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 19 Beta Released: Alive, Dead, or Neither?

timothy posted about a year ago | from the let's-not-make-a-fedoral-case-out-of-it dept.

Operating Systems 171

darthcamaro writes "Fedora 19, aka Schrödinger's Cat, is now out in Beta. There is a long list of new features in this release, including 3D modelling tools, improved security, federated VoIP, updated GNOME and KDE desktops and new improved virtual storage to name a few. '"Normally we have a good batch of features for everyone in a new release and this time around a lot of it is under the hood kinds of stuff," Fedora Project Leader, Robyn Bergeron, told ServerWatch.'"

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

Sorry... (4, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#43840595)

Netcraft can either confirm its release status or its deadness; but not both.

(yes, yes, I know that that's a totally different aspect of physics, and that Netcraft confirms the death of BSD, not of Linux; but somebody has to do these things)

Re:Sorry... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43843891)

>...but somebody has to do these things

and we thank you for your service :)

You forgot both. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43840605)

Both alive and dead.

Re:You forgot both. (4, Funny)

Picass0 (147474) | about a year ago | (#43840759)

It may exist in both states until the .tar file is opened. In theory it also may be possible to peek inside the file and determine its state (or if it has one).

Re:You forgot both. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43843209)

You mean using "tar t" instead of "tar x" ?

Gnome3 (0)

KiloByte (825081) | about a year ago | (#43840733)

Did they upgrade away from Gnome3, network-manager and systemd? If not, why should we even look at it?

Re:Gnome3 (2)

jeffclay (1077679) | about a year ago | (#43840797)

Because it's new! New == Better

Hasn't Microsoft taught you anything?

LOL j/k

Re:Gnome3 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43841253)

LOL j/k

What is this, 1996?

Re:Gnome3 (4, Interesting)

0racle (667029) | about a year ago | (#43840807)

systemd is pretty much here to stay, I'm betting that in about two years every major distro will use it. No, I don't think that is a good thing.

Re:Gnome3 (0)

kthreadd (1558445) | about a year ago | (#43840939)

I bet that in two years there's yet another init system around that will replace systemd. Things don't get to stay for too long in Linux land.

Re:Gnome3 (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43841933)

So, for how long did we have SysV init-scripts?

The problem isn't that things doesn't get to stay for too long, but rather that the "new" generation of "developers" are an ignorant, egocentric bunch of shit-heads who grew up with windows 95 and thinks that was the gold standard for an OS. Pair that with an incurable allergy to actually fixing the problems that exists, rather than papering over them -- yeah, I'm talking about PA -- and you get the current sad state of the linux desktop.

Re:Gnome3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43844679)

That is caused by a single person. (I still don't get why kernel based audio is bad other than his code wouldn't probably be accepted. Both boomer in Solaris and the BSD oss stack just works for me).

One thing a care about on a desktop/laptop is good sound alsa seems to mess up ice1712 / ice1724 all the time. All I really care about is play audio and don't resample there is no need on that hardware.

oss4 works great with its envy24 but it is a nightmare trying to use it. (Too many things do stupid stuff like restart pulseaudio or are linked only against alsa and it).

Re:Gnome3 (4, Interesting)

Zocalo (252965) | about a year ago | (#43841051)

Even for a supposedly bleeding edge distro SystemD was included in Fedora in far too immature a state with too many broken/missing features, IMHO, and that gave it a bad rep. The latest SystemD release in Fedora 19 actually isn't that bad if you give it a chance and take the time to properly grok how it works, it's more complex that the old init script approach, but it's also much more powerful. You pays your money...

Anyway, complaining about SystemD is *sooo* last distro now. The cool kids are moaning about the half-assed and feature-very-much-incomplete FirewallD (from essentially the same people that brought you SystemD) now which seems to be the suffering from the same "included a few 0.x revisions too soon" problems.

Re:Gnome3 (2)

AdamWill (604569) | about a year ago | (#43843883)

" The cool kids are moaning about the half-assed and feature-very-much-incomplete FirewallD (from essentially the same people that brought you SystemD)"

by which, presumably, you mean 'entirely different people'? Since systemd was started by Lennart Poettering and now maintained by him, Kay Sievers and a few others, while firewalld was started by Thomas Woerner and is now maintained by him and Jiri Popelka? So, you know, zero overlap.

firewalld has been in Fedora since F17 and was made the default in F18, so it's hardly the fashionable new thing to bitch about either. It is still entirely optional: if you don't like it, just remove it and you can happily use iptables (or nothing) instead. I'm not sure where you see it as being 'half-assed and feature-very-much-incomplete' as it stands in F19, firewall-cmd in particular appears to be capable of just about everything under the sun, including passing arbitrary config statements through to iptables.

Re:Gnome3 (4, Interesting)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year ago | (#43843807)

I spent the last 10 minutes googling to try to find out what all the hate is for SystemD (and what it is). Here is what I've found, according to "the web":
  * SystemD gives flexibility about when and how services are started in a way that old init scripts could not
  * Its currently a bit rough around the edges
  * It can significantly lower boot time in the real world
Chief complaints seem to be
  * "its not unix-y"
  * Its new, and a bit complex
  * If its screwed up, the system may not boot (then again, ditto with init scripts / fstab / grub.cfg / initrd / any of a zillion other things)
  * People dont like the developer

Is that an accurate summary? Are there any technical issues that Im not getting? It just seems to be a lot of vitriol amounting to "I dont like learning new systems" (which, honestly, is a valid criticism-- but its not a technical deficiency).

Re:Gnome3 (3, Informative)

ssam (2723487) | about a year ago | (#43844283)

That sounds about right.

There are also some complaints about it absorbing other components e.g. udev. to the developers this makes sense because udev is about responding to hardware events and systemd can trigger this based on these events (e.g. starting network servers when you plug in a network card, or a backup script when you plug in an external drive). also they shared a lot of code. To people who don't want to use systemd, this makes them worry about where they will get udev from, and if udev will continue to work on non systemd systems. (there is now a fork of udev called eudev)

Re:Gnome3 (1)

FireFury03 (653718) | about a year ago | (#43840825)

Did they upgrade away from Gnome3, network-manager and systemd? If not, why should we even look at it?

Because Gnome 3 and Network Manager happen to work pretty well these days?

Re:Gnome3 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43840869)

GNOME 3 doesn't work very well on hardware that is a couple of years old. I don't mind the effects and annoying default settings that much, but I can't use a desktop environment that causes my laptop fan to run constantly.

Re:Gnome3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43840973)

Why do you want Linux to be like Windows 95 just because you don't upgrade your hardware?

Re:Gnome3 (1)

Bengie (1121981) | about a year ago | (#43841681)

but I can't use a desktop environment that causes my laptop fan to run constantly

If the system is not doing anything productive, then it should not be using system resources. There is no reason for his fans to spin up unless he's actually doing something.

Re:Gnome3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43842159)

That's the wrong question. You should ask yourself "why do I want the developers of my DE to behave like if they were microsoft in the mid 90s, and do I really have a 24 inch screen so I can by default cover all of it with a full screen instance of my browser?"

Re:Gnome3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43842511)

Becase MICROSOFT, DAMMIT!! I'm running the next to latest kubuntu on ten year old equipment, try geting Windows 7 to run on that. Because I do NOT want Linux to be Microsoft, where you need bleeding edge hardware just to get the damned thing to boot. If you're going to throw out your old gear every time you want to upgrade the OS, buy a Windows computer.

Re:Gnome3 (2)

ssam (2723487) | about a year ago | (#43840995)

if you liked Gnome2 you will like MATE (because its basically the same, plus a name change so it can coexist with Gnome3, plus bug fixes, library updates and a few small new features)

Re:Gnome3 (1)

DrXym (126579) | about a year ago | (#43841053)

GNOME 3 will work well on pretty much any PC with a GPU from an IGP on upwards. It also has LLVM pipe support for software rendering where the GPU / driver is not up to scratch.

Your PC would have to be pretty arcane to not run it in which case the solution is clear - use a less demanding distribution or window manager.

Re:Gnome3 (4, Interesting)

ssam (2723487) | about a year ago | (#43841855)

systems with poor GPUs probably have poor CPUs as well, so LLVM pipe is not going to be fun.

You don't have to go back to far to find GPUs with max textures size of 2048x2048 or lower. for a composited desktop across multiple desktops the total desktop size cant exceed the max texture size. So on a few year old netbook you may not be able plug into to an external monitor or projector with GNOME3 where you could with GNOME2.

i booted fedora18 in a kvm virtual machine today. The GNOME3 desktop displayed, but with horrible corruption.

Re:Gnome3 (1)

DrXym (126579) | about a year ago | (#43843925)

systems with poor GPUs probably have poor CPUs as well, so LLVM pipe is not going to be fun.

Not necessarily and besides, that's where the other thing I said kicks in - don't use GNOME 3 if your system isn't up to it. Use XFCE or something. I've had GNOME 3 running quite happily on a VM inside a Core Duo with some crappy portable AMD chipset. I've had it running on a 6 year old AMD X2 with some ancient Nvidia card. It's never going to win prizes on the set but neither it is especially intolerable or unusable.

Re:Gnome3 (1)

AdamWill (604569) | about a year ago | (#43843927)

What graphics configuration did you have in your KVM? We test it on qxl/SPICE, mostly, because that's by a long way the best option. the old-school cirrus/VNC doesn't get a lot of testing and can be broken at times. vga/VNC worked okay last time I tried it.

Re:Gnome3 (1)

ssam (2723487) | about a year ago | (#43844489)

I was using virt-install which (according to its man page) defaults to --graphics vnc if the DISPLAY variable is set.

Re:Gnome3 (1)

arth1 (260657) | about a year ago | (#43841907)

GNOME 3 will work well on pretty much any PC with a GPU from an IGP on upwards.

Will it work on my $30,000 headless server?

It also has LLVM pipe support for software rendering where the GPU / driver is not up to scratch.

That will automatically fix incorrect assumptions like displays having edges stopping the pointer device, or that the display server and client always run the same version of software?

Re:Gnome3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43842419)

GNOME 3 will work well on pretty much any PC with a GPU from an IGP on upwards.

Will it work on my $30,000 headless server?

Why would you put on a fedora if you don't have a head? That would look kind of silly ;).

Re:Gnome3 (2)

arth1 (260657) | about a year ago | (#43841119)

Gnome 3 works well in a VM or with remote X on headless servers?
That's news to me.

Re:Gnome3 (1)

FireFury03 (653718) | about a year ago | (#43842141)

Gnome 3 works well in a VM or with remote X on headless servers?
That's news to me.

Why on earth would you be running Fedora of all things on a server? Yes, things don't work so well when you use software that's inappropriate for the job - why not get a LTS server distro instead of a experimental workstation distro if you want to run servers?

Re:Gnome3 (0)

arth1 (260657) | about a year ago | (#43842709)

Why on earth would you be running Fedora of all things on a server?

I would be (and am) running RHEL. Which is based off Fedora - that's why what's happening in Fedora is important.

Yes, things don't work so well when you use software that's inappropriate for the job - why not get a LTS server distro instead of a experimental workstation distro if you want to run servers?

I don't call RHEL an experimental workstation distro. Unless they go with Gnome 3 and/or Poettering's reinventions in RHEL 7, in which case I may have to revise my view.

Re:Gnome3 (1)

FireFury03 (653718) | about a year ago | (#43844075)

I don't call RHEL an experimental workstation distro. Unless they go with Gnome 3 and/or Poettering's reinventions in RHEL 7, in which case I may have to revise my view.

Actually, more to the point: why would you be running an X desktop environment on a server at all? Running X applications remotely (tunnelled over SSH) is occasionally useful, but why on earth would you want a full desktop environment?

Re:Gnome3 (1)

dstyle5 (702493) | about a year ago | (#43844383)

Why on earth not?

Re:Gnome3 (1)

FireFury03 (653718) | about a year ago | (#43844455)

Why on earth not?

Because most servers don't have a monitor connected to them?

Re:Gnome3 (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | about a year ago | (#43844407)

If you're running any form of thin clients then you most certainly need it. We have a couple of Sun Ray clients running that way. The hardware clients are nothing more than a networking stack and a display port, everything else happens on the server.

Re:Gnome3 (1)

AdamWill (604569) | about a year ago | (#43843961)

Works fine with Spice. http://spice-space.org/ [spice-space.org]

Re:Gnome3 (4, Informative)

KiloByte (825081) | about a year ago | (#43841243)

Gnome3's interface... let's not speak of it, I prefer to not use words it deserves among civilised people.

As for Network Manager, try running it with any USB networking (direct connect, like with a phone, rather than an USB-connected ethernet card): it will kill the interface every roughly 30 seconds. Its upstream refused to fix that saying they don't aim to support every possible device.
Or, bridged setups. Or, basically anything more complex than a plain ethernet or wifi interface.

It wouldn't be bad if Network Manager accepted that it's not infallible and allowed such devices it does not support. But not, it insists it has the complete view of the system's network, everything else is wrong, and even if you blacklist a device it knows (not possible for ones it doesn't), it still says you're in "offline mode" when you use programs that made the mistake of querying NM.

If a single line, "apt-get purge network-manager", instantly fixes all problems of this kind, I'm kind of disinclined to believe that "it works pretty well".

Re:Gnome3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43841353)

Gnome3's interface... let's not speak of it, I prefer to not use words it deserves among civilised people.

You can customize the interface.

As for Network Manager, try running it with any USB networking (direct connect, like with a phone, rather than an USB-connected ethernet card): it will kill the interface every roughly 30 seconds. Its upstream refused to fix that saying they don't aim to support every possible device.
Or, bridged setups. Or, basically anything more complex than a plain ethernet or wifi interface.

It wouldn't be bad if Network Manager accepted that it's not infallible and allowed such devices it does not support. But not, it insists it has the complete view of the system's network, everything else is wrong, and even if you blacklist a device it knows (not possible for ones it doesn't), it still says you're in "offline mode" when you use programs that made the mistake of querying NM.

Have you filed a bug report?

If a single line, "apt-get purge network-manager", instantly fixes all problems of this kind, I'm kind of disinclined to believe that "it works pretty well".

It also removes a lot of functionality.

Re:Gnome3 (3, Informative)

FireFury03 (653718) | about a year ago | (#43842287)

Gnome3's interface... let's not speak of it, I prefer to not use words it deserves among civilised people.

I migrated to Gnome 3 from E17 because it's actually about the best DE I've found. Yes, it has problems; there are parts of it that make me wonder WTF the developers were thinking (mostly the bits they've ripped off from Apple, which frequently seem ill thought out even on OS X), but it generally works better for me than any other DE I've tried. If you don't like Gnome 3 then that's fine - there's plenty of choice, but don't shoot down the whole distro because it happens to default to a DE that you personally don't like, but which many other people find to be excellent.

As for Network Manager, try running it with any USB networking (direct connect, like with a phone, rather than an USB-connected ethernet card): it will kill the interface every roughly 30 seconds. Its upstream refused to fix that saying they don't aim to support every possible device.
Or, bridged setups. Or, basically anything more complex than a plain ethernet or wifi interface.

The USB thing is a shame - I can't really comment on that as I've not tried using USB NICs with it.

As for "you can't do anything complex with it", IMHO it isn't intended for that use - network manager is intended as a "plug and play networking for dummies" system; if you want something complex then set NM_CONTROLLED=no in the network config and configure it yourself. Adding lots of support for very complex setups to NetworkManager itself, when that's already supported via other mechanisms, would seem to defeat its purpose of offering a *simple* network configurator.

But not, it insists it has the complete view of the system's network, everything else is wrong, and even if you blacklist a device it knows (not possible for ones it doesn't), it still says you're in "offline mode" when you use programs that made the mistake of querying NM.

That certainly doesn't seem to agree with my experiences. I frequently set systems up with NM_CONTROLLED=no in the NIC configuration and NetworkManager handles that just fine (in fact, on servers I make a point of doing this; which is fine - IMHO NetworkManager is neither intended nor suited to server environments so turning it off and using more traditional configurations (which are still supported) is a good idea).

If a single line, "apt-get purge network-manager", instantly fixes all problems of this kind, I'm kind of disinclined to believe that "it works pretty well".

If you're using apt-get then you're not using Fedora, so your comments seem a bit irrelevant to a discussion about the latest Fedora release. I can't comment on how well NetworkManager works in other distros, but under both Fedora and Scientific Linux it seems to work well and is trivial to bypass if you need lots of complexities in your network configuration.

Re:Gnome3 (1)

mcrbids (148650) | about a year ago | (#43842745)

Network Manager is a victim of the 80/20 rule. 80% of the time, it works fantastic. 20% of the time it's better to disable it and edit the config files yourself.

And you know what? That's good enough for me. I use NM nearly always on my laptop because usually I just want to get connected the usual way. When I'm interested in "server level" connections I disable NM and roll my own configs manually.

Re:Gnome3 (1)

KiloByte (825081) | about a year ago | (#43843407)

This would be a good thing if Gnome didn't declare Network Manager to be a mandatory component. In Debian, making it removable needed to be forced by the Technical Committee twice.

I used to care about this when I still believed Gnome3 is not "yet" usable and it's just a matter of work/time. Nowadays, I've seen how much ill will and how little sanity Gnome3 upstream has, and I wouldn't call it a work of the devil to not insult Satanists, so I don't give a damn about Gnome3's dependencies anymore. Too bad, some people try to make Network Manager installed by default (for example, it is on Raspbian), and that's major damage.

There is only one case it may be useful: if you use wifi but no other networking, not even a virtual machine or a tunnel -- Network Manager's wifi interface is superior to those of wicd. Too bad it conflicts with anything else.

Re:Gnome3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43843231)

As for Network Manager, try running it with any USB networking (direct connect, like with a phone, rather than an USB-connected ethernet card): it will kill the interface every roughly 30 seconds. Its upstream refused to fix that saying they don't aim to support every possible device.
Or, bridged setups. Or, basically anything more complex than a plain ethernet or wifi interface.

NetworkManager has supported bridging since version 0.9.8.

Fedora Project Wiki: Networking/Bridging [fedoraproject.org]
NetworkManager Now Supports Bridging, AP-Mode Hotspot [phoronix.com]

Re:Gnome3 (2)

AdamWill (604569) | about a year ago | (#43844009)

"As for Network Manager, try running it with any USB networking (direct connect, like with a phone, rather than an USB-connected ethernet card): it will kill the interface every roughly 30 seconds. Its upstream refused to fix that saying they don't aim to support every possible device."

That's a massive over-simplification. NM works very hard to support connections over phones, 3G/LTE modems and the like, as Dan Williams' blog makes very clear, if you bother to read it.

"Its upstream refused to fix that saying they don't aim to support every possible device. Or, bridged setups. Or, basically anything more complex than a plain ethernet or wifi interface."

This is not correct at all. As Dan wrote on devel list just May 16th:

"It didn't used to be very compatible with server-type networking, but that's exactly what we've been working hard on for the past year or so. Bonding, bridging, VLANs, an Infiniband are all supported by the current NetworkManager 0.9.8, though it doesn't (yet) cooperate well when external tools touch things. That's going to get a lot better quite soon. The 0.9.8 GUI and nmcli both have support for all of the aforementioned interface types."

Seriously: you really think *Red Hat* would bother spending several years of engineer time writing a network management layer which didn't support 'anything more complex than a plain ethernet or wifi interface'? We're not that idiotic.

Re:Gnome3 (1)

KiloByte (825081) | about a year ago | (#43844669)

Ok, I just checked with 0.9.8. Plugging my phone in: udb0 pops up, gets the address configured from /etc/network/interfaces, both IPv4 and IPv6. Can ping the other side. Wait half a minute. Suddenly there's no address anymore, the interface is still up.

With no network-manager, the addresses stay.

Re:Gnome3 (1)

xiox (66483) | about a year ago | (#43841199)

Did they upgrade away from Gnome3, network-manager and systemd? If not, why should we even look at it?

Fedora is actually a very good KDE distribution.

Re:Gnome3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43842847)

Seconded. I also like LXDE but it has a few configuration issues for which there is no documentation and they move me back to KDE within a day.

Re:Gnome3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43841379)

I think its just cranky old sysadmins that don't like systemd. Its actually quite good and offers several benefits over the old sysvinit. But I suppose someone will post some stupid rebuttal like "its not the unix way!", or "its monolithic!!", or "its only for desktops", or "Binarylogs!!!".

Take some time and actually look at what it provides with an open mind, and I'm sure you'll find some neat features in there that will save you time and frustration.

Re:Gnome3 (3, Insightful)

arth1 (260657) | about a year ago | (#43841843)

I think its just cranky old sysadmins that don't like systemd. Its actually quite good and offers several benefits over the old sysvinit.

It's the cranky old sysadmins who keep the servers and internet running. What they say is often important. When someone tries to re-invent Windows Services, AIX smit and Windows Event log, they may grump, but they do so with the experience saying that it wasn't a good idea the last time either.

Re:Gnome3 (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43842091)

I'll take their advice seriously, when they seriously contribute an actual technical criticism of systemd that doesn't simply end up as a platitude or rule of thumb.

I Mean, Einstein himself was a critic/non believer of Quantum Mechanics, I wouldn't call him an idiot, but you can't let people who've been doing the same thing well forever just squash a new idea without valid criticism.

Re:Gnome3 (5, Informative)

Peter H.S. (38077) | about a year ago | (#43843023)

I think its just cranky old sysadmins that don't like systemd. Its actually quite good and offers several benefits over the old sysvinit.

It's the cranky old sysadmins who keep the servers and internet running. What they say is often important. When someone tries to re-invent Windows Services, AIX smit and Windows Event log, they may grump, but they do so with the experience saying that it wasn't a good idea the last time either.

The problem is that many aren't "cranky old SA's" but just uninformed old gits that refuses to even read up on new technology and flat out denies that there any problems whatsoever with Linux logfiles, and the way Linux handles services (init etc).

Whenever I see systemd or Journal hate here on Slashdot, it is always just snarky remarks that almost always are totally wrong, and clearly demonstrate that they don't know what they are talking about.

Even if you never, ever use the Journal tools or access the Journal log files, systemd and Journal will enhance the Syslog files considerably, by enabling log info early in the boot process, and tagging and aggregate the logfiles.

IMHO, systemd and Journal is the best new tools for the Linux SA made in the past decade.

I really recommend reading this list of systemd myths:

http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html [0pointer.de]

And Lennart's "systemd for Administrators". Here is a link to the first part of twenty instalments:
http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd-for-admins-1.html [0pointer.de]

Very good stuff. A must read for any Linux SA, whether they think they dislike systemd or not.

Re:Gnome3 (2)

arth1 (260657) | about a year ago | (#43843153)

Even if you never, ever use the Journal tools or access the Journal log files, systemd and Journal will enhance the Syslog files considerably, by enabling log info early in the boot process, and tagging and aggregate the logfiles.

And what do you do when something goes wrong? Or you need access from a different arbitrary system?

I really recommend reading this list of systemd myths:

http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html [0pointer.de]

And Lennart's "systemd for Administrators". Here is a link to the first part of twenty instalments:
http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd-for-admins-1.html [0pointer.de]

Very good stuff. A must read for any Linux SA, whether they think they dislike systemd or not.

Do you have any links that has been written by others than Poettering himself? Like, for instance, system administrators?

Re:Gnome3 (3, Informative)

Peter H.S. (38077) | about a year ago | (#43843601)

And what do you do when something goes wrong? Or you need access from a different arbitrary system?

That sort of questions is exactly why you should read the linked pages. So calm your fuming hate against Poettering and start reading.

I guess your very vague question is something about accessing Journal log files, something you probably think can be problematic since they are binary, right? No worries mate. Syslog is a first class Journal client, you can read all the usual text file stuff in /var/log/* if for some reason journalctl doesn't work, but everything else does. Journal send all messages to syslog, including early boot stuff that syslog couldn't log before.

It is just that when journalctl (and all the other cool *ctl tools) works, it is faster, easier and more secure than the usual chaotic syslog logging. So what is wrong with displaying not only an error message, but also the exact link where the error message is explained and documented? "journalctl -f" instead of "cat /var/log/messages | tail" ?
Cryptographic secure logging? That you have an actual guarantee that a message is written by the daemon it claims?

"journalctl", "systemctl" and all the other *ctl tools like localectl, hostnamectl and loginctl, are just wonderful and powerful tools, that promises some kind of consistency when it comes to Linux logging and system information gathering etc.

Re:Gnome3 (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about a year ago | (#43842909)

Hey, hey.... it's Network Mangler, and don't you forget it!

(seriously what's with the local DNS resolver bullshit? /etc/resolv.conf and leave it the fuck alone)

Re:Gnome3 (1)

AdamWill (604569) | about a year ago | (#43843909)

F19 has GNOME, KDE, LXDE, Xfce, MATE and Sugar live spins, and Cinnamon available from the DVD. NetworkManager is still optional, as it has been since its introduction. And systemd is awesome.

If nothing else, it'll test encoding... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43840753)

>> Schrödinger's Cat

A code name with an umlaut, an apostrophe and a space. That should give the web's encoders a workout.

Re:If nothing else, it'll test encoding... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43841193)

hahaha, so true and it's fucking 2013!

Fedora is good if you want to chase your tail (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43840865)

But otherwise dead to me.

I moved to something with a sane release cycle and I fire up a VM if I want to play with toys.

FIRST POST!? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43840901)

to llok into infinitesimally Minutes. At home, legitimise doing about half of the An3 abroad for Start a holy war or a public club,

Should I care? (5, Interesting)

erroneus (253617) | about a year ago | (#43840949)

You know, with all the crap with GNOME 3 and all, I left Fedora for CentOS. In many ways, CentOS serves me better, but in that, I also learned there were some things I couldn't do. Not "couldn't do without a great deal of trouble" but couldn't do. GiMP was and still is to some degree, important to me recreationally and professionally. And while I certainly have issues with GiMP 2.8.x's directions, I wanted to run it. Turned out, however, that I couldn't. It seems conflicting versions of GTK for the Desktop UI and the requirements of 2.8.x created a bit of an impossible situation. Determined to make it work, I eventually did manual compiles of GiMP and all of the GTK related dependencies. And there were a lot of them. But even after that, GiMP, with its own GTK libraries, would not integrate with my existing GNOME desktop. So I lost Japanese text entry which is, at times for me, important.

GTK is "Gimp toolkit." This makes it an application library. But for some reason, GNOME, the desktop OS shell, decided to adopt GTK for what it does. It didn't seem like a bad idea until you take into account that the GiMP and GTK developers don't give a rat's ass about backward compatibility or any of that. It is GNOME's fault for selecting GTK instead of forking it or something else. So now, among other programs, I cannot run GiMP on CentOS. I will never stop ranting about this.

But I miss the good days and have been watching the MATE desktop which will never, it seems, come to CentOS. And so I've been tempted to give the next Fedora a try. One thing I haven't heard much about is wobbly windows. I really like having my wobbly windows and 3D virtual desktop. (I speak of Compiz, of course if you didn't already know.) I see this: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MATE-Compiz_Spin [fedoraproject.org] and that's encouraging... but I wonder. I hope anyway.

But I was looking at the release schedule. Combine that with the doom of the global economy, I'm thinking I'd be better off buying up stocks of canned beans instead of a new hard drive. *sigh*

Re: GIMP (1)

gr8_phk (621180) | about a year ago | (#43842031)

IMHO the GIMP developers should have got the GEGL stuff done as a priority for 2.10 and then immediately worked on the GTK3 stuff for 3.0. All other features and improvements should be extras until the infrastructure migrations are done. Why? For reasons exactly like you describe. Being up to date with infrastructure and libraries is rather critical. GnuCash was almost dropped when it took too many years for them to jump on Gnome 2 libs. It's been what, two years since Gnome 3 and they still aren't there yet...

Re:Should I care? (1)

chocolatetrumpet (73058) | about a year ago | (#43842943)

My advice: run debian wheezy, and if there's newer stuff you can't get, move to jessie.

Re:Should I care? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43844121)

^^THIS. Why bother with Fedora? It's always so unstable and you have to fix things or update every five minutes it seems. And I doubt yum is any better than when I last tried it. DEBIAN and apt-get rule. Tried and tested and customizable.

Re:Should I care? (2)

evilviper (135110) | about a year ago | (#43842945)

It seems conflicting versions of GTK for the Desktop UI and the requirements of 2.8.x created a bit of an impossible situation.

I'm confused... What's the problem here? When you upgraded GTK to 2.8.x, did GNOME break? If so, when you installed gtk2-2.8.x along-side the old gtk, what failed to work?

It is GNOME's fault for selecting GTK instead of forking it or something else.

Hell no! GTK is a library, and developers should NOT be scared away from using libraries of other projects. The only way you can avoid issues such as the one you're having with libraries is to statically compile everything, which isn't a good idea, nor a good option.

Besides that, Linux is robust, and there's no reason tow different libraries can't be installed side-by-side. Whether you have a hard time doing that with a package manager, or you don't know that you can do it, it's still not the fault of the library, or of projects depending on that lib.

Re:Should I care? (1)

erroneus (253617) | about a year ago | (#43843337)

Turns out there may actually be a way. As I said, I had to compile all of the dependent libraries and put them in their own separate location for the local GiMP 2.8.x to use. (I was not referring to GTK2 2.8.x, I was referring to GiMP 2.8.x) The problem is that the new libraries, when they did their thing, did not know how to integrate with the active GNOME desktop. There may be a file I can change or have it point somewhere... I don't know. Everywhere I asked offered no answers or suggestions.

I agree this shouldn't happen. But it did. I lost access to the facilities of my local GNOME desktop and I don't really know why.

Re:Should I care? (1)

evilviper (135110) | about a year ago | (#43843717)

Turns out there may actually be a way.

No, there "may actually be/" 20 ways... The one you tried is not the best one, and not the first one you should try.

Why didn't you just forcibly upgrade glib & gtk2? I'm sure the package manager will complain, but keep going anyway, and find out if GNOME will work with the newer lib without problems... It just might.

Second to that, there's no reason you can't install multiple version of the same lib, in exactly the same location. This is not Windows... Linux has got lib versioning that works just fine. Install the latest glib / gtk /etc from RPMs, without replacing the existing libs, and then install GIMP and see how it all works.

This is all pretty easy to do, and a fairly common, simple, and standard thing for anyone who needs to upgrade their RHEL system beyond the provided packages. Most of the time you can just grab the Fedora SRPMs and compile them without trouble.

I agree this shouldn't happen. But it did. I lost access to the facilities of my local GNOME desktop and I don't really know why.

Of course that'll happen, if you maintain a completely seperate tree of libs, applications compiled with them won't be able to talk to GNOME, properly.

Not dead, Jim. But... (1, Insightful)

arth1 (260657) | about a year ago | (#43840953)

Fedora has done a couple of WTFs that alienated a large portion of the user base, and more importantly, the admin base.
As Fedora is the source/playground for what becomes the next RHEL, it is watched by the admin community more than most distros.
In Fedora 15, the big WTF was switching to a desktop environment that does not work well or consistently with remote viewing, which is a big issue for server use.
Then, they changed to systemd - a dual layer abstraction abomination for services and configurations, incompatible with the runlevel and init.d scripts that admins have and rely on.

In F18, they have brought back MATE as an alternative to Gnome 3, and that might revive some of the interest. But systemd is still a killer, and not in a good way. If this makes it into RHEL 7, it will be a sad wake-up-call for Red Hat when the paying user base stays at 6 or migrates to competitors.

So no, not dead, but the jury is still out on how seriously it should be taken.

Re:Not dead, Jim. But... (2)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a year ago | (#43841027)

Then, they changed to systemd - a dual layer abstraction abomination for services and configurations, incompatible with the runlevel and init.d scripts that admins have and rely on.

My experience of systemd is that it's fine, when it works which in fairness is usually. Then again, the same could easily be said of init scripts.

But it is really opaque and not especially well documented so when it does go wrong (which is more common on servers with odd custom setups) it is really, really hard to fix.

That is not fun.

Re:Not dead, Jim. But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43841067)

I don't understand. Why would you run Fedora on a snerver?

Re:Not dead, Jim. But... (1)

arth1 (260657) | about a year ago | (#43841159)

You would run RHEL, which is based on Fedora.
RHEL 7 is slated to have systemd, because Fedora has it, unless enough admins voice their protest.

Re:Not dead, Jim. But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43843273)

Then, they changed to systemd - a dual layer abstraction abomination for services and configurations, incompatible with the runlevel and init.d scripts that admins have and rely on.

My experience of systemd is that it's fine, when it works which in fairness is usually. Then again, the same could easily be said of init scripts.

But it is really opaque and not especially well documented so when it does go wrong (which is more common on servers with odd custom setups) it is really, really hard to fix.

That is not fun.

There is a plethora of systemd documentation [0pointer.de] . What additional information do you need?

Re:Not dead, Jim. But... (4, Informative)

AdamWill (604569) | about a year ago | (#43844473)

Re:Not dead, Jim. But... (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | about a year ago | (#43841029)

Systemd will most likely be used in RHEL 7.

Re:Not dead, Jim. But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43841511)

There are also projects like oVirt which free support is only given to Fedora.

Re:Not dead, Jim. But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43841145)

You forgot the "improved" Anaconda?

Since RHEL 7 was already confirmed to run Gnome 3 ,chances are systemd will indeed be the default. I don't hate it as much as I used, it indeed has its vantages. The problem is that Fedora being Fedora dropped it to the users to swallow in a not pleasing way.

As much as I love Red Hat as both as a company and as a distro, I no longer have a need or desire to use Fedora if I can have anything it has, but stabler and saner, with OpenSUSE. They need to wise up if they still want to be a player. The whole world doesn't like the cloud as much as some say they do.

Re:Not dead, Jim. But... (1)

hierofalcon (1233282) | about a year ago | (#43841217)

At least in the F17 vintage, you could turn off all the services you wanted and then start them in order in rc.local essentially throwing out systemd all together, thus reducing your system boot time greatly. systemd would eventually boot a server with many services, but there were too many loops with networking that just didn't work properly if you were still using network instead of network manager to boot quickly. Perhaps NM has now gotten to the place that you can define bonds and VLANs and the like, but the last time I tried they were a nightmare compared to good old network.

Re:Not dead, Jim. But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43843307)

Perhaps NM has now gotten to the place that you can define bonds and VLANs and the like, but the last time I tried they were a nightmare compared to good old network.

NetworkManager has had bonding and VLAN support since version 0.9.4.

Fedora Project Wiki: Networking/Bonding [fedoraproject.org]
Fedora Project Wiki: Networking/VLAN [fedoraproject.org]

Re:Not dead, Jim. But... (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43841291)

But systemd is still a killer, and not in a good way. If this makes it into RHEL 7, it will be a sad wake-up-call for Red Hat when the paying user base stays at 6 or migrates to competitors.

I agree that systemd is very bad, but even worse is journald which replaces traditional syslog with a binary logging format. (Even worse is that the binary format is *by design* not stable and you can only read a log file with the same version of the tool that created the log file!)

Unfortunately, OpenSUSE is on the systemd/journald bandwagon now too. :-(

Re:Not dead, Jim. But... (2, Insightful)

AdamWill (604569) | about a year ago | (#43844141)

"I agree that systemd is very bad, but even worse is journald which replaces traditional syslog with a binary logging format."

No, it does not.

[root@adam tmp]# journalctl
-- Logs begin at Fri 2013-03-08 13:04:50 PST, end at Tue 2013-05-28 13:18:06 PDT
Mar 08 13:04:50 localhost systemd-journal[116]: Allowing runtime journal files t
Mar 08 13:04:50 localhost kernel: Initializing cgroup subsys cpuset

(etc etc etc)

[root@adam tmp]# head -5 /var/log/messages
May 26 10:39:15 adam rsyslogd: [origin software="rsyslogd" swVersion="7.2.6" x-pid="559" x-info="http://www.rsyslog.com"] rsyslogd was HUPed

(etc etc etc)

journald is *an* implementation of a system logging daemon. It is not the only implementation. It is not an exclusive implementation.

You can run as many system logging daemons as you like. Fedora is currently configured to run both rsyslogd and journald. System log messages go to both and you can inspect them however you like.

In future we may configure Fedora to only run journald by default, but this does nothing to prevent you running rsyslogd as well as journald, or instead of journald, or running any other system logging daemon that you like. The Linux system logging infrastructure is explicitly set up so that logging daemons are interchangeable and can be run concurrently. journald is written to respect that: it is one system logging daemon among many and works fine alongside others, and systemd works fine without journald if you decide you don't want it.

Re: Not dead, Jim. But... (1)

oob (131174) | about a year ago | (#43841935)


In Fedora 15, the big WTF was switching to a desktop environment that does not work well or consistently with remote viewing, which is a big issue for server use.

Really? I'm not in the habit of having any sort of GUI on Linux servers. When I encounter a GUI on a server I inherit, I judge the previous maintainer to be sloppy.

Perhaps it's a generational thing, perhaps I'm missing something. More than superfluous, I view GUIs as a waste of resource.

Perhaps it's

Re:Not dead, Jim. But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43841967)

If you can't rewrite an init script into a systemd start up script, you have no business administrating a box worth administrating.

Re:Not dead, Jim. But... (1)

arth1 (260657) | about a year ago | (#43842637)

systemd doesn't use startup scripts.
It uses old MSDOS ini files (who the fsck thought that was a good idea?)

Sure, you can make it call a script, but even then, there are limitations - you don't know the exact state of the environment at the time your script is called, due to the massive parallelism. And it isn't a two-minute job to convert either, for any but the most trivial of scripts.
Try creating systemd ini files for advanced services that have different setups depending on the runlevel, and then come back. Until then, my opinion is that you have no clue what systemd does, how, and how it differs from established practices.

It's trying to shoehorn Windows-worst-practices into Linux, by a single developer who talks large and breaks more than he ever fixes.

Re:Not dead, Jim. But... (2, Insightful)

AdamWill (604569) | about a year ago | (#43844177)

"It uses old MSDOS ini files (who the fsck thought that was a good idea?)"

It is a very good idea, because it allows the status of a service to be tracked reliably, and it allows all sorts of configuration of the behaviour of services which is not possible, or possible only in very ugly and hacky ways, using pure shell scripts.

See 'man systemd.unit'.

I really don't understand why people assume that the systemd developers just decided to invent complexity for the hell of it, or something, in the face of the extensive evidence to the contrary. If you're going to criticize systemd, at _least_ read its documentation and understand the reasons for the way it is designed the way it is designed. Just saying 'it's designed differently and that's obviously bad!' is ludicrous.

Re:Not dead, Jim. But... (1)

AdamWill (604569) | about a year ago | (#43844095)

"Then, they changed to systemd - a dual layer abstraction abomination for services and configurations, incompatible with the runlevel and init.d scripts that admins have and rely on."

That's impressive; you've written a two line description of systemd which is incorrect in every particular.

It is not a 'dual layer abstraction', it is not incompatible with runlevels, and it is not incompatible with init.d. On the contrary, it was explicitly written with compatibility for both of those things.

best distro by far (1)

aakkuan (2591459) | about a year ago | (#43840985)

both ethically and functionally... only the default package is a little buggy but still a lot faster than the resource beast called USC....

should I install it? (1)

kimvette (919543) | about a year ago | (#43841329)

Until I install it, it is simultaneously a great OS and a lousy OS. I'd hate to install it and determine it is a crappy release.

Plethora of Linux distributions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43841413)

Personally, my distro of choice is OS4, http://www.os4online.com Fedora lost its way a while back for me, but it will be interesting to see what they do.

Fedora 19 and GNOME (4, Informative)

Jim Hall (2985) | about a year ago | (#43841707)

I installed Fedora 19alpha on my laptop the other day, and I have to say that Fedora's GNOME desktop has really lost me. I don't expect things to change in Fedora 19beta. In my opinion, the last usable version of GNOME was version 3.4 in Fedora 17. And that's barely usable, but things get better if you use some of the plugins.

Fedora 19 will include GNOME 3.8 as the graphical desktop, and I've noted elsewhere that GNOME 3 has poor usability. (My graduate thesis is on the usability of open source software.) The developers at GNOME have continued their downward usability trend, so Fedora 19 isn't getting any better. GNOME 3 fails to meet two of the four themes of successful usability: "Consistency" and "Menus". Where are the menus? There is no "File" menu that allows me to do operations on files. There is no "Help" menu that I can use when I get stuck. The updated file manager (Nautilus) doesn't have a menu, but other programs in GNOME 3 do. The Gedit text editor (which is also part of GNOME) still has menus, but the file manager does not. When you maximize a Nautilus window, either to the full screen or to half of the screen, the title bar disappears. I don't understand why. The programs do not act consistently.

I will give a positive comment that the updated file manager now makes it easier to connect to a remote server. This used to be an obvious action under the "File" menu, but in GNOME 3 it is an action directly inside the navigation area. So that's a step in the right direction.

I've only discussed the file manager here, but I'm sad to say that this is just one example of poor usability throughout GNOME 3.8 in Fedora 19alpha. While some areas of the Fedora 19alpha desktop seem familiar, the environment contains many areas where I was left confused. Programs act differently; there's very little consistency. And the updated desktop environment seems to avoid familiar "desktop" conventions, tending towards a "tablet-like" interface. This further removes the obviousness of the new desktop, and it's familiarity.

The worst offender is the Fedora 19alpha installer itself. Maybe they fix this in Fedora 19beta, but I doubt it. Fedora used to have a very simple, easy-to-use installer. You answered a few simple questions using point-and-click or drop-down menus, then the installer did everything else for you. For example, let's say your computer was set up to "dual boot" both Fedora Linux and Microsoft Windows. Previous versions of the Fedora installer would give you the option to install over your previous Linux installation, or set up the install disk configuration yourself. The latter phrase may be more meaningful to someone with more technical knowledge, but the former is easily recognized by users of all skill levels to mean the same thing.

In the Fedora 19alpha installer, everything has changed. (Actually, I believe this changed in the Fedora 18 installer.) The installer now presents a yellow warning label that the disk doesn't have enough room. When I clicked into the disk setup tool, I was given the option to "reclaim" space, but I really didn't understand what that meant. There was no button or other option to "install over my previous Linux installation," despite the fact that this laptop only had Linux on it (an older Fedora 17 install). If I were a user with "typical" knowledge and "average" skill, I would likely be afraid to use this installer, lest it do the wrong thing.

The installer's progress bar is equally confusing. Usually, when a program displays a progress bar and a message to indicate the percent complete (such as, "Installing 50%") you might expect the progress bar to indicate the same "percent complete" as the text message. Not so during the Fedora 19alpha installation. The installer (Anaconda) displayed a message that it was installing system software, and it was "50%" complete, yet the progress bar displayed something like two-thirds complete. I quickly decided not to trust the progress bar. And it's a bad sign when your users decide not to trust your software.

Fedora 19 and Xfce (3, Informative)

Jim Hall (2985) | about a year ago | (#43841903)

I know it's bad form to reply to my own comment, but I figured it was better to make a separate comment about Xfce.

I consider Xfce to have much better usability than GNOME. After I installed Fedora 19alpha GNOME, I installed Fedora 19alpha Xfce, and it is much better!

From my open source software usability test last year, the four themes of successful usability were:

  1. Familiarity
  2. Consistency
  3. Menus
  4. Obviousness

While I haven't done a formal usability study of Xfce, my heuristic usability evaluation of Xfce is that it meets all four of these themes. The menus are there, everything is consistent. The default Xfce uses a theme that is familiar to most users, and actions are obvious. Sure, a few areas still need some polish (like the menus) but Xfce already seems better than GNOME.

Additionally, if you are technically capable, you can dramatically modify the appearance of Xfce to make it look and act according to your preferences. At home, I've modified my Xfce desktop to something similar to the Aura window manager used in Google's Chromebook. It works really well and I find it is even easier to use than the default Xfce desktop.

And of course, Xfce uses fewer system resources, so it runs very fast.

Re:Fedora 19 and Xfce (4, Interesting)

geek (5680) | about a year ago | (#43842845)

Familiarity

Consistency

Menus

Obviousness

.

Honest question here, not trolling. Doesn't your last point negate your first? If it's obvious then who cares about "familiar"? To me "familiar" is what's killing the industry from making any major progress. It's already proven that people will accept new (via iOS and Android) if it's easy enough to use.

Re:Fedora 19 and Xfce (3, Insightful)

Jim Hall (2985) | about a year ago | (#43843435)

In my experience, "Familiar" doesn't have to mean "Same." Using your example, iOS shares a lot of familiarity with MacOSX. The two environments aren't the same, but they aren't worlds apart either.

I think those two points are somewhat linked. You can lose a little bit of obviousness if it looks like something that already exists (Familiarity) ... or you can lose a bit of familiarity if the system is dead simple to use (Obviousness). Gmail is one example that successfully balanced the tradeoff between Familiarity and Obviousness.

In one of my usability tests, I observed typical Windows/Mac users with average knowledge quickly figure out how to use most of GNOME 3.4 (Fedora 17) because GNOME 3.4 seemed familiar enough to Windows/Mac, programs acted consistently within GNOME 3.4, they could find actions in menus, and (most) application functions were obvious and had obvious effects.

Re:Fedora 19 and GNOME (1)

AdamWill (604569) | about a year ago | (#43844263)

1. All progress bars are lies.
2. The anaconda re-design was prompted precisely by the fact that the old anaconda had terrible usability. It was neither simple nor easy-to-use. As you're interested in usability, please read all posts here:

http://blog.linuxgrrl.com/category/fedora/anaconda/ [linuxgrrl.com]

If you go back a ways, you will find lots of detailed explanation on the usability problems of oldUI. Moving forward you will find lots of detailed discussion on the process of designing newUI and the reasons it was designed the way it was. The old partitioning screen had substantial problems, and many of the results you could get from it were by no means obvious at all.

3. GNOME is gradually converting its applications to put some menu actions in the 'global' menu on the top panel; this is where you will find the actions you thought were 'missing'. Indeed this will mean some apps are inconsistent with others until the conversion is completed. Fedora ships upstream GNOME with virtually no configuration changes at all. If you don't like GNOME, there are many other options to choose from in Fedora. KDE is supported on an equal basis with GNOME in Fedora.

feh (1)

FreeUser (11483) | about a year ago | (#43841827)

As long as it uses systemd, FCwhatever is dead to me.

Re:feh (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43842579)

In a couple of years Linux will be dead to you then. Debian is going to adopt systemd and everyone else will follow because practically every Linux distribution depends heavily on the work of Redhat and Debian. If you want buggy init scripts that can't reliably manage services there's always BSD!

The upgrade (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43841917)

Seems to have gone well. I like it.

How can they find anything else to break? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43843889)

After Fedora 18, I honestly don't think there's anything left to break. I think their mission of creating an unusable system is accomplished, and they can quit. I'd switch to Mint or something if I wasn't using my Fedora system every day. I can't just format my hard disk and start over. I can't afford that much downtime.

But F18 was a disaster from the first second I began with it, when I discovered they would not allow F16 to upgrade when they've always supported two versions back, and then I discovered it wouldn't boot from the DVD and I had to leave my computer downloading a million RPM files overnight when I had burned a DVD image. Until a few minutes ago, when I had a kernel panic and a reboot after updating 900 packages this morning. I thought I'd waited long enough for a buggy kernel to be replaced with a good one.

Fedora has gone from a workhorse operating system to one where I walk on eggshells, wondering what they've broken and when it will crash. I don't mind experimental features at all, but not things breaking that have been stable for a long time. Fortunately, KDE shields me from Gnome 3.

When I build my next computer, I will be looking at anything else but Fedora.

I think Fedora is the Dogbert of operating systems - a perverse, sadistic force of pure evil for no other reason than enjoying the suffering of others.

Remote attestation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43843987)

The most important feature of Fedora 19 is the remote attestation in network manager. This will let you keep Fedora systems on the internet in places where only systems running approved software are permitted and will enable a future internet that has far less malware.

Won't touch Fedora ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43844017)

.. since the disaster that was Fedora Core 4. Released with a badly broken Xorg.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?