

Re:Of course it's easier to instal than Windows! (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 6 years ago | (#23412972)

So your big complaint is that a 7 year old OS (SP2 was released in 2004) doesn't install on a device that was released 3 years after it was? And of course, that hardware wasn't widely available until probably a year or two later.


No the big complaint would be if Windows was so easy to install, it would have updated versions to work with newer hardware (perhaps as an ISO if you have a Windows serial key?). The fact is, if MS was really concerned with user-friendlyness they would make a install CD that could run as a Live CD (Yggdrasil was a Live CD that was out before 1995) that could allow for the CD to be removed and drivers to be installed (Puppy Linux will let me remove the CD when it is in live-CD mode on a ~1998 Pentium III computer with around 128 MB of RAM). That would have made the most sense. But wait, this is MS we are talking about, an OS so user-unfriendly that most have to hire some guy to do tasks which would be easy in most modern distros of Linux.

Re:Of course it's easier to instal than Windows! (2, Insightful)

croddy (659025) | more than 6 years ago | (#23413046)

My motherboard manufacturer gave me the drivers on a CD. Which was smart, because they didn't include a floppy controller on the motherboard. The Windows installer runs from a CD. The only thing wrong with this picture is "Insert disk into drive A:".

Microsoft doesn't update their installers until they become absolutely untenable. And a bunch of nerds who aren't even being paid for the most part are running circles around them.

Re:Of course it's easier to instal than Windows! (1)

ratboy666 (104074) | more than 6 years ago | (#23417086)

I didn't buy Windows in 2004. I bought it WITH the system. And it didn't work. If there is new hardware, shouldn't Microsoft update the OS to actually be installable on it? After all, Fedora does. And Fedora is a LOT less expensive. If Fedora can afford it, surely Microsoft can be held to the same standard?

Or is Windows really that bad?

Re:Of course it's easier to instal than Windows! (1)

Cro Magnon (467622) | more than 6 years ago | (#23417378)

Or is Windows really that bad?


Yes.

Re:Of course it's easier to instal than Windows! (2, Insightful)

Daimaou (97573) | more than 6 years ago | (#23418006)

No, the problem is that a 7 year old OS ONLY supports floppy disks to install drivers when 7 years ago, CD-ROM drives were ubiquitous.

It was a stupid design decision by Microsoft and has nothing to do with Slashdot readers.

Re:Of course it's easier to instal than Windows! (1)

immcintosh (1089551) | more than 6 years ago | (#23422500)

In the face of a free 17-year-old OS [wikipedia.org] that WILL install on exactly the same hardware with little to no problem? Every Linux distro has an updated installation image you can use, you want to try to find one of those for Windows? An OS that's still WIDELY used in both personal and business environments and should be EXPECTED to still run, are you saying saying that after the moment of an OS's release it should no longer even be counted on to install properly? What about drivers that won't physically FIT on a floppy? Ooops, just out of luck I guess? Ever tried to install Windows on an nForce motherboard system (very common boards) without the driver CD (maybe your CD drive needs its own drivers)? Hint: no network connection because the motherboard ethernet port won't work without installing drivers.

Re:Of course it's easier to instal than Windows! (3, Interesting)

WK2 (1072560) | more than 6 years ago | (#23413124)

Windows never really failed to install for me. I've had other problems, like trying to hunt down drivers, having to disable drivers in order to get Windows to boot, Safe Mode failing, and Windows ME blue screened on its first boot.

The main problem I have with installing Windows is that it takes so long. Why does it have to take 1 hour to install an OS? You pretty much just copy a bunch of files onto the HDD, right? Even on a slow CD drive that shouldn't take more than 10 mins max. And why does it ask me questions at several different parts of the install? It should ask them all at once. If it only took a few minutes, this would be forgivable, but if it's going to take an hour, I would at least like to set my options when the CD boots, and then let the install go on for the next hour while I do other things. I shouldn't have to babysit my computer. And why do I have to boot twice to install, once from CD, and once from HDD? And I have to answer questions on each boot.

Microsoft could learn a lot from Linux about OS installs.

Re:Of course it's easier to instal than Windows! (1)

TheThiefMaster (992038) | more than 6 years ago | (#23414772)

Try installing Vista, most of your complaints have been addressed.

Is this guy serious? (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | more than 6 years ago | (#23417564)

"Try installing Vista, most of your complaints have been addressed."
I'm flabbergasted. Are you saying that M$ solved the problem hunting down drivers by simply making them completely unavailable for Vista? Are you saying they solved the slow install time problem by only allowing it to install and newer/faster hardware? Maybe you are saying that they changed the Blue Screen of Death to black, so that you get a ? ... oh wait, that would still be a BSOD, wouldn't it :-)

Re:Is this guy serious? (2, Interesting)

TheThiefMaster (992038) | more than 6 years ago | (#23417892)

Vista includes a lot more drivers on the disk, because it's a new release, so the drivers actually existed when the disk was pressed. You can load drivers from cd or usb pen during the installer (no more needing a floppy drive!). It asks all the questions at the start. It doesn't spend years loading drivers for hardware that hasn't been used in 5 years before starting. You only boot once to install. It even installs faster than XP did.

I'm not surprised Windows ME bluescreened on you on it's first boot, it was a pile of crap.

Hunting down drivers for non-standard hardware you'll still have to do, but Microsoft includes a surprising number on the Vista disk and Windows update.

NOTE: Despite the much improved installer, MS hasn't lured me to actually installing Vista on my main pc. It took me ages to get XP set up to behave right, I'll be damned if I'll switch now.

Re:Of course it's easier to instal than Windows! (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | more than 6 years ago | (#23417480)

"Windows never really failed to install for me. I've had other problems, like trying to hunt down drivers, having to disable drivers in order to get Windows to boot, Safe Mode failing, and Windows ME blue screened on its first boot."
Well, that means Windows failed to install for you. The install process doesn't end when the M$ stops doing stuff. It ends when you have all of your drivers installed and working, and all updates applied, etc.

Re:Of course it's easier to instal than Windows! (1)

WK2 (1072560) | more than 6 years ago | (#23419232)

Except that those times I successfully installed Windows. It was just a lot of work beyond the "ideal" 1 hour install.

Re:Of course it's easier to instal than Windows! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23414096)

So, what you are saying is that Linux runs well on busted ass trash heaps?

Re:Of course it's easier to instal than Windows! (1)

shenanigans (742403) | more than 6 years ago | (#23416120)

Why yes, yes it does. That's called stability and flexibility. Some of us are still running "busted ass trash heaps" and can really appreciate that. Of course, it runs perfectly on shiny new computers as well.

Re:Of course it's easier to instal than Windows! (1)

T-Bone-T (1048702) | more than 6 years ago | (#23414184)

I'm not sure what rock he's been living under, but Linux has been a lot easier to install than windows for ages.
You clearly have not installed Vista. I did an upgrade install and it took hours and left things in a mess. I formatted the drive and started with a fresh install. I started it right before I went to bed, expecting it to take hours like the upgrade, but it was ready to set up user profiles in 30 minutes. Ubuntu asked all the same questions when I installed it, except for the key. I wouldn't consider being asked one less question that doesn't even require thinking to be "a lot easier". In fact, the partitioning part always freaks me out a bit.

Re:Of course it's easier to instal than Windows! (1)

T-Bone-T (1048702) | more than 6 years ago | (#23414204)

Oops, I forgot to mention that my computer is a 5 year old laptop that was only middle-of-the-line when I got it. It has a 2.4GHz Pentium 4 with a max of 1GB RAM and a 8X/2X/1X DVD-RW drive. It has served me well.

Swap issues (5, Interesting)

kernowyon (1257174) | more than 6 years ago | (#23411488)

I actually had a look at the link! One of the issues was -

Finally hit ctrl-alt-return to restart the window manager and found it had hung trying to mount swap off the fstab. For some reason, the installer didn't like trying to reuse the swap partition left over from the previous install, and it made something go pear-shaped during the initial boot.

This is something which seems to plague some Linux installs - if I recall correctly, Vector Linux (or was it Puppy?) has a similar problem with re-using swap partitions which are also used by other installed distros.
The fact that the author managed to get things going by telling the installer to repartition the drive seems to confirm this. It is a long time since I tested Fedora, so I have no idea if this problem is common with that distro.Luckily, most users will probably not have multiple distros installed and this should not prove an issue to them.
Kudos to the author for reporting the issue as a bug though - that may help to get this sorted for the next release.

Re:Swap issues (1)

tweak13 (1171627) | more than 6 years ago | (#23412470)

One task I was given at a previous job was to set up a computer running a lot of different linux distros to find out if there would be anything extra required past a basic install (installing extra packages and such) to get our software running. As such I ended up installing about 10 different distros all on the same hard drive and all reusing the same swap partition and never ran into that problem. In fact I've never even heard of that problem before. Is it a recent development? Sounds like a strange bug, it'd be interesting to track down why it happens. I'd also like to know how I didn't run into it in such an extreme case.

Re:Swap issues (1)

armanox (826486) | more than 6 years ago | (#23413058)

It's caused by a kernel setting (something about 4K pages if memory serves...)

Reading the frackin article..... (5, Interesting)

phoenixwade (997892) | more than 6 years ago | (#23411526)

"(Except for bits about the installation, the review is actually quite positive.)"

I must have read a different article (whupps, sorry, it's slashdot, I know I'm not supposed to RTFA, backsliding again, I suppose)

the first page was complaints about the installer, a paragraph or two that's positive about the performance, and then a complaint that you have to buy the enterprise edition for support, because you can't buy support for Fedora...

Didn't do much for me as a review of the new Fedora, and it certainly didn't seem like the rest was "Positive".

Re:Reading the frackin article..... (3, Funny)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 6 years ago | (#23411918)

...and it certainly didn't seem like the rest was "Positive".


0.001 > 0. Any questions? :)

Re:Reading the frackin article..... (3, Funny)

The Master Control P (655590) | more than 6 years ago | (#23412482)

What about for large values of zero?

Re:Reading the frackin article..... (1)

JohnBailey (1092697) | more than 6 years ago | (#23412162)

"(Except for bits about the installation, the review is actually quite positive.)"

I must have read a different article (whupps, sorry, it's slashdot, I know I'm not supposed to RTFA, backsliding again, I suppose)

the first page was complaints about the installer, a paragraph or two that's positive about the performance, and then a complaint that you have to buy the enterprise edition for support, because you can't buy support for Fedora...

Didn't do much for me as a review of the new Fedora, and it certainly didn't seem like the rest was "Positive".
Yes.. I think you did read a different article. The complaints about installing as a second distro on the same computer took the bulk of the first page, The remainder being about the fact that Fedora is not supported by Red Hat. True enough, but then Red Hat is a corporate distro, and Fedora is a bleeding edge test bed/community distro, so two different markets.

The second page was about F9 detecting his hardware, including the Wifi, and the ease of installing stuff. And minor complaint about previous problems with the add/remove app being slow, which is now gone. The replacement will not be worth using for a few days at least, because the repositories will be hammered into the ground with people updating. If the preview live CD is anything to go by, it will be very fast once things have quietened down. I'm looking forward to installing this weekend.

Re:Reading the frackin article..... (1)

rts008 (812749) | more than 6 years ago | (#23415036)

"I'm looking forward to installing this weekend."

I truly wish you good luck.

I've finally given up after 4 tries.
For some reason it insists on trying to install itself back onto the DVD.
I even redownloaded the ISO, reburned to CD and DVD, all to no avail.I have never encountered anything like this before, and am now convinced it's 'not ready for prime time' yet.

I'll just stick with my comfortable Kubuntu setup.

Re:Reading the frackin article..... (1)

trouser (149900) | more than 6 years ago | (#23413106)

He said, 'frackin'. Tee hee. Frackin. That's a polite form of 'fucking' which, where I live, is what a bloke with tickets on himself says when he means 'cunting'.

Reading the cunting article....

Wait a minute...this is Slashdot (0, Flamebait)

Bryansix (761547) | more than 6 years ago | (#23411804)

This is Slashdot, you can't criticize a Linux distro on here. I found this out the hard way today.

Re:Wait a minute...this is Slashdot (2, Funny)

croddy (659025) | more than 6 years ago | (#23412140)

Are you kidding? We're definitely still allowed to bash Linspire!

Re:Wait a minute...this is Slashdot (1)

UncleTogie (1004853) | more than 6 years ago | (#23412196)

...and with the Microsoft/Novell deal, SUSE is fair game, too!

Has Fedora fixed the packager manager performance? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23411906)

Last time I tried Fedora/RedHat I was totally put off by the performance of the package management system. Not only did I experience RPM-hell with dependency shit but it was slow as hell. I mean the package manager would sit there and bring my computer to its knees for a long freaking time.

Not too good if you ask me. But hell who needs Fedora anyway when there are much better distros without that RPM crap.

Re:Has Fedora fixed the packager manager performan (2, Insightful)

doktorjayd (469473) | more than 6 years ago | (#23413804)

$> yum install [package]

$> yum remove [package]

yeah, i can see how your dependedncy hell transpired.

( heres a hint though, after yum works out all the dependencies, enter 'y' or 'n' to accept/reject the dependency resolution yum works out for ya...)

oh, and theres a graphical tool for command line averse.

the much shorter ( and accurate ) response to this A/C would of course be 'bullshit' :)

Re:Has Fedora fixed the packager manager performan (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 6 years ago | (#23413976)

Believe it or not, I've had
$> yum install [package]
$> yum remove [package]
fail on RHEL 5.1 x86_64 with some development package where *yum* installed both 32bit and 64bit versions. It couldn't figure out what to do with the remove statement, and I had to use rpm to nuke the packages.

Re:Has Fedora fixed the packager manager performan (1)

donaldm (919619) | more than 6 years ago | (#23417642)

If you are having problems with "yum install {package}" or "yum remove {package}" I would suggest looking very carefully at your repos. I only ever have the default repos enabled and always select a repo with "yum --enablerepo={my_repo} install {package}". Also I would be careful with what repos you use anyway since some can really cause problems.

Personally I have found the "Livna" repo to be the best one to match the default repos. If I cannot install a particular package by default I enable "Livna" then the next repo but as I have said some repos can cause you problems. If that is the case then you may have to use "rpm -e --nodeps {package_that_has_issues}" and this is were the fun starts. You can always try and install later if you really need the package.

As for i386 and x86_64 packages I always suggest trying to use the package that matches the architecture which means for 64bit architecture (most current PC's now) you should try to get rid of i386 packages if you have both the 32bit and 64bit ones. Use "yum erase {package}.i386" to get rid of the i386 package. You may be able to do what I have suggested in the GUI but when you have dependency issues the command line is the best and safest way to go. If you are using RHEL 5.1 (latest is 5.2) then you most likely have a subscription which will give you telephone and email support. If you are paying for this then I would definately suggest using it.

Re:Has Fedora fixed the packager manager performan (1)

Rakarra (112805) | more than 6 years ago | (#23423742)

If you are having problems with "yum install {package}" or "yum remove {package}" I would suggest looking very carefully at your repos. I only ever have the default repos enabled and always select a repo with "yum --enablerepo={my_repo} install {package}". Also I would be careful with what repos you use anyway since some can really cause problems.



Unfortunately, most people need a lot more than what is provided by the standard "totally free software only" repositories. We need to be able to play mp3s. We need to be able to play commercial DVDs. We need programs like mplayer, xine or vlc, the Adobe flash plugin, and maybe even a quicktime and/or wmv plugin for firefox. That means adding in different repositories, and that's where the real dependency hell can come into play.

Re:Has Fedora fixed the packager manager performan (1)

pdusen (1146399) | more than 6 years ago | (#23416388)

"RPM-hell with dependency shit?" You don't think Apt has dependencies too? The only real difference between apt and yum (aside from the fact that yum has a priorities plugin, which I think apt seriously needs) is that yum does have speed issues, but I understand they've improved for this release (haven't had a chance to try it myself).

Installed fedora yesterday (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23412178)

I have been with fedora since 2003, that was my year of the linux desktop. As always, everything worked out of the box, even in my brand spankin' new HP Pavilion dv6775us laptop, even the webcam. Probably I am one of the lucky bastards though...

Anyway, the only issue I have is the nVidia graphics card. I do not blame Fedora for this though, I blame nVidia. Those asswipes don't give crap about linux users, write crappy drivers, take a long time writing them, and don't give specs. I like watching videos on my machine, but now i have no xvideo extensions available on my graphics driver. Fedora shipped with the latest experimental X Server, something that nVidia is not supporting yet...

I'll go ahead and say: nVidia, you corporate assholes, you lost a costumer. And since I work on retail, I have the power to make you lose many more. Cheers!

Re:Installed fedora yesterday (1)

donaldm (919619) | more than 6 years ago | (#23417782)

My laptop (10 months old) has a Nvida graphics card and when I get a new Fedora kernel I always switch my repo to "livna" and the installation of the new kernel and Nvidia drivers are correctly installed. All I do is run "yum update --enablerepo=livna" and when finished I just reboot and everything works. If you don't do this then the best thing to do is to remove the Nvidia drivers (kmod-nvidia and xorg-x11-drv-nvidia), install the new kernel, reboot then enable the "livna" repo and install the drivers with "yum install --enablerepo=livna kmod-nvidia". You need two reboots for this though. No matter which way you go you must use the "livna" repo to get the Nvidia graphics drivers.

I guess he never installed Slackware 3.... (2, Interesting)

NJRoadfan (1254248) | more than 6 years ago | (#23412306)

Anybody remember THAT installer? There was no "back" option on most of the screens. If you screwed up, you had to start over from scratch.

Re:I guess he never installed Slackware 3.... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23412448)

What about the old Gentoo installer?

You know, a webpage full of instructions.

Re:I guess he never installed Slackware 3.... (1)

incripshin (580256) | more than 6 years ago | (#23414724)

Quite right. It sure was fun, though. If I ever install Gentoo again (still truckin' after three years), I will forgo the graphical installer. I also use OpenBSD, which has a daunting install process as well. I may use NetBSD at some point, and the installer is similar. I'm sure there are many people like me that shun oversimplified interfaces in favor of flexibility, but we're a definite minority.

Re:I guess he never installed Slackware 3.... (1)

pxc (938367) | more than 6 years ago | (#23414992)

When I did my first Gentoo install, I was really intimidated because of all of the scary things I heard about it, but when it comes down to it, it's only a matter of following instructions. Now, I kind of prefer that kind of install, because of how robust it is. For example, you can do a Gentoo install
        -from another working Linux install (all you need is chroot)
        -from any LiveCD with an internet connection
        -telnet/SSH

And you can stop/pick up the install at any time you want to. On my old computer I had a triple-boot between Ubuntu, Windows, and Gentoo, and whenever I was in either Linux distribution, I would regularly chroot into the other and run upates, etc. to keep it up to date. You can actually install Gentoo the exact same way. :-)

Re:I guess he never installed Slackware 3.... (1)

miffo.swe (547642) | more than 6 years ago | (#23415074)

I have had an enormous help when working with various Linux servers at work from my Gentoo experiences. Gentoo forces an insight into the inner workings of a Gnu/Linux system that is reusable on all the other distributions. I have to Gentoo installer to thank for my career even if i at the time thought it must have been written by a sadist.

Re:I guess he never installed Slackware 3.... (2, Funny)

mrbluze (1034940) | more than 6 years ago | (#23412640)

Anybody remember THAT installer? There was no "back" option on most of the screens. If you screwed up, you had to start over from scratch.
You mean you had to download Linux From Scratch if you decided you wanted a back button? I didn't know LFS had a back button.

Re:I guess he never installed Slackware 3.... (2, Informative)

IrquiM (471313) | more than 6 years ago | (#23415050)

It's not like the installer has changed much since then either...

but it's still easier to install than windows! ;)

2 days ago, I installed slackware 12.1, and moved the raid from the older server... took me less than 1 hour to complete all tasks, and had a running server...

All hail to the slackware god!

Clueless author (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23412698)

Here's my favorite quote:

"a 2.6.x kernel is a 2.6.x kernel"

Yeah, right. I think he has no clue about what he's talking of. Even if you take a 2.6.18 kernel that RedHat uses for their RHEL systems, and 2.6.25, there are a lot of differences. To say nothing of the first release of 2.6.

Installed easily, almost everything works (1)

digitalhermit (113459) | more than 6 years ago | (#23412874)

Just pulled it down today via the torrent and got it installed on a Dell Inspiron 600M in a matter of minutes. The previous distro on this machine was Ubuntu 8.0.4 which, though pretty good, works just a little differently than I prefer. However, Ubuntu worked very well on the machine including Compiz, wireless (via ndiswrapper), and even my volume keys. This was the bar that Fedora had to meet.

So far so good. Compiz and wireless work fine. The volume controls don't but I can live with it for now.

Nice things include the on-the-fly res switching of the new X server. Dual head (xinerama) clones my laptop display onto the bigger 1280x1024 display, but it shows up as a portion of a larger desktop. This is the same as in Ubuntu and is annoying. Hopefully I'll figure it out soon.

My other tests were to close the laptop and see how well it hibernates. Works great. Under the Windows XP with recently installed SP3 the laptop sometimes doesn't sleep properly. The screen goes off, but it never throttles down so I've sometimes pulled it out of the laptop bag after getting home and found it super-hot to the touch. But it seems to work in F9 on my few tests.

Those are the only issues I've had so far. It seems fast, looks beautiful, and the app selection is perfect. Price is great too.

Linux is much easier than Windows (3, Insightful)

sc0ob5 (836562) | more than 6 years ago | (#23412990)

Linux is MUCH MUCH easier to install than windows, it has been for many years. No layman that I know can fully install windows XP or Vista. Let alone trying to install it on a RAID partition. Not only that but you don't need to load a drivers for your video/network/raid/sound, surely that counts as part of the install process. Also the installer installs applications as well not just the OS so you have to consider that as well. I mean if your count the number of applications that can be installed in the installation then compare it with Windows and what you would need to do to get those applications I think it's pretty clear that a Linux installation even if you have to read a small blurb about what you are doing is so much easier, quicker and superior.

Simple fact is that if you think it's hard you are either a Windows user or an idiot or quite probably both.

I guess "installing" Windows involves taking the newly bought HP/Dell out of the box and plugging it in.

Make Fedora available on CDROM iso's (1)

Paracelcus (151056) | more than 6 years ago | (#23413034)

For those who don't have DVD write capability.

Re:Make Fedora available on CDROM iso's (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23413614)

dvd-rw drives ($20) and dvd media ( $0.25 / disc when buying large spindles) are both cheap enough that you really have no excuse not to get the fucking DVD write capability.

Re:Make Fedora available on CDROM iso's (2, Informative)

doktorjayd (469473) | more than 6 years ago | (#23413820)

try the livecd image.

you can boot straight up into it, and theres a double-click 'install to hard drive' desktop icon.

single cd image, and once installed, you can pick and choose additional packages from the public repositories.

Re:Make Fedora available on CDROM iso's (1)

sc0ob5 (836562) | more than 6 years ago | (#23414476)

I have installed a lot of different distros on many lower spec machines, many of which don't have DVD drives but have CD drives and the only option to upgrade to a DVD drive comes at a significant cost when it's really not even needed. I can understand why distros these days tend to package everything on a DVD or CDs, what with a cheap and easy way to distribute the ISOs (bittorrent). But what I would like is a basic install CD that allows you to install from CD using FTP/HTTP as the source but still gives the same options as the GUI installer rather than the text based installer which is required at the moment for most distros using FTP/HTTP. On a lot of these lower spec machines only have 256MB of RAM and loading a live CD takes forever and is extremely painful.

Please stop the LiveCD installer pain!

Re:Make Fedora available on CDROM iso's (1)

JonJ (907502) | more than 6 years ago | (#23414950)

You can use the rescue disk for this purpose. Just boot with "linux askmethod" and you can install from http/ftp/nfs. "linux text askmethod" gives you a text based installer.

That's not the ONLY curve Fedora's behind on (1)

schwaang (667808) | more than 6 years ago | (#23413252)

There's also this one [google.com] . It's not Netcraft, but still.

I expect to burn in flamebait karma hell for this, but as a Fedora user I do find it sad. But not surprising.

Re:That's not the ONLY curve Fedora's behind on (2, Funny)

doktorjayd (469473) | more than 6 years ago | (#23413844)

heh,

doesnt that just indicate more people have to do more searches for issues with ubuntu than fedora? :)

Re:That's not the ONLY curve Fedora's behind on (1)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 6 years ago | (#23414798)

Notice the tagged spikes for Ubuntu, though:

Ubuntu Security Notice - courier vulnerability (USN-294-1)
Help Net Security - Jun 9 2006
        Ubuntu Security Notice - openoffice.org2-amd64, openoffice.org2 vulnerabilities (USN-313-2)
Help Net Security - Jul 19 2006
        Dell, Ubuntu 7.04
Digital Silence - May 24 2007
        Open-Xchange and Ubuntu woo small business
PC World Magazine - Jul 19 2007
        Ubuntu update for kernel
Secunia - Aug 31 2007
        Ubuntu update for vmware
Secunia - Nov 16 2007

That's two security notices and two Secunia pages. Doesn't necessarily bode well in terms of attention :D

Re:That's not the ONLY curve Fedora's behind on (1)

cerberusss (660701) | more than 6 years ago | (#23415494)

That link is actually pretty funny. The first two hits on the right: "Ubuntu Security Notice - courier vulnerability (USN-294-1)" and "Ubuntu Security Notice - openoffice.org2-amd64, openoffice.org2 vulnerabilities (USN-313-2)"

wow.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23414218)

i like the slackware way of installation myself. ubuntu is 'too' user friendly for me in the respect that i dont seem to have any options or choice about the main things that are important to me. i think the only time i've ever had an issue installing linux was my first time installing slackware because i hadnt really used CLI much until that point. but simply reading the docs explained everything and it was a quick success, since installing different distros on different computers i've become a lot more adept at the installation procedures and what users would benefit from and such.
but as far as installing windows goes, i've installed it probably a good 2000 or more times on roughly the same number of different machines and yes, new hardware is a huge bitch with it and can cause the weirdest issues. sure its an old OS now but if they're still selling it, cant they update it with newer drivers and such? and why cant they have a website where you can punch in your key and a serial number or something off your disc and then download the latest and greatest iso? im sure they can come up with some lame drm type thing to prevent the iso from being pirated right? and even if it was, it would still require a key right? so thats not really pirating.. i guess since they moved on to vista theres not going to be much of a chance for that however plus they suck and dont do anything right so i doubt we'll ever see a good installer or anything for windows
also i've noticed trying to install winxp over top of linux hangs and the drive needs to be wiped first or it just will not work... lame

Good documentation is more important (2, Interesting)

gzipped_tar (1151931) | more than 6 years ago | (#23414532)

I know Fedora is not the easiest to install, but instead, let's look at the other side of the matter.

Being a Fedora user myself, I walked through the install process in about ten minutes (excl. the time of merely waiting for file extraction/copying). And everything worked fine.

Installing Fedora is not a click-through. For new users it may appear to be more intimidating than it actually is. But don't forget the old practice of RTFM. Fedora has an excellent installation guide available from their wiki. The guide is very readable even for new users. In the doc there are actually things a new user can learn useful knowledge, e.g. the basic ideas of disk partition and logical volume management. A scan through the manual also helps reducing the risk of data loss caused by mis-operation.

Sadly, most new users don't know the value of a manual.

Perhaps that's what Fedora differens from the *buntu families. Fedora is a desktop distro, but meanwhile it is always a testing distro; it isn't even meant to be very stable or user-friendly like the *buntus do. You'll have to be a little tech-aware. If you don't feel like reading through a few man pages to find the answer, then consider something else.

Re:Good documentation is more important (1)

cbart387 (1192883) | more than 6 years ago | (#23417170)

Totally agree with your post, though I should put the disclaimer that I run Fedora as well. Ubuntu and Fedora are made for two different purposes so you can't judge them by the same rubric. If you want user-friendly* and stability go with Ubuntu. There is obviously a need for a Linux distro that is more appetizing to newcomers to Linux. If you want more of the bleeding-edge, Fedora is there always pushing with the new versions of software. FF3 beta makes a ton of more sense** in Fedora then Ubuntu.

* I do have to admit that I was pleasantly surprised when I first installed Fedora 8 (still haven't made it to 9 yet). I expected it to be very technical but the worse thing was setting up the partitions (which I have done before and is probably documented in the wiki regardless).

Fedora is still fairly user-friendly in its own right (can't compare it to the latest Ubuntu since I don't run it). The only configuration tinkering that I had to do was the boilerplate ones related to non-Free software (java applets, flash, wireles, etc). It really does a good job letting you know when there updates, has a pleasing font, etc. I've never encountered the reported 'RPM hell'.

** I have heard the argument that Ubuntu would be stuck supporting FF2 if they started with that. It seems reasonable to upgrade from FF2 to FF3 when FF3 is released. Maybe I'm missing something.

If you don't feel like reading through a few man pages to find the answer, then consider something else.
I recently installed Debian Etch to finally blow away my Windows installation. It too requires reading documentation; I don't think that's a bad thing.

Fedora for Enterprise? (1)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 6 years ago | (#23414790)

Who should use this: Experienced Linux users who want an enterprise-grade distribution or will be deploying software to Red Hat Enterprise.

and

Incidentally, it's a good idea to start with Fedora if you're part of a business that may want to transition to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) sometime in the future. Since work done on Fedora flows into Red Hat, this allows for a fairly simple transition from Fedora to RHEL.

Surely if you want an enterprise-grade distro but don't want to pay for it then you go for CentOS, since it's basically unbranded RHEL? Fedora is specifically meant as more cutting edge (as the author mentioned) so why would you want to start a server on it if you're going to move to RHEL?

As for the complaint about lack of support, how many normal users get support with Windows? Most people use friends and family for support or learn it themselves.

I've been installing Fedora and Redhat since 7.3 and never had a problem. The closest I got to install problems was when one version wanted to display the installer at a higher res than my laptop screen. All I did then was a bit of creative navigation.

Re:Fedora for Enterprise? (1)

Electrawn (321224) | more than 6 years ago | (#23414892)

CentOS 5 is a blend of Fedora and RHEL. Getting Fedora or CentOS to place nice in VMware depends on how the distro feels that day.

Re:Fedora for Enterprise? (1)

Wdomburg (141264) | more than 6 years ago | (#23422488)

Eh? Unless you add optional repositories Fedora has absolutely nothing to do with CentOS. The only packages changed from upstream RHEL are done for copyright reasons (i.e. artwork).

Not sure what problems you have with CentOS in VMware. We have dozens of production instances running just fine.

Summary wrong (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 6 years ago | (#23415290)

There was a bug in the installer when using dvd version, so he had to use the text version, no real critisms.

Re:Summary wrong (1)

BrianGKUAC (919321) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420430)

The graphical install would have still worked if he had repartitioned. Still a bug, but not quite as ugly of one as TFA makes it seem.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?