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 17 Released

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the sounds-like-a-movie-title dept.

Red Hat Software 141

ekimd writes "Fedora 17 aka "Beefy Miracle" is released. Some of the major features include: ext4 with >16TB filesystems, dynamic firewall configuration, automatic multi-seat, and more. Major software updates include Gnome 3.4, GIMP 2.8, and GCC 4.7. The full feature list can be found here. Personally, I still find Gnome 3 to be an 'unholy mess' so I'm loving XFCE with Openbox."

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

I've got your Beefy Miracle right here! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40142093)

Seriously, could we have selected a different name? Tee-hee!!!

Re:I've got your Beefy Miracle right here! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40142237)

Your mom loves my "Beefy Miracle"

Re:I've got your Beefy Miracle right here! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40143789)

Yep, she loves it because you can fuck her while she's asleep because she won't feel it.

Beefy Miracle (4, Funny)

stevegee58 (1179505) | more than 2 years ago | (#40142099)

Good heavens, what an unfortunate name for a Linux release.

Re:Beefy Miracle (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40142163)

For whatever reason, I find it to be hilarious. I'm not much of a fan of Ubuntu's naming scheme, but this one from Fedora struck a chord with me. I guess it's my inner 12 year old that finds this amusing.

Re:Beefy Miracle (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40143221)

Likewise. I don't know why there's such a commotion. In a world where everything is overmarketed and calculated, I enjoy the increasingly rarer instances of defying, refreshing silliness.

Re:Beefy Miracle (0)

jones_supa (887896) | more than 2 years ago | (#40145243)

Agreed!

Re:Beefy Miracle (3, Informative)

Junta (36770) | more than 2 years ago | (#40142249)

I find it amusing that as a result of this name, I think this kicked off:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Future_Release_Naming [fedoraproject.org]

After several tries at getting 'Beefy Miracle' in, and the leadership seemingly forced to accept it. Hence a new naming process.

Re:Beefy Miracle (5, Funny)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 2 years ago | (#40142501)

Good heavens, what an unfortunate name for a Linux release.

You think that's bad, Ubuntu 13.04 is going to be called Rampant Rabbit.

Re:Beefy Miracle (5, Funny)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 2 years ago | (#40143165)

Ubuntu 8.04 was a spoonerism for Hairy Hardon. Once someone pointed it out, it became practically impossible to remember the original.

12.4 Precise Pangolin should have been Pretty Pony (1)

leftie (667677) | more than 2 years ago | (#40147159)

The Gods cried when 12.4 wasn't named Pretty Pony.

Re:Beefy Miracle (1)

hendridm (302246) | more than 2 years ago | (#40143021)

They were looking for something that fit the B.M. initials. At least it wasn't called Bowel Movement.

Re:Beefy Miracle (1, Funny)

idontgno (624372) | more than 2 years ago | (#40144185)

What? That's the releasename?

I think I got an email about that, but I thought it was herbal enlargement spam and deleted it.

Re:Beefy Miracle (1)

lipanitech (2620815) | more than 2 years ago | (#40145645)

I used to be a big fan of red hat and fedora but lately Debian and Ubuntu are my distros of choice. Backtrack has been my latest distro since I am a security guy.

Re:Beefy Miracle (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40150221)

I used to be a big fan of Debian and Ubuntu but lately Fedora and CentOS are my distros of choice.

Re:Beefy Miracle (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40150825)

I used to be an adventurer like you two, but... wait, I can't play Skyrim on Linux!

Beefy Miracle? (2)

Joehonkie (665142) | more than 2 years ago | (#40142107)

That is honestly the worst release name I ever heard. It sounds like a porn star nickname.

Re:Beefy Miracle? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40142201)

Would that be fat-ass or super-fat-ass?

Re:Beefy Miracle? (2)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 2 years ago | (#40142203)

And the version sounds like a political cause. "Justice now! Release the Fedora 17!"

Re:Beefy Miracle? (5, Insightful)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 2 years ago | (#40142227)

Unfortunately a lot of linux distro coders don't seem to know where the dividing line between wryly amusing and lame is when it comes to naming releases. The novelty of Ubuntus silly release names wore off for me personally around 5 years ago. All I want a OS so please just stick with the release numbers and don't treat me like a 7 year ago girl looking for a new cuddly toy.

Re:Beefy Miracle? (1, Funny)

philip.paradis (2580427) | more than 2 years ago | (#40142277)

don't treat me like a 7 year ago girl looking for a new cuddly toy

And with that, I'm honestly afraid of the kind of replies you're apt (oh wait, they use yum... crap, that makes this worse) to get related to this release's codename.

Re:Beefy Miracle? (1)

jbolden (176878) | more than 2 years ago | (#40142519)

Names are useful for the creative team who doesn't know which backend their creative materials (look and feel) are going with. When the creative starts, it might be Fedora 16.2, 17, 17.5, 18... Apple has proven that these names from creative can be used for branding and Debian... have followed suit.

It makes sense. You don't like cute names you aren't the target.

Re:Beefy Miracle? (1)

LordNimon (85072) | more than 2 years ago | (#40142757)

Names are useful for the creative team who doesn't know which backend their creative materials (look and feel) are going with. When the creative starts, it might be Fedora 16.2, 17, 17.5, 18...

I have no problems working on features and fixes for future Linux kernel versions without needing to know what actual version name the release will be called. I don't see how the distro developers can't do the same thing.

Re:Beefy Miracle? (5, Informative)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#40142541)

The most significant difference between Fedora and Ubuntu here is that in Fedora, the only time you're likely to see a release name is on a Slashdot article, and then if you look at /etc/issue*. Everybody else calls it Fedora 17. In Ubuntuland everybody calls the release by at least the noun part of the release name. For Fedora, its terribly inconsequential, and I say that as the guy who named Fedora 12.

Re:Beefy Miracle? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40150685)

In Ubuntuland everybody calls the release by at least the noun part of the release name.

Since when? All the people I see talking about an Ubuntu release use the adjective: Hardy, Lucid, Oneiric, etc..

Re:Beefy Miracle? (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 2 years ago | (#40144339)

Unfortunately a lot of linux distro coders don't seem to know where the dividing line between wryly amusing and lame is when it comes to naming releases.

The same can be said for FOSS developers generally.

The problem only gets worse when they port their apps to other operating systems and markets.

Re:Beefy Miracle? (1)

frostfreek (647009) | more than 2 years ago | (#40144791)

Just today I was looking at windowing test tools...
and found this:
        windowlicker - Java GUI Testing Framework - Google Project Hosting
        code.google.com/p/windowlicker/

What a terrible name... especially if you google it.

Re:Beefy Miracle? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40148279)

Yet, your sign on name is viol8? Don't worry, most self righteous people are hippocrites, so you are in good company.

who comes up with these codenames? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40142167)

Manatees?

Re:who comes up with these codenames? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40142623)

No they are the size of manatees, however.

Re:who comes up with these codenames? (2)

uncle slacky (1125953) | more than 2 years ago | (#40142691)

Oh, the huge manatees...

Alt+Tab (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40142169)

Has Alt+tab been fixed to work with windows by default and not apps?

Re:Alt+Tab (4, Informative)

Junta (36770) | more than 2 years ago | (#40142339)

That wouldn't be 'fixed', that would be regressing for the sake of people who hate change just because it is change.

If you are terribly bothered by it:
https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/15/alternatetab/ [gnome.org]

But once you get used to it, it is a much more scalable mechanism to deal with many windows. Plenty of stuff in Gnome3 frustrates me, but this one I think they got right.

Re:Alt+Tab (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40142503)

Please go fuck yourself. People that were comfortable and, more importantly, more productive with the previous behavior of ALT-Tab are not just Luddites. Your comment stinks of the arrogance commonly displayed by Gnome core developers.

Re:Alt+Tab (0)

DrXym (126579) | more than 2 years ago | (#40142679)

Yeah those arrogant GNOME people put in a sensible default behaviour and the means for you to override it if you wish via an extension. Such arrogance!

Re:Alt+Tab (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40143227)

Way to miss the point, Sally. Whether the default is sensible is debatable (it's insipid, actually). The FU was for the condescending attitude expressed by assholes like yourself towards those users who preferred the previous behavior and had the temerity to say so out loud.

Re:Alt+Tab (0)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 2 years ago | (#40143669)

This kind of intelligent conversation makes me want to wipe out all of my Windows servers, and hire you to install and manage my new Linux boxes.

Re:Alt+Tab (-1, Flamebait)

DrXym (126579) | more than 2 years ago | (#40143749)

No I get the point all too well. If developers don't exactly deliver what you Mr Anonymous Coward demand (for free) regardless of it's merits vs some other mechanism then you're going to call them assholes. I'm sure they'll be very sorry to see you go.

Re:Alt+Tab (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40144515)

You really are being a disinguenuous twat. If your reading and comprehensions skills allow, go back an re-read the thread. And if you still intend to misrepresent what I wrote, then go find Emmanuel Bassi. He's got a bag o' dicks for you to munch on.

Re:Alt+Tab (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 2 years ago | (#40148451)

My reading comprehension is just fine. You throw around insults because a GUI dares not do things the way you expect. Rather than stepping back and perhaps considering the rationale for this decision, or maybe, just maybe offering constructive criticism you start ranting and insulting people. Immature doesn't begin to cover it. Grow up.

Re:Alt+Tab (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40144735)

Actually i think it was more of a "copy macosx" behavior kind of move. It's not really bad or good in my experience. depending on the workflow one or the other might be more convenient. Since apps tend to be single window, I tend to prefer the previous switching however, but since apps tend to be single windows.. the new switching also tend to look like just the old switching, making it less of an issue.

Re:Alt+Tab (1)

Junta (36770) | more than 2 years ago | (#40143181)

I guess the question being, what scenario is more productive? If you have small window count of about one window per app, then you probably wouldn't have even *noticed* the difference. If you have a large window count, then how does alt-tab, alt-above-tabe impede productivity? Other arguments I can buy (e.g. encouraging many across-the-screen moves, hiding dock making it more difficult to be 'discoverable', and many other criticisms of gnome 3), but other than 'it's different', I see no technical advantage to alt-tab versus what they provided.

I currently have a modest number of windows open (11). To get to a particular window as a test, it took me 4 keypresses. For me to have gotten to it without hierarchical task switching, it would have taken me 8 keypresses given the current layout. Also, by masking the windows of other apps, more screen real estate is available to preview the windows I want.

Mind you, this is still all significantly worse than a hypothetical scenario with window title search or 'show only windows of a certain app' in 'activities view', where you can both be more precise in query and have more real estate to show the results.

Re:Alt+Tab (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40144489)

For me, switching between 2 or 3 xterms or browsers and another app window is a very common scenario. I will continue using a window manager with proper window management.

Re:Alt+Tab (4, Insightful)

Lussarn (105276) | more than 2 years ago | (#40143275)

Either you do a window-based DE or an application based, Gnome 3 went for application based. I happen to like it, a lot. this includes alt-tab behavior. If you happen do not like application based, then you should probably not try to turn Gnome 3 into one, there are other choices for you.

I think Gnome 3 is the best thing that happened to the *nix desktop for a long time. The navigation is fast if you know how to use it. I do use a few extensions, like static workspaces (altough I think this is included in 3.4). It also happen to be quite fast, running it on my ion2 netbook, no problem. Have never used a composition desktop before, they where all to slow. Gnome 3 changed that.

Gnome developers have always had cojones and done things which may not look to be the right thing, in the end they come out winning, this time should not be an exception.

Re:Alt+Tab (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40144267)

I will not use GNOME3 because of this.

Re:Alt+Tab (1)

ak3ldama (554026) | more than 2 years ago | (#40145635)

The ONLY way your argument is at all legitimate is if extensions is included with the default software that comes with Gnome 3. Because it sure seems like it is needed. To chip in, the new alt tab sucks, I wish it would "regress."

No Unity? (0)

karolbe (1661263) | more than 2 years ago | (#40142243)

Too bad that there is no Unity for Fedora. I would like to give Fedora a try but I don't like that new Gnome (due to different Alt-Tab behavior and other annoyances).

Re:No Unity? (1)

Junta (36770) | more than 2 years ago | (#40142295)

I actually grew to like the alt-tab part pretty quickly.

I still miss 'window title search' and 'show all windows for an app' that I had in compiz.....

Also, only allowing configuration through themes and extensions is frustrating...

You may wish to try Cinnamon from Mint, last time I tried it was a tad incomplete though.

Can't stand unity either...... Gnome 3 is the less of the two evils.

There is also always KDE and xfce...

Re:No Unity? (2)

tjwhaynes (114792) | more than 2 years ago | (#40144963)

I still miss 'window title search' and 'show all windows for an app' that I had in compiz.....

Window title search: https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/317/window-display/ [gnome.org] shows the matching windows in the Overview as you type.

Show all Windows for an app: Maybe I'm missing something but I use Cycle through the apps with Alt-TAB, Cycle throught the windows for an app with Alt-AboveTAB. Which means to cycle through the windows for the current app, one press of Alt-AboveTAB shows the set. I use the cursor keys in Alt-TAB to navigate as well - not sure that is in Vanilla Gnome 3.4.

Re:No Unity? (1)

Junta (36770) | more than 2 years ago | (#40145845)

Thanks for that. I do wish the window previews were a bit more usably large (as it stands, the thumbnail is just too small to make out wtf it is).

The alt-tab behavior you describe is vanilla, but when you have dozens of terminals and you *know* a substring in a title, a search is more effective than traversing. If referring to it being a substitute for 'show all windows for an app', the problem being the UI in compize/kde uses maybe 90% of screen real estate to facilitate decipherable previews, where alt-above-tab uses maybe 15% of the screen real estate and the rest is pretty much unused.

Re:No Unity? (1)

eric_herm (1231134) | more than 2 years ago | (#40144365)

Already 3 people tried, and likely more will try to package everything. But Unity is evolving too fast, and no one want to take care of compiz.

Re:No Unity? (1)

karolbe (1661263) | more than 2 years ago | (#40146433)

I think that the major problem here is compiz. Even Ubuntu devs have problem with it (Ubuntu 12.04 contains some pretty serious bugs related to compiz). It is baically unmaintained these days. But still. No Unity no Fedora for me.

Re:No Unity? (1)

unixisc (2429386) | more than 2 years ago | (#40144501)

Looks like Unity and Cinnamon are 2 DEs that don't exist for rpm based distros.

Re:No Unity? (1)

AdamWill (604569) | more than 2 years ago | (#40146491)

Cinnamon certainly does. It's under review for Fedora at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771252 [redhat.com] . If you're in a hurry, you can get the .src.rpms from there and rebuild them.

another example of having lost the plot (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40142255)

not content with the desktop debacle, they're doing their best to destroy any chance of being considered for corporate application. way to go.

Re:another example of having lost the plot (4, Insightful)

Junta (36770) | more than 2 years ago | (#40142323)

You do realize that the Fedora leadership expressly does *not* want to be part of corporate applications right? From a business perspective, the goal is to have a research and development strategy that takes advantage of enthusiasts willingness to have a less stable environment to test and develop features and concepts that ultimately land in 'Red Hat Enterprise Linux', the most popular 'enterprisy' instance of Linux there is?

Re:another example of having lost the plot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40144877)

Yeah but nobody is going to want to use RHEL with gnome3 (Desktop users doing stuff like CAD/CAM/EDA) dunno who else actually pays for the desktop version.

Re:another example of having lost the plot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40145663)

Yup. I can personally attest to that. I manage a workgroup of approximately 1,700 computers (desktop and laptop) for my company's IT department, all set up with Kerberos and full disk encryption. We used to use RHEL, but once Gnome came out it was absurdly difficult for me to install another DE/WM. It would have taken me close to three minutes to install another package - not counting downloading time! - and I don't even want to think about how long it would have taken to distribute that to our desktop machines through a script for those interested. It's not like these are just the defaults that can be changed anytime.

At least the Fedora people use nice default wallpapers. I run Fedora on my home machine and I would be absolutely devastated if the latest release came with an ugly wallpaper. I might have to change it myself!

Re:another example of having lost the plot (2)

philip.paradis (2580427) | more than 2 years ago | (#40142325)

At least for the server side of things, nobody in their right mind runs Fedora on production systems anyhow.

Re:another example of having lost the plot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40142377)

... Because RedHat wouldn't make money that way, at least not while remaining to appear as some open source fanboy.

Re:another example of having lost the plot (3, Insightful)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#40142553)

No, because CentOS would be a far better choice.

Re:another example of having lost the plot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40142335)

I'm pretty sure RH is doing well in the corporate world.

Re:another example of having lost the plot (4, Informative)

slackware 3.6 (2524328) | more than 2 years ago | (#40142343)

Red Hat is the corporate application. Fedora is the comunity project that gets funding from RH.

Very unfortunate name (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40142267)

Otherwise known as the "BM" edition. Lame...

Re:Very unfortunate name (2)

0racle (667029) | more than 2 years ago | (#40143719)

Or back in reality, actually known as 'Fedora 17.'

Looks not as polished as Ubi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40142301)

based on screenshots.

http://shaiton.fedorapeople.org/screenshot/f17_en/

MEAT YOUR NEW GOD!!11!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40142313)

http://beefymiracle.org/

Who cares about your taste? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40142357)

Isn't this supposed to be news?, who cares what you think about Gnome 3?

I don't say it might not be a valid discussion (which has been made over and over), but just stating that you hate it on the summary as you do seems to be very out of place.

Re:Who cares about your taste? (4, Interesting)

slackware 3.6 (2524328) | more than 2 years ago | (#40142597)

The KDE option is their for those that don't like Gnome3.
Now I drive Dodge trucks so should I whine and bitch about Chevys and what an unholy mess their electrical systems are?
And Timothy there are many different desktops if you don't know how to install a different DE use Ubuntu and STF up.

Let me be the first to say... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40142461)

Holy cow!

Re:Let me be the first to say... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40142707)

More like Holy Meat by-products!*

*their mascot is a hot dog [beefymiracle.org]

.. still a better name (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40143061)

...than Prancing Peacock for example.
now let's see what the distro's like.

It's a well known fact (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40143335)

Every straight man likes an open box...

Re:It's a well known fact (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40143649)

But what if it's a Blackbox? Some think they're as Awesome as Ratpoision.

Re:It's a well known fact (1)

kj_kabaje (1241696) | more than 2 years ago | (#40144889)

Ah /.,... home to random misogyny and racist puns. In other news, Hooray Beer!

Besides the name and the Desktop... (5, Informative)

hey (83763) | more than 2 years ago | (#40143409)

... which is always fun to talk about. Fedora is really pushing the state of Linux forward more than any other distro.
systemd for faster boot and starter reactions to changes (eg USB device plugged in). Moving every thing to /usr to make the filesystem more sane.
Single window gimp! And lots more.

Re:Besides the name and the Desktop... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40143807)

What about BTRFS as boot device support? Any word on that?

Re:Besides the name and the Desktop... (1)

unixisc (2429386) | more than 2 years ago | (#40144467)

Since this is based on Linux 3.4, maybe it should be there, but I think it is more likely that RHEL is the one that would support it.

Re:Besides the name and the Desktop... (2, Interesting)

Tynin (634655) | more than 2 years ago | (#40145179)

What about BTRFS as boot device support? Any word on that?

Considering I was able to in Fedora 16, I would assume so.

mount | grep btrfs
/dev/sda4 on / type btrfs (rw,relatime,seclabel,nospace_cache)
/dev/sda2 on /boot type btrfs (rw,relatime,seclabel,nospace_cache)
/dev/sda5 on /home type btrfs (rw,relatime,seclabel,nospace_cache)

Re:Besides the name and the Desktop... (5, Insightful)

mickwd (196449) | more than 2 years ago | (#40146591)

Moving every thing to /usr to make the filesystem more sane.

Meaning that the system no longer supports /usr in a separate filesystem: http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken [freedesktop.org] .

Of course, you can still use /usr in a separate filesystem from / if you boot with an initrd, but you now almost need half an operating system (busybox, rescue shell and utilities, perhaps support for lvm and/or RAID) just to boot your real operating system.

Why would you want /usr on a separate filesytem? Perhaps you want it in LVM, so you can resize it easily if necessary (maybe to make room for installing a new desktop environment, for example), but don't want you root file system in LVM. Perhaps you want to periodically fsck /usr on boot, and fall into single-user mode if it fails. Perhaps you want /usr (which is a read-mainly file system) on a small SSD, and all other file systems (which are written to more frequently) on spinning disk storage. Perhaps you want to mount /usr over NFS. Not that I can still see many people doing this but it seems a pity to prevent something that has worked fine in the past - and in these days of "running applications in the cloud" it seems Linux will no longer run applications in the local network (ie. NFS-mounted /usr).

Seriously, read the level of professionalism and maturity on that page. This is the level or maturity to which Linux slowly seems to be sinking. As a long-time Linux user and supporter I find this deeply disappointing.

And what's the reason for all this? Because the udev developers can't wipe their own a{r|s}es, put their house in order, and properly sort out which files go where (or at least sort out what needs to be done to mount any necessary non-root filesystems, mount them, and then continue with any programs/scripts which use them). Instead, all of that gets pushed out to initrd (ie. oh no it's hard, let's give it to someone else to do). Seriously, they're like a bunch of 8-year-olds bragging to their friends that they won't clean their bedrooms, even when mummy thinks they should.

Fedora BM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40143813)

Somehow Beefy Miracle was not the 2 words I was thinking. Great job on making yourself even more irrelevant and chasing the herd mentality.

-Gentoo user since 2006

Goodbye Ubuntu. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40144405)

It was a great ride while it lasted. Too bad about your interface. Hope it heals soon.

Hello Fedora!

rpm, yumm & package managers (2)

unixisc (2429386) | more than 2 years ago | (#40144449)

One thing I'm wondering - how improved is their package management? As I've noted in the past, apt-get is far more advanced, and on the BSD side of things, so is PBI. So has Fedora/Red Hat done anything to enable packages in rpm format to be more easily installed, as in not run into dependency hell?

Also, how does Fedora compare w/ other rpm based distros, such as Mageia, Mandriva, PCLinuxOS and so on?

Re:rpm, yumm & package managers (4, Informative)

domatic (1128127) | more than 2 years ago | (#40144871)

It isn't the packaging tools that make Debian and the BSDs more consistent in package installation. If anything, RPM has more advanced features than either debs or ports. The Debian and various ports repositories have standard practices for naming, versioning, dependencies, and integration that are adhered to year after year. It is concern for the long term integrity of these package repositories AS A WHOLE that make them easy to deal with. But bullet point differences between Deb and RPM? Not so much.

Debian based distros also tend to limit themselves in how they diverge from the Debian Mothership and periodically resync in any case. I routinely port source packages between Ubuntu and Debian all the time. Since the naming and dependency maps don't diverge much, I mostly succeed at doing this. On the other hand, a SUSE SRPM isn't likely to port easily to Fedora absent a lot of low level surgery on the package metadata. Each RPM distro tends to be an island universe. Deb based distros all have Debian for a parent or grandparent hence the high compatibility at the source level.

For that matter RHEL and spinoffs like Centos and Scientific mostly achieve this as well though the experience is mostly like using Debian Stable without the option of (easily) backporting SRPMS from newer distros.

Re:rpm, yumm & package managers (1)

CynicTheHedgehog (261139) | more than 2 years ago | (#40145029)

Yum is pretty solid. There are only two things that kind of bug me about it:

1. Sometimes (especially when dealing with third-party repos e.g. RPM Fusion) you'll see what looks like the same package listed 4 times. My guess is that there is a separate package for each architecture. Simply omitting the package portion from the name when you run the install command seems to pick the correct package(s). Still a bit confusing though, especially in cases where there are other compounding factors like different graphics card chipsets (I think I saw 16-20 different packages for NVidia drivers at one point).

2. You are kind of forced to use third-party repos, because the official repos don't contain any non-free stuff (MP3 codecs, binary drivers for NVidia and AMD cards, etc.) Setting up the third-party repos isn't as dummy-proof as setting up PPAs in Ubuntu. (It's a pretty straightforward but largely manual process, unless I'm missing something. And if I'm missing something, then that is a problem in itself.)

And for a while the KDE Package Manager integration was broken as well, but I think that's been fixed for a while now. Overall it's much better than it was, but I'm still more comfortable using apt in Ubuntu (although as a distro I like FC better).

Re:rpm, yumm & package managers (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40145469)

People who still ask this question tend not to have used yum/rpm in about a decade.

Re:rpm, yumm & package managers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40145499)

As I've noted in the past, apt-get is far more advanced, and on the BSD side of things, so is PBI.

>

how is it so?

Re:rpm, yumm & package managers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40150279)

As I've mistakenly opined in the past

FTFY. Sorry, but I doubt you've used yum in the last several years. Yum is actually more advanced than apt-get, and dependency hell is a thing of the past. Keep up with the times, gramps.

RHEL 7 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40144915)

RHEL7 ( Based on "Beefy Miracle")

Why use openbox with xfce anyway? (2)

Marrow (195242) | more than 2 years ago | (#40145717)

Plain old xfce works just fine without any trickery. Except for the creation of custom icons. That requires a few more steps than I like, but I'll live. Its very very stable.

Re:Why use openbox with xfce anyway? (1)

hockpatooie (312212) | more than 2 years ago | (#40148577)

That's a fair question. I use Openbox with XFCE because you can customize keybindings for any kind of window manipulation you like - shoving windows to the left and right border, resizing, vertical maximizing, flipping between workspaces...

It's a nice middle-of-the-road solution for people who are sick and tired of fiddling with windows with the mouse but aren't ready to go whole hog with a tiling WM or setting up a desktop with panels, etc. from scratch.

Please... (4, Insightful)

AdamWill (604569) | more than 2 years ago | (#40146553)

...don't turn yet another Fedora release thread into a GNOME Shell argument, people. It's just a desktop. We have lots of them.

If you don't like GNOME, don't use it. You can pick GNOME, KDE, Xfce, LXDE or Sugar right from the package customization screen of a Fedora 17 DVD install, or you can download any one of those desktops as a live spin at https://fedoraproject.org/en/get-fedora-options#desktops [fedoraproject.org] or https://spins.fedoraproject.org/ [fedoraproject.org] .

If you don't like GNOME, don't use it, but that doesn't mean you can't use Fedora, or that Fedora is bad.

Re:Please... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40146611)

Yahbutbutbutbut, GNOME3 is bad!

Re:Please... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40149785)

If you don't like GNOME, don't use it.

There's another benefit to that attitude, as I discovered.

I was a GNOME 2 user for many years. Then GNOME 3 forced me to look at alternative desktops. When I found KDE, I knew it's what I should have been using all along.

Without GNOME 3, I'm not sure I would have ever had a reason to seek out and switch to KDE.

Sadly it still has godawful gnome3, add cinnamon (1)

EPDowd (770230) | more than 2 years ago | (#40147385)

I was able to get rid of most of the dumb stuff in gnome3, and return Fedora 16 to a useful state by adding cinnamon.

I hate this summary, can we mod it "flamebait"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40147715)

Personally, I still find Gnome 3 to be an 'unholy mess' so I'm loving XFCE with Openbox."

So, now we have Flamebait even in an article summary? What the heck. I am really pissed off by all this. This should be an article about the release of a nice, community-led distro, and instead some idiot manages to slip into it a trolling comment against GNOME 3.

I don't care about OpenBox, XFCE, XMonad or whatever else you like to use. The title says "Fedora 17 Released", not "Random user finds GNOME 3 an unholy mess". If you really want to cite alternatives to the default DE, at least link to the relevant articles on the Fedora Wiki that document how to install them!

ekimd, you really couldn't do without, heh?

Re:I hate this summary, can we mod it "flamebait"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40148757)

yum install @kde

Re:I hate this summary, can we mod it "flamebait"? (1)

varkk (1366053) | more than 2 years ago | (#40149219)

Or just download and install the KDE spin, or the LXDE or XFCE spin for that matter.

Emacs 24 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40150401)

...is now included with Fedora 17. Yay!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?