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!

First Look At Fedora 11 Beta Release

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the shiny-bits-for-playing-with dept.

Upgrades 205

Ars Technica has a first look at the latest beta release from the Fedora universe and it has several new shiny-bits including kernel modesetting, ext4, and faster boot times. "Fedora 11, which is codenamed Leonidas, is scheduled for final release at the end of May. It will include several new features and noteworthy improvements, such as RPM 4.7, which will reduce the memory consumption of complex package activity, tighter integration of PackageKit, faster boot time with a target goal of 20 seconds, and reduced power consumption thanks to a major tuning effort. This version of Fedora will ship with the latest version of many popular open source software programs, including GNOME 2.26, KDE 4.2, and Xfce 4.6. This will also be the first Fedora release — and possibly the first mainstream distro release — to use the new Ext4 filesystem by default.

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

Leonidas? Cue the "300" jokes in 3... 2... (2, Funny)

tjonnyc999 (1423763) | more than 5 years ago | (#27450439)

1... and GO!

Re:Leonidas? Cue the "300" jokes in 3... 2... (4, Funny)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 5 years ago | (#27450449)

THIS. IS. LINUX.

Despite all your yelling... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27451015)

...you never live to see the victory over the desktop.

Re:Despite all your yelling... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27451029)

I find it funny you feel good about yourself only by binding you ego to Microsoft's dominance of the desktop market.

A winnar is you!

ext4? This is madness! (3, Funny)

MasterOfMagic (151058) | more than 5 years ago | (#27450451)

THIS IS FEDORAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!

Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted! Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

Oh yeah, well tonight, I in fact plan on dining in Hell.

Re:ext4? This is madness! (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27450845)

Madness you say?

I've been running ext4 on an arch linux server for a month now. No issues with the filesystem so far. It is also my first experience with syslog-ng and setting mark frequency to zero (disabled) took the box down.

Ext4? (3, Funny)

TheNinjaroach (878876) | more than 5 years ago | (#27450457)

Doesn't Ext4 have occasional issues with data integr)_SF*@)_M#$ I'm surprised to see it used by defau#%FVN641

Re:Ext4? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27450491)

a patch was released today.

Re:Ext4? (3, Funny)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 5 years ago | (#27450739)

Spartans! Prepare for data loss!

Re:Ext4? (5, Funny)

Jurily (900488) | more than 5 years ago | (#27451025)

Tonight we dine in /dev/null

Re:Ext4? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27451601)

But why are they dining in purgatory that makes no sense.

Re:Ext4? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27450807)

It only has problems if the system goes down unexpectedly during a series of disk writes, or if the system is rebooted before ext4 has flushed its write cache (30-60 seconds)

Re:Ext4? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27450857)

It only has problems if the system goes down unexpectedly during a series of disk writes, or if the system is rebooted before ext4 has flushed its write cache (30-60 seconds)

Sounds like a "yes it does have a severe data integrity issue" to me.

Re:Ext4? (2, Informative)

Jurily (900488) | more than 5 years ago | (#27451489)

Sounds like a "yes it does have a severe data integrity issue" to me.

It's already been discussed. Basically, if you write a small file, rename it before the data reaches the disk, and power down, you lose.

People have been known to lose GNOME and Firefox config files for instance.

Re:Ext4? (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#27451911)

...And that is a severe data integrity issue. For example, on a hung system where a poweroff like that might happen, your Firefox config file could be lost. This causes a major problem because a lot of times little config files aren't backed up, or when they are they are older, giving potential conflicts with newer software versions. And what is going to be the typical response from a typical user that knows nothing about Linux when they see everything in GNOME wiped back to default settings, and not just distro default settings, but vanilla GNOME settings. This also could really affect lightweight netbook distros using IceWM or some other WM that looks totally foreign to the typical user who used to rely on carefully configured scripts to make it look like Windows or OS X.

Re:Ext4? (2, Informative)

Anthony_Cargile (1336739) | more than 5 years ago | (#27450911)

It only has problems if the system goes down unexpectedly during a series of disk writes, or if the system is rebooted before ext4 has flushed its write cache (30-60 seconds)

I thought since it was journaling, it prevents all of this by writing everything to the journal first and retains said data even if interrupted?

Re:Ext4? (3, Informative)

billcopc (196330) | more than 5 years ago | (#27451365)

That's the problem, it writes the metadata journal first, and the actual data journal later. So you wind up with metadata pointing to not-yet-written data.

Common sense says it should be the other way around: it's much easier to detect the absense of a file, than to detect that an existing file is full of gibberish.

Re:Ext4? (1)

Anthony_Cargile (1336739) | more than 5 years ago | (#27451695)

I've actually heard Linus complain about this on the lkml, and this is about where Reiser chimed in about metadata. I like metadata and all, but having an intact file is more important to me than a missing file (yet having the metadata for the missing file intact). I don't even search my disks hardly ever, since I keep everything logically organized myself, so metadata is one of those features (next to indexing) that I don't even appreciate, although I'm sure there are users that do.

If I knew a little bit more about modern filesystems, I'd write a patch for this and send it upstream but it might be too late to be accepted for fear of breaking compatibility despite the fact ext4 is still in beta, and the operating systems that use it are either in beta or not meant to be production-quality. Still, might give it a try.

Re:Ext4? (2, Insightful)

EvanED (569694) | more than 5 years ago | (#27451881)

I don't even search my disks hardly ever, since I keep everything logically organized myself, so metadata is one of those features (next to indexing) that I don't even appreciate, although I'm sure there are users that do.

Keep in mind that "metadata" here is referring to much more than things like extended attributes, and in fact is probably NOT referring to those. "metadata" here means stuff like the inode and indirect blocks, which you definitely DO care about because it's what lets you access your data.

Metadata journaling saves this information so that you don't have things like blocks that are doubly-allocated or just lost because they aren't part of any file but aren't on the free list, which is what fsck saves.

No... (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27451017)

No, it just has exactly the same behaviour that filesystems like XFS and JFS and probably most of other unix filesystems, specially those using delayed allocation (say, ZFS). Any app that can "lose data" in Ext4 needs fixing anyway because of portability (other OS behave exactly like Ext4, and have done so for years).

To "solve" this issue Ext4 has added some hacks (basically, do a fsync in the file after a rename or a truncate) that will slow down performance (caching is faster) for some apps, like rsync, and will encourage programming behaviours that can cause data loss in badly written apps that are run in OSes that do not behave like ext3/ext4/btrfs. But hey, that's what people asked for.

Bad summary. (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 5 years ago | (#27450469)

A package list for a Linux Distro, without listing the version of Linux itself?

Re:Bad summary. (-1, Flamebait)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 5 years ago | (#27450677)

The name of TFA is "First Look at Fedora 11 Beta," and the first quoted words in the summary are, "Fedora 11." If that doesn't tell you what version of Linux is involved, you don't belong here.

Re:Bad summary. (2, Funny)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 5 years ago | (#27450803)

Brace yourself techno-vampire...

Re:Bad summary. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27451125)

Of course, we should have known Fedora 11 means 2.6.29!

Re:Bad summary. (1)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 5 years ago | (#27451631)

If the OP wanted to know which kernel Fedora 11 comes with, he should have asked. He asked "what Linux is it," and that's the question I answered.

Re:Bad summary. (1, Flamebait)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 5 years ago | (#27451945)

If you don't know the difference between a distribution and the Linux kernel it is you that doesn't belong here.

Re:Bad summary. (0, Offtopic)

Tenebrousedge (1226584) | more than 5 years ago | (#27451987)

There's some other version of the kernel that includes modesetting?

Also, 1and1 are inexpensive and loathsome [webhostdir.com] . They do not have a good reputation. [google.com]

One question: (4, Insightful)

Fallingcow (213461) | more than 5 years ago | (#27450473)

Has PulseAudio been either removed or fixed?

I'm off Linux until that crap gets sorted out. It infected Ubuntu too, for some reason.

Re:One question: (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27450555)

That will never happen.

It really sucked when most of the users could never have more than one application using audio simultaneously. Also controlling the devices could not be offered via unified user interface.

If you have a problem with pulseaudio, please consider filing bug reports.

Re:One question: (4, Insightful)

Fallingcow (213461) | more than 5 years ago | (#27450903)

It really sucked when most of the users could never have more than one application using audio simultaneously. Also controlling the devices could not be offered via unified user interface.

Yeah, I remember those days--a couple years ago, if not more. Audio was finally working great out of the box, and even not-that-bad to configure manually in Gentoo.

Now, it's all screwed up again in the distros that switched to PulseAudio. We got alpha-quality software pushed on us.

If you have a problem with pulseaudio, please consider filing bug reports.

I assure you, there are plenty already.

Re:One question: (4, Interesting)

Walpurgiss (723989) | more than 5 years ago | (#27451211)

My problems with pulseaudio isn't a bug, but a design flaw. Until they create an option in the PA sound server to let you set DTS/DD streams to passthrough, bypassing the sound mixing, PA is fail to me.

PA seems like a great system for people who don't want to use an external dolby decoder for surround sound and are fine with everything either stereo or decoded by software. But for my needs, it currently fails to plain ALSA. Toss me a way to do proper passthrough and I'd sign up with PA again. It's not like I need or want sound mixing when I'm watching something with surround sound anyway.

Re:One question: (1)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 5 years ago | (#27451593)

Interesting... I seem to get pass-through working fine on my 8.10 Mythbuntu media center. But I think I also use the ALSA libs instead of Pulse. Thanks for the heads-up on this. Might explain a few weird audio things I've experienced.

Re:One question: (3, Interesting)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 5 years ago | (#27451891)

It really sucked when most of the users could never have more than one application using audio simultaneously.

FreeBSD moved past that while staying on OSS.

Re:One question: (1, Informative)

nrgy (835451) | more than 5 years ago | (#27450561)

PulseAudio has totally fubared my computer at work and my laptop at home. I disabled it and went back to alsa however I still get soundlockups and other odd things.

These machines ran perfectly fine before Ubuntu made the switch to PulseAudio. Its one thing that drives me insane about Linux distros. They will switch to something new well before its stable and warranted yet packages that are updated and should be the default are left behind "case in point Eclipse".

Re:One question: (0)

Fallingcow (213461) | more than 5 years ago | (#27450869)

Seriously. I expected this shit when I was on Gentoo, but c'mon, a release from one of the major "user friendly" distros that breaks about half my audio applications--and not just on an upgrade, but on a new installation--and requires me to dick around in settings to get applications to work or not crash? When audio had been working great in Linux for the last couple years, with most of its major problems finally sorted out?

PulseAudio: the answer to a question no one asked.

I'm sure there are features it has that I don't know about and would never use that are nice. Fine. Switch to it when it's mature. It clearly isn't. The switch was made way too early, and, as I understand it, Fedora led that dumb-assed charge into brokenness.

Re:One question: (4, Insightful)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 5 years ago | (#27451021)

Criticizing Ubuntu is fair enough since they intend to be a user friendly distro, but criticizing Fedora for switching to PA early is way off base. It says right in Fedora's objectives they aim to "Be on the leading edge of free and open source technology". If you want a stable and low maintenance system I think Fedora is not the distro for you.

Re:One question: (1, Insightful)

Fallingcow (213461) | more than 5 years ago | (#27451191)

Really? Most people I hear of using it do so because they're used to Red Hat and want a free version of it, not to be on the "leading edge". I mean, most distros make claims like that; it's a marketing sort of statement. Doesn't mean they intend to release unstable/untested/unfinished software.

It was my impression that Fedora was primarily used by people seeking a "stable and low maintenance" RPM-based distro that they don't have to pay for. I've only used it a bit (intranet server at a former employer) so I'm not in on the distro's culture, but that's the impression I've gotten from reading comments by its users and paying (some) attention to its development over the years.

Re:One question: (5, Informative)

Drew M. (5831) | more than 5 years ago | (#27451419)

It was my impression that Fedora was primarily used by people seeking a "stable and low maintenance" RPM-based distro that they don't have to pay for. I've only used it a bit (intranet server at a former employer) so I'm not in on the distro's culture, but that's the impression I've gotten from reading comments by its users and paying (some) attention to its development over the years.

Nope, you would be thinking (or should be thinking) of CentOS http://www.centos.org/ [centos.org]

Re:One question: (2, Informative)

Lendrick (314723) | more than 5 years ago | (#27451443)

If someone is used to RedHat and wants a free version of it, they ought to be using Centos [centos.org] , which is pretty much an exact duplicate of RedHat Enterprise, except rebranded and free.

Re:One question: (4, Insightful)

cetialphav (246516) | more than 5 years ago | (#27451451)

Really? Most people I hear of using it do so because they're used to Red Hat and want a free version of it, not to be on the "leading edge".

Obviously, I can't speak for why most other people use Fedora. I suspect anyone using it for the reasons you state are misinformed.
Fedora's goal is to be bleeding edge. They are pulling the latest versions of almost everything with the philosophy that the only way to stabilize these things is to get them into a real system used by people.

This will mean occasional brokenness as seen with KDE4, pulseaudio, networkmanager, etc. Obviously, Fedora does not want to put out a broken distribution and so they work hard to get things usable. But if you are looking for the stability of RedHat distributions, Fedora is the wrong place to look.

Re:One question: (1)

Fallingcow (213461) | more than 5 years ago | (#27451741)

This will mean occasional brokenness as seen with KDE4, pulseaudio, networkmanager, etc. Obviously, Fedora does not want to put out a broken distribution and so they work hard to get things usable. But if you are looking for the stability of RedHat distributions, Fedora is the wrong place to look.

Ubuntu released that same stuff around the same time. Maybe they're being more bleeding edge than they ought to be, but Fedora doesn't sound all that "out there" to me. Of course, with the exception of PulseAudio, Ubuntu generally just made the software available but not default until it was good enough to be the default, so that may be the difference.

That said, I'd completely forgotten about CentOS, as a couple others had mentioned.

Re:One question: (1)

ADRA (37398) | more than 5 years ago | (#27451941)

I would hope that anyone -informed- who want to use 'Free Redhat' would use Centos. Anyone using Fedora should realize that the OS is a testbed for enterprise Redhat Linux. That said, within a few weeks of a new release, they generally fix ~90% of the issues I have with it.

At work, my F10 PC has a performance problem with the Kernel Modeset free ATI drivers, so I had to turn those off.

At home, my Sound Blaster Audigy 1 card was causing all types of horrible performance problems which made my video playback almost unusable. Switching to my Mobo's internal audio eliminated the problem completely, so I suppose the card drivers are flaky.

Besides those listed, F10 is really really good. Its getting to the point that if I never played games, I wouldn't even bother having windows for anything.

Re:One question: (1)

Znork (31774) | more than 5 years ago | (#27451479)

Most people I hear of using it do so because they're used to Red Hat and want a free version of it

Ah, no. CentOS is a free version of Redhat. Fedora is what you use if you like time warps into the future to explore what may work in a year or two and eventually get merged into Redhat when it's stable. Or if you have need for some bleeding edge hardware drivers that aren't going to get back ported into point updates of Redhat. Or if you just generally like being on the bleeding edge.

It's nice enough and personally I use it for desktop stuff as I'm going to have to deal with the news eventually anyway, but it's not going to remain unchanged for any longer interval, nor it it going to be particularly low maintenance.

Re:One question: (1)

Chabo (880571) | more than 5 years ago | (#27451579)

Really? From the start (Fedora Core 1), I've always had the impression that Fedora was the place that Red Hat puts unstable packages, so that by the time the next RHEL comes out, those packages are stable.

Re:One question: (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#27451625)

It was my impression that Fedora was primarily used by people seeking a "stable and low maintenance" RPM-based distro that they don't have to pay for. I've only used it a bit (intranet server at a former employer) so I'm not in on the distro's culture, but that's the impression I've gotten from reading comments by its users and paying (some) attention to its development over the years.

Fedora is and always has been the alpha test version for Red Hat Enterprise Linux. They try new stuff out on Fedora users first, since they're not paying customers. The mature, tested product becomes RHEL. They instituted this so that they actually could put out a stable product for their paying customers. Look around their website if you don't believe me, it is its own citation.

Re:One question: (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27451413)

PulseAudio isn't even "bleeding edge" software, it's more "oh god that edge just went clean through my torso and cut me in half oh god there's blood everywhere I'm going to die".

Re:One question: (-1, Flamebait)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#27451543)

PulseAudio: the answer to a question no one asked.

Those of us with mixers broken in the ALSA driver apparently for eternity (snd-hda-intel) pulseaudio is the only way to actually have audio mixing. You don't know what you're talking about. Back away from the keyboard, please.

Re:One question: (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27452045)

Really because I have hda_intel and have no problems with alsa. Obviously there's more then one person that doesn't have a clue about what they're talking about.

Re:One question: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27451239)

I'm a n00b whose sound died a nasty death when Fedora decided to use PulseAudio. Any documentation you can point me to on how to switch back to Alsa? I've been wrestling with PA for two straight days without any luck. :(

PulseAudio on Fedora .. (5, Informative)

rs232 (849320) | more than 5 years ago | (#27450603)

And if you could expand to explain how Pulse Audio [fedoraproject.org] differs and what benefits this will have for end-users? Or even for developers of existing applications too, such as Audacity/Jokosher/Rhythmbox/$general_audio_application.

A lot of things have changed. For example, you can now change the volume of every playback stream seperately. Then, we have better hotplug support: Just plug in your USB speaker and it will appear in your mixer (as long as you use pavucontrol, of course, PA's native mixer tool; the classic gnome-volume-control which we still ship is not hotplug-capable). You can move streams during playback between output devices. With a single click in our "paprefs" tool you can aggregate all local audio devices into a virtual one, which distributes audio to all outputs, and deals with the small frequency deviations in the sound card's quartzes -- and that code even deals with hotplugging/unplugging. If that checkbox is checked, just plugin in your USB headset and you get audio through it. (This is actually pretty cool, and it might be something we enable by default in F9)..

Re:PulseAudio on Fedora .. (1)

Fallingcow (213461) | more than 5 years ago | (#27450993)

Oh, man, that interview is funny. I notice that the last edit was June '08, so the interview took place before that.

I really liked this part:

The balkanization we have in Linux audio was the biggest obstacle in itself. Before we could think of moving everything to a new audio system we had to make sure that we have compatibility support with all that software that is out there right now (or at least the majority of it). There are so many audio systems and APIs around, some being very hard to virtualize, so this was a major amount of work. But I guess we tackled most now, and even have special support for closed source software like Adobe Flash.

Hahah, nope. At least not in the version that was shipped (and made default!) with Ubuntu 8.10. From what I've heard, Fedora's version isn't any better off. Either the distros are fucking things up big time, or this dude's vastly overestimating the completeness of his software. Or both.

This was funny, too, but for different reasons:

- If you run two Totems side-by-side, the one that is active should have 100% volume, the other one 20%. And if you change focus with your window manager, the two volumes should slide to the inverse. I think this would be very, very useful. Especially for things like Flash: if a flash video is running in your web browser, the system should automatically slide down the volume of everything else and slide it up again when the Flash clip finished to play.

Re:PulseAudio on Fedora .. (1)

Lendrick (314723) | more than 5 years ago | (#27451477)

Hahah, nope. At least not in the version that was shipped (and made default!) with Ubuntu 8.10. From what I've heard, Fedora's version isn't any better off. Either the distros are fucking things up big time, or this dude's vastly overestimating the completeness of his software. Or both.

They're referring to Flash 10 Beta, which I've found to be pretty usable. Certainly way better than previous versions, which mucked up my sound output.

Re:PulseAudio on Fedora .. (1)

Orp (6583) | more than 5 years ago | (#27451729)

I have a fully up-to-date Fedora 10 box (64 bit Intel dual core) and I have terrible issues with sound. I have a Creative soundblaster Audigy 4 (emu10k2.5). I have all sorts of issues with dropouts while watching video with pulseaudio. The only solution I've found is to uninstall pulseaudio, which sucks, because it's kind of cool. It's been suggested that Jack might help on top of pulseaudio... but I am lost in a maze of sound drivers and layers (jack/pulseaudio/alsa/oss/and good ol' /dev/snd). All I want is stable audio and the ability to record 96 kHz / 24 bit, which my soundcard can do, but which I can't get to work with Audacity - I get 24 bit padded to 16 bit.

I've posted to forums etc. on these issues and apparently the problems are known and being worked on. It seems to me I had the best luck with sound with RedHat 5 or thereabouts when there just wasn't as much complexity. I keep hoping the next upgrade will fix sound. I am probably going to do a fresh install of Fedora 11 when it comes out and cross my fingers.

Re:PulseAudio on Fedora .. (1)

ADRA (37398) | more than 5 years ago | (#27452033)

Just a note that -may- be applicable to you, I've had issues with my 'Audigy 1' in Fedora 10. switching to my on-board card made all issues disappear. Are you sure this isn't a driver issue, or maybe an erroneous assumption on the part of the driver providers?

I wish that this is addressed, by someone, but in the mean-time no Audigy for me.

PS: The issue crept up when upgrading and it affects both ALSA 5.1 (a52enc from self-compiled sources) and 2.0 stereo out. Playing through any media player, I would get skips of either the audio or video. Once switching to the Onboard card "VIA Technologies, Inc. VT1708/A [Azalia HDAC] (VIA High Definition Audio Controller)", there has never been a skip playing back anything. That is sending raw 5.1 through mini-dins which I'd rather not use, but thats life.

Ubuntu screwed it up (5, Informative)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 5 years ago | (#27450705)

PulseAudio is the future... but it is also a bit of an X. Not a curse word, X the server. X is fantastic and has features that make other GUI's look very poor indeed. Pity that for most people 99% of it is never needed and indeed gets in the way.

Linux, and for that matter all OS'es have always had trouble with sound. For some reason the powers that be (IBM) never really thought sound was needed beyond an occasional bleep. For a long time your soundcard was made by a taiwanese firm, the type of firm that you would expect to produce dirt cheap clones of western hardware, NOT the only supplier of sound for the IBM-PC (oh okay, leaving out a lot but still).

OSS and even Alsa have problems with apps wanting to lock the soundcard to themselves. PulseAudio is supposed to once and for all end this and make it similar to X in that Pulse Audio can hook up any audio app and any soundcard, even over the network, and mix them together.

Sadly it was released before it was ready and Ubuntu especially implemented it in a really bad way. Hence it got a bad rep because a beta was put badly into a "just works" distro.

But trust me, once you get it working and you are the kind of person who has 2-3 PC's and can never remember which desktop is actually hooked up to a speaker set but just want to play music it is a very nice system.

Re:Ubuntu screwed it up (3, Insightful)

Fallingcow (213461) | more than 5 years ago | (#27451089)

I'm sure it's the future. The features sound great. Doesn't goddamn work right yet, though.

That's why I said, "removed or fixed" rather than just "removed". I'll accept "fixed". Awesome. I'll also accept "change reverted until PulseAudio is beyond alpha (generously, beta) stages".

Personally, I stopped having trouble with audio in Linux at least a couple years ago, so suddenly breaking it with a half-finished implementation of a new audio server is very, very annoying, especially from the "Just Works" distros. It would have been one thing if PulseAudio actually added some kind of functionality that I wanted, but there were zero new features I needed from my existing system, so it didn't. Also would have been fine if they switched it but everything I used kept working fine, but that didn't happen.

Re:Ubuntu screwed it up (1)

Stormx2 (1003260) | more than 5 years ago | (#27451205)

I'm in the same position. All it did was stop Skype from working and fuck with flash. I had to killall firefox after watching videos in order to get sound working in other apps. Annoying as hell.

I just put a "killall pulseaudio" in my startup script, as removing pulseaudio actually removes ubuntu-desktop :|

Re:Ubuntu screwed it up (0)

Fallingcow (213461) | more than 5 years ago | (#27451259)

I had to killall firefox after watching videos in order to get sound working in other apps.

You're lucky--for a lot of us, it just crashed FF. Mine would do it 9/10 times if I closed at tab with flash in it. Bizarre.

Also broke VLC, and loads of other stuff. Fixes for different apps are often conflicting and half the time they don't work. So irritating.

I'd have welcomed this if they'd done it five or six years ago when Linux audio was truly awful, but as I've said, I hadn't had trouble with it in quite a while. Like, years. Back then the brokenness wouldn't have been that different from what I already had and at least the new sound system would have been a step in the right direction, but now putting a new layer in the audio system that isn't very stable and very compatible is an enormous step backwards.

Re:Ubuntu screwed it up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27451553)

Bullshit. Ubuntu didn't screw anything up. Ubuntu rarely deviates from upstream implementations, so if Pulseaudio sucks in Ubuntu, it sucks everywhere else, including Fedora.

Re:Ubuntu screwed it up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27451647)

Bullshit. Ubuntu didn't screw anything up.

Wrong gayboy! WRONG!

Re:Ubuntu screwed it up (4, Insightful)

k.a.f. (168896) | more than 5 years ago | (#27451665)

OSS and even Alsa have problems with apps wanting to lock the soundcard to themselves. PulseAudio is supposed to once and for all end this and make it similar to X in that Pulse Audio can hook up any audio app and any soundcard, even over the network, and mix them together.

I have never understood why this auto-mixing is considered desirable. I like that an application locks the soundcard. I listen to high-quality music while I work - why on Earth would I want another application mixing something else into that? The effect of two different tracks of music sequences superimposed is virtually always hideous cacophony - no thanks. I don't need a perky jingle to inform me that a download has finished. I am actively grateful to X for preventing the browser from interfering with my enjoyment. If I wanted your web site to make noise, I'd rub my thumb against the monitor! Honestly, what is this mythical use case in which hearing different sources of digital sound simultaneously is a good thing?

Re:Ubuntu screwed it up (2, Insightful)

EvanED (569694) | more than 5 years ago | (#27451947)

I listen to high-quality music while I work - why on Earth would I want another application mixing something else into that?

Because you want to pause your music player and watch a youtube video someone linked you to?

(Granted, this is sort of Flash's problem for keeping the card locked longer than necessary, but it's still a problem. Sound is set up crappily on the system I'm on now, and it appears that only one program can access it at once unless I manually start esd or something like that. If I want to have sound in Flash (and thus youtube), which I want fairly often, I might need to have nothing else holding the sound card when I start firefox. It's definitely the case that if I go to a page with flash, the sound card remains locked by FF until I close it. Which means if I want to start listening to other music, I have to close firefox, which at best is annoying and at worst loses state.)

Re:Ubuntu screwed it up (1)

bersl2 (689221) | more than 5 years ago | (#27451667)

I've been running PulseAudio for many months now, and I've gotten most everything to work fairly well with it. ALSA requires more black magic than PulseAudio does, and that includes the fact that I had to compile PulseAudio and dependencies manually for my Slackware install.

Also, for the few apps that just would not work in the presence of PA (especially recording apps), I haven't found a way to non-destructively disable it. The only app that this mattered for (Linux version of SL < v1.22---so 99.9% of /. need not care) has been fixed. I also had problems using the ALSA pulse plugin that way, but I can get around that by using pacat and sox.

I love the ability to have program-independent volumes and on-the-fly speaker switching. I am waiting for Adobe to allow users to specify which ALSA device to use (without having to set the default) or for gnash to suck less (e.g., "UNIMPLEMENTED: Different stream/playback sound rate (5512/22050). This seems common in SWF files, so we'll warn only once."---I don't care if Macromedia/Adobe/the animation's author were Doing It Wrong: you need to support this).

Re:Ubuntu screwed it up (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 5 years ago | (#27451927)

OSS on Linux and even Alsa have problems with apps wanting to lock the soundcard to themselves.

Not-so-minor correction above. FreeBSD automatically clones /dev/dsp so that any number of applications can use it simultaneously.

So who's gonna kick Steve Jobs down the well? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27450477)

Non-flicker boot?
This is madness!
No....

Finally Fedora? (5, Interesting)

mcrbids (148650) | more than 5 years ago | (#27450657)

I'm a long, long time RedHat user. (Since Red Hat Linux 5.1, if you're curious) And I've always upgraded every other release or so. RedHat 5.x, 6.2 (one of my favorites) 9.0, and then the Fedoras: 1, 3, 6, and 8. (which is what I type this on now)

Every single time I've upgraded, I've welcomed the upgrade. It was better, snazzier, more stable, etc. all the way up to Fedora Core 9.

Fedora Core 9 should never have been released. It was just barely alpha quality, and so buggy that merely changing the default font size would destabilize the system! I tried desperately to get it to work for about 2 weeks before shrugging, recovering my .kde directory from a backup, and rolling back to FC8. I'm not expecting an ultra-stable release with Fedora, I know it's more 'cutting edge' but when the computer crashes too badly to get to the website to file a bug report, I'm going to cut and run.

I haven't had the nerve to try 10, though I've heard good things about it. Once bitten, twice shy, and all that.

I have *loads* of respect for RedHat, but FC9 really tarnished their good image. I hope they're a bit more cautious about what they release in the future...

Re:Finally Fedora? (3, Informative)

armanox (826486) | more than 5 years ago | (#27450897)

I stayed away from 9 myself, and then found that 10 after some updates returned most sanity to the Fedora universe.

Re:Finally Fedora? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27450899)

Is this a Fedora 9 problem or a KDE 4.0 problem?

I do

Re:Finally Fedora? (4, Informative)

Binestar (28861) | more than 5 years ago | (#27451005)

I'm a long, long time RedHat user. (Since Red Hat Linux 5.1, if you're curious)

You got lucky timing. As an "earlier than that" RedHat user, the 4.2-> 5.0 libc change was a horrible upgrade path. 5 worked great for new systems, but anyone with a good working 4.x system trying to upgrade to 5 had loads of problems. If you were to have gone through that upgrade you might not have stayed with RH as long as you have =)

Re:Finally Fedora? (1)

ichthus (72442) | more than 5 years ago | (#27451447)

Bah! 5.0 was nice. I went from 4.1 (my first distro ever), where I had to download and build XFree86 from source to work with my Diamond Viper card, to 5.0. Granted, I didn't "upgrade". I did a clean install, and everything just worked. Well, except for my AWE32 sound card. I had to get the latest driver from good ol' Takashi Iwai for that. (Thanks man!) But, from there I went to Mandrake, and didn't come back to RH until Fedora Core 5 -- another great release.

Re:Finally Fedora? (1)

Binestar (28861) | more than 5 years ago | (#27451845)

Yeah, as I said in my original post, 5.0 was fine as a new install (Or clean install if that's what you want to call it) but upgrading from 4 was troublesome.

Re:Finally Fedora? (1)

calc (1463) | more than 5 years ago | (#27451487)

I seem to recall there being lots of security updates shortly after RH5 release also, and RH at that time had no way to automated upgrades, eg apt-get or yum. Which was why I stopped using it and switched to Debian.

Re:Finally Fedora? (1)

Psychotria (953670) | more than 5 years ago | (#27451199)

Every single time I've upgraded, I've welcomed the upgrade. It was better, snazzier, more stable, etc. all the way up to Fedora Core 9.

Fedora Core 9 should never have been released. It was just barely alpha quality, and so buggy that merely changing the default font size would destabilize the system! I tried desperately to get it to work for about 2 weeks before shrugging, recovering my .kde directory from a backup, and rolling back to FC8. I'm not expecting an ultra-stable release with Fedora, I know it's more 'cutting edge' but when the computer crashes too badly to get to the website to file a bug report, I'm going to cut and run.

I haven't had the nerve to try 10, though I've heard good things about it. Once bitten, twice shy, and all that.

I can certainly empathise with you. F9 is my currently installed distro. I installed F10 and was fairly unimpressed. However it wasn't Fedora's fault... it was KDE. I tried using Gnome for a while, but hated it for all the same reasons I've always hated it. So I went back to F9 and KDE 3.5.x.

I've been using F11 (alpha) for over a month now and I have to say I am quite happy with it. Except that I broke yum... but, again, that's not Fedora's fault. KDE has now become *much* more usable. I'll probably stick with F11. I'm quite excited about this release. F10 was the only generation of Fedora that I skipped... F11 brings everything back into focus for me. Not sure about their choice of defaulting to ext4 though--although I can't remember this being the case when I installed the Alpha... perhaps because I already had the partitions in place.

Re:Finally Fedora? (2, Funny)

H0p313ss (811249) | more than 5 years ago | (#27451317)

I'm a long, long time RedHat user. (Since Red Hat Linux 5.1, if you're curious)

I suddenly feel very, very old.

Re:Finally Fedora? (1)

calc (1463) | more than 5 years ago | (#27451535)

Yea me too. ;-) I think the first RedHat I tried out was the mothers day release in 1995.

Re:Finally Fedora? (1)

DiegoBravo (324012) | more than 5 years ago | (#27451321)

> Every single time I've upgraded, I've welcomed the upgrade. It was better, snazzier, more stable, etc. all the way up to Fedora Core 9.

Did you forget the the mess with kernel/gcc/libc issues with 7.0???

Re:Finally Fedora? (1)

kramulous (977841) | more than 5 years ago | (#27451343)

I used F8 for quite a while too. I also found F9 was a bitch and that was what got me trying suse.

But F10 is really, really slick. It's the stability, it's the boot times, the stability, the cleanliness, it's the stability. It's the vibe.

I have it on every machine of mine now.

Re:Finally Fedora? (1)

Amazing Quantum Man (458715) | more than 5 years ago | (#27451609)

Just a minor nitpick. The last Fedora release to be called "Fedora Core" was FC6. Anything after that is simply "Fedora".

Therefore, Fedora Core 9 was never released.

Re:Finally Fedora? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27451671)

Not to be pedantic, but there's no "Fedora Core 9" or "FC9". It's just Fedora 9, or Fedora - Release 9. Fedora's releases quit being "Core" after FC6. Beyond this point, they merged their repositories (including Core) into one huge repo, hence the name change. It helps for us "long time users" to be knowledgeable, and minimize confusion for the budding newbies.

So... (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 5 years ago | (#27450669)

Does the Fedora 11 Beta have better video then Ubutu 9.4 Beta. Hopefully they can fix the "Static" soon.

realtime kernel by default (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27451039)

Fedora is using a realtime kernel by default. (Thank you!) All audio / video performance should be better all around.

Re:realtime kernel by default (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27451397)

erm. no. this is a total load of rubbish. no RT kernel is shipped with Fedora. Grow a brain.

Re:realtime kernel by default (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#27451503)

realtime or optional realtime (desktop)?

Biggest problems (1)

0xABADC0DA (867955) | more than 5 years ago | (#27450805)

I would use Fedora over Ubuntu any day, if not for two things:

1) Have to 'reinstall' to upgrade to next version. I know there's a way to live upgrade, but it's still 'at your own risk' right?
2) openbsd-style netcat. Seriously, why reimplement netcat and change all the options? Hobbit forever.

I have experience working with many distros, and Fedora is far better in terms of quality and security in my experience than anything else. Selinux is great... but god forbid if you have to maintaining the policy yourself. Fedora's a little harder to get codecs, but it's not a huge deal. Also they don't do retarded things like rebranding firefox.

Re:Biggest problems (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27451247)

You don't have to "reinstall" to upgrade. All you have to do is boot from the install media and chose "upgrade".

I can't believe how everyone is repeating this misconception.

Re:Biggest problems (1)

cowbutt (21077) | more than 5 years ago | (#27451445)

In theory. In practice, doing an upgrade install from the install media only seems to do a reasonable job if you don't have packages from third-party repositories. I tried FC8->FC9->FC10 recently; it took ages, and the mess it left looked harder to fix than backing up /etc and doing a clean FC10 install. And I've been using RH since the 2.1 days.

Next time, I'll try using the unsupported yum method, whilst leaving my third-party repos enabled, I think.

Re:Biggest problems (1)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 5 years ago | (#27451551)

1) Have to 'reinstall' to upgrade to next version. I know there's a way to live upgrade, but it's still 'at your own risk' right?

Lookup `preupgrade`

2) openbsd-style netcat. Seriously, why reimplement netcat and change all the options? Hobbit forever.

I don't know. That's a bit obscure to hope it just fixes itself. Is there a bug number?

Re:Biggest problems (1)

Mc_Anthony (181237) | more than 5 years ago | (#27451985)

Actually, a "live upgrade" is the preferred method for Ubuntu upgrades - and it's perfectly safe to do either over the net or from a cd.

Another benefit to Ubuntu is that they have an LTS version - which is absolutely necessary if you plan on setting up a production machine.

In the end however, if you're a decent admin, Linux is Linux and the distro you pick doesn't make that much difference (in general of course).

ubuntu 9.04 beta and fedora 11 beta compared... (5, Informative)

dr_wheel (671305) | more than 5 years ago | (#27451047)

Re:ubuntu 9.04 beta and fedora 11 beta compared... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27451531)

that site's pretty useless. Nice to see they realized that debug options were enabled in a beta, for once.

The entire purpose of that site is to tout Ubuntu over every other operating system because ubuntu r0x0rs on the desktop - therefore it is the best os for all use.

Re:ubuntu 9.04 beta and fedora 11 beta compared... (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#27451547)

nice benchmarks, but as a desktop user what are the pros/cons of each?

Re:ubuntu 9.04 beta and fedora 11 beta compared... (1)

teg (97890) | more than 5 years ago | (#27451749)

Not nice benchmarks either, as the beta has debugging enabled. It's rather pointless - as is a couple of the other tests (especially the gcc one) when just listed as a graph.

Vixta.org (0, Offtopic)

apsantos (1523883) | more than 5 years ago | (#27451103)

Hi, we are proud to anounce the new release of Vixta.org, called Vixta Aero Dock 3D. could some one give us feedback about the challenge: - Fedora 10/11 vs Vixta Aero Dock 3D (Fedora based distro) because in my modest opinion i still prefer Vixta! thanks for feedback, apsantos

Wrong focus (4, Interesting)

Britz (170620) | more than 5 years ago | (#27451337)

I don't care if it boots in 20 or 30 seconds, kernel based mode setting (so it flickers a bit, XP also does this), ext4 (more testing plz) or any of that.

For my server Samba 4 would be interesting with Active Directory and some other goodies for Windows clients, but I guess this will take a while. Maybe some better management tools for virtual machines.

But on the desktop I would love to finally be able so sync my phone without jumping through hoops. Same with using a webcam. And I would love to run Office 2007 SP1 on it, since I could try converting some machines at work to Linux. This would make my live a LOT easier.

I guess I don't care all that much about Linux (the kernel) anymore. I care about apps. And good integration of them and polish. But wasn't that what distros were for?

Re:Wrong focus (2, Insightful)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 5 years ago | (#27451613)

I don't care if it boots in 20 or 30 seconds

Apparently quite a few people do.

kernel based mode setting (so it flickers a bit, XP also does this)

Well, I mean "we" are tring to be better than that though, right?

ext4 (more testing plz)

That's been in Fedora testing for quite some time. So I would leave that decision up to them and not assume they weren't testing it.

management tools for virtual machines

Better than virt-manager i take it?

to finally be able so sync my phone without jumping through hoops. Same with using a webcam. And I would love to run Office 2007 SP1 on it, since I could try converting some machines at work to Linux. This would make my live a LOT easier

That's a bit beyond the scope of a distribution though, no?

Re:Wrong focus (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27451639)

I would love to finally be able so sync my phone without jumping through hoops.

I don't know why you have "hoops" to jump through - my phone works just great.

Same with using a webcam.

I've got a Logitech Orbit9000. The "hoop" I had to jump through was "plug it in".

Of course, I'm using Slackware, so YMMV. Maybe you need to try a more user-friendly distro? (ie. something that has KDE 3.5 by default.)

And I would love to run Office 2007 SP1 on it, since I could try converting some machines at work to Linux.

And the fact that MS goes out of their way to ensure that Office doesn't run on Linux is Linux's problem how, exactly?

Re:Wrong focus (1)

EEPROMS (889169) | more than 5 years ago | (#27451689)

Just run codeweavers (pre hacked version of wine) or wine (do your own hacks) to get Office 2007 running on Linux

Re:Wrong focus (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27451899)

Sounds to me like you want to be running Windows, not Linux.

In Defense of Pulseaudio (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#27451719)

Ubuntu did a shit job of implementing audio configurations. This boggles the mind because even while they were implementing it you could simply read PerfectSetup [pulseaudio.org] to learn everything you need to know. I did this on both Gutsy and Hardy with 100% success (not an exaggeration.) I am now running Intrepid on HP Elitebook 8730w [linlap.com] and pulseaudio is part of the solution. I haven't gone through PerfectSetup yet, but that's coming. Save your hatred of pulseaudio, it's misplaced. It is the job of the distribution to properly configure the software for the user.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?