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!

Red Hat Begins Testing Core 5

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the new-toys dept.

Red Hat Software 237

Robert wrote to mention a CBR Online article which reports that Red Hat has begun testing on Fedora Core 5. From the article: "The next version of Raleigh, North Carolina-based Red Hat's enterprise Linux distribution is not scheduled for release until the second half of 2006 but will include stateless Linux and Xen virtualization functionality and improved management capabilities. Fedora Core 5 Release 1 includes updated support for XenSource Inc's open source server virtualization software, as well as new versions of the Gnome and KDE user interfaces, and the final version of the application suite."

cancel ×


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

5? (1, Interesting)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 8 years ago | (#14113725)

Doesn't it seem like they're advancing a little fast through the versions here. It won't be long before Fedora Core is beyond RHES in terms of version numbers. The kernel is only at version 2.6. Why is Fedora using a number scheme like this? do they want to make it seem more mature?

They should be farther along (4, Informative)

BennyB2k4 (799512) | more than 8 years ago | (#14113755)

They are actually behind their goals for releases. I've read elsewhere that it should be every 6 months.

"Produce robust releases approximately 2-3 times per year, using a time-based release model: A time for a feature freeze is set in advance, and an expected schedule for test releases is produced before the feature freeze date. (Important feature schedules will be taken into account when setting the schedule for Fedora Core releases.)" []

Re:They should be farther along (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14113812)

The most irritating thing about FC5 is the long wait... they've decided to leave ~9 months for it. The problem is that there are parts of GTK that have, over the last few months, *FINALLY* been optimized by someone who knows what they are doing -- and they are now dramatically faster (this is quite apart from the other massive optimization efforts for speed and memory going on in GNOME right now). All Fedora users are going to have to wait until the second half of 2006 before we see these improvements... and believe me when I tell you that GNOME/GTK desperately needs them.

It doesn't look like they will be backported, so it's GTK2.8 and the next version of GNOME... which means FC5... which means 9 months wait for something that's very badly needed.

Re:They should be farther along (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14114250)

So why would you have to wait 9 months? Couldn't you just download the testing release and use it now?

Re:They should be farther along (2, Informative)

Dammital (220641) | more than 8 years ago | (#14114319)

"... parts of GTK that have, over the last few months, *FINALLY* been optimized by someone who knows what they are doing..."
You're talking about Federico's profiling effort against the GTK file chooser? Yep, he's doing some [] good [] stuff [] .

Re:They should be farther along (1)

LnxAddct (679316) | more than 8 years ago | (#14114086)

They've slowed their release schedule to 9 months to give them more time developing certain capabilities.

Re:They should be farther along (1)

Muerte2 (121747) | more than 8 years ago | (#14114255)

They recently changed the 6 month release cycle to a 9 month release cycle. I can't say I really blame them. Trying to put together an entire OS every six months is a pretty daunting task. The longer release cycle also means releases will stay "current" longer. Yum updates keep all your packages up to date anyway, so I think it's a win-win for everyone involved.

I commend RedHat for being able to get an OS out the door in six months (or close to it) the first four time. That just boggles my mind.

Re:5? (2, Funny)

Taladar (717494) | more than 8 years ago | (#14113759)

SuSE and Mandrake use version numbers around ten. If Redhat doesn't want to look old they have to advance faster. Basic marketing bullshit 101.

Re:5? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 8 years ago | (#14113766)

Since they are all technically test versions for the 'real' RH product, the quick pace is expected.

Think of these as public betas between official releases.

Re:5? (1)

smoker2 (750216) | more than 8 years ago | (#14114135)

So why is RHEL 3 ES running the 2.4.21-37.EL kernel, as supplied and updated by RH ?

RHEL 4 was released in January 2005 and has a 2.6 kernel. I've been running FC2 and 3 with a 2.6 kernel for around a year longer than that.
The stated release schedule for Fedora is 6 months, and the stated release schedule for the RHEL series is 18 months.

Yes they are betas, but the pace is quite slow, as RH want to make sure that all the bugs are gone before they incorporate FC design into the RHEL line. Some stuff never makes it.

In my case I never install / upgrade FC until the newsest one is anounced. Then I upgrade to the secondmost recent - i.e. now I'm running FC3, 5 is announced, so its time to make use of the fc4 dvd I've been testing with and yum it up to date.

Re:5? (1)

observer7 (753034) | more than 8 years ago | (#14113774)

we live in amazing times. the release cycle says 2 to 3 times a year . fedora is bleeding edge and the advancement in project packages is faster . i still dont think there as fast as they should be . ubuntu is even more up to date as far as gnome. when linux started ,cycles were slow but with the advances in projects ,community and more money they come

Re:5? (1)

gowen (141411) | more than 8 years ago | (#14113775)

Err no.

Everytime there's an new release that is not just bugfixes, they increase the release number by one. Usually, this involves a certain breakage of backwards compatibility. That way, I know that FC4.2 and FC4.1 use compatible packages, and that FC5.0 might not.

I think that falls under the category of "not rocket science".

Re:5? (1)

uwog (707498) | more than 8 years ago | (#14113807)

Fedora doesn't have minor numbers, so there is no FC4.1 or 4.2.

*cough* Ubuntu (0)

matt me (850665) | more than 8 years ago | (#14113797)

We all know OS version numbers don't mean anything. But to clarify;

Red Hat Linux had version numbers in line with SUSE, it's principal rival.

Now Fedora Core 5 will match Ubuntu (possibly the most suspicous versioning given it started on 4.10 ). But really, given they've had 1 through 4, 5 is the logical continuation.

Re:*cough* Ubuntu (2, Informative)

Anarke_Incarnate (733529) | more than 8 years ago | (#14113810)

how is that suspicious? They started in 2004 in October. 4.10 is basedon y/mm. The release schedule is 6 months. They then came out with 5.04. Doesn't this make sense?

Re:*cough* Ubuntu (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14113884)

how is that suspicious?

He's saying it's suspicious they just picked a big number to begin with rather than just '1'. Why? What was wrong with calling their first release 1?

Re:*cough* Ubuntu (1)

cbreaker (561297) | more than 8 years ago | (#14114011)

It's the main reason Microsoft went with years instead of versions, but they didn't seem to have a problem starting Windows NT at version 3. And, I think they knew it was going to take an extra long time to get the next Windows out the door, thus they didn't call it Windows 2002, they called it Windows XP.

Windows NT 3.0 = Windows NT 1.0
Windows NT 3.5 = Windows NT 1.5
Windows NT 4.0 = Windows NT 2.0
Windows 2000 = Windows NT 3.0
Windows Server 2003 = Windows NT 3.5

Oh well, sorry for rambling on.

Re:*cough* Ubuntu (1)

flosofl (626809) | more than 8 years ago | (#14114221)

I understand where you're coming from here, but I think that this was actually more consistant than it appears.

IIRC, It was Windows version 3 (after Windows 1.0 and 2.0). The NT referred to New Technology (meaning non-DOS based kernel). So the naming did kinda make sense. You could get Windows 3 as layer above DOS or you could Windows 3 with NT kernel. Plus the kernel version starts at 3 for NT. Windows 2000 reports as NT kernel 5.0 and XP reports as 5.1.

Re:5? (4, Funny)

DrWhizBang (5333) | more than 8 years ago | (#14114099)

Everybody knows you can't use version number over 9. Why do you think Apple went to "X" and are holding it there? At the same time, point releases are so 1990 - Look at how Sun abandoned them entirely by dropping the "2" from "2.7". Microsoft, on the other hand, decided that people don't like numbers, so have thrown them out entirely.

Redhat got up to 9, and had to reset the counter with Fedora Core. The next step is to build your version numbers up again (since point releases are passe). Mark my words - once it hits Fedora Core 9, they will rename it to "Fedora NG R1" or something silly like that.

Re:5? (3, Informative)

LnxAddct (679316) | more than 8 years ago | (#14114157)

They are advancing fine, every major release deserves a major number. These aren't minor releases, Core 4 was the first distribution using the new GCC 4.0 at the time, it also has default Xen support and a new yum manager that is much faster than the old one. Also Fedora Extras was establsihed with Core 4 and a bunch of other stuff. There have been similar milestones with the other Cores (such as integrating SELinux). Each core is a significant advancement over the previous core and deserves a major number change, not a minor number. I'm understating the improvements here. They aren't doing this to inflate their version number, it just so happens that enough people are helping out that they can get kick ass releases out pretty fast, not to mention Red Hat pays many engineers to work on it 5 days a week. They have however recently cut back their release schedule from every 6 months, to every 9 months to allow them to spend more time fully developing certain functionalities that can't be coded in a 6 month timeframe. Also for the curious minded, the Fedora community just finished up a fairly long community discussion about its new logo [] . The way that the winning logo was designed I thought was neat, you can read about it here [] .

Mature? (0, Flamebait)

frinkacheese (790787) | more than 8 years ago | (#14113746)

Fedora is a test and development Linux distro which is why it rockets through version numbers. It's intended to be a platform to test new stuff out on innocent fools who use it in a production environment and then find out that a few months after they install FC5 they should upgrade to FC6.. Just use Slackware :)

Re:Mature? (5, Informative)

saikatguha266 (688325) | more than 8 years ago | (#14113830)

A common myth regarding Fedora. From []

MYTH - Fedora is unstable and unreliable, just a testbed for bleeding-edge software

FACT - This misconception comes from two things:
  1. From [] : "It is also a proving ground for new technology that may eventually make its way into Red Hat products."
  2. Fedora has rapid releases, a short life-cycle, and a lot of new code.

As for the first item, this means that Red Hat uses Fedora as a platform to promote the development of new technology, some of which might end up in Red Hat Enterprise Linux. This does not mean that Fedora is a dumping ground for untested code, it simply means that Fedora is a rapidly progressing platform.

For the second item, this does mean that Fedora is often running in uncharted innovative territory, but not that it is using too-new code. The programs in Fedora are generally stable releases or well-tested pre-release versions. There are guidelines behind the inclusion of pre-release software, and thorough testing is always done prior to Fedora Core releases.

Each version of Fedora Core receives updates from the Fedora development community that includes Red Hat for up to a year. Continuing updates from the Fedora Legacy Project may extend the life of a release to two years or more, depending on the release schedule. Refer to [] for more details.

We do everything we can to make sure that the final products released to the general public are stable and reliable. Fedora Core has proven that it can be a stable, reliable, and secure platform. Many businesses and organizations rely upon Fedora Core for both day-to-day tasks and, in some cases, critical infrastructure. Additionally, our well-managed packaging and review process adds an extra layer of safety not found in some other distributions. You can count on Fedora Core.

As someone who has used FC in production, I can attest to the its stability.

Re:Mature? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14114000)

We are using Fedora Core 4 in production as well. We have mainly 4 CPU Opteron Dual-Core boxes acting as web servers, database servers, authentication servers, and file servers. We test all updates in a pre-production environment beofore promoting to production.

Core 4 has been rock solid for us with no issues so far. Their warning about usage of new technology is mainly a disclaimer in our experience.

Not in my experience. (1)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 8 years ago | (#14114022)

Perhaps you've had good experiences with Fedora Core. I have not, and that is why I question what that site says.

One client had an existing Debian setup on fairly common PC hardware. They wanted to transition to FC4, after hearing about how great it was. So I attempted to install it on one of their experimental servers. The installer started bitching about corrupt packages. I assumed at first that I had gotten bad images, so I downloaded the images from another mirror onto another computer (in order to use a different CD writer), verified the checksums, and burned them again. So I try again, and off it goes, bitching about corrupt packages once more.

At that point I had to tell my client about the problems with Fedora Core 4. We agreed to give Ubuntu 5.04 a try, and it worked fine. We have since transitioned all their servers to Ubuntu, and they have been working fine for a while now. Hence it was not a problem with the hardware, but apparently a problem with the Fedora images.

At the very least I expected the CD images to contain usable packages. It truly made me doubt the quality of the entire Fedora project when I ran into those troubles. As such, I don't think I'll ever be able to recommend its use to clients, unfortunately. I'm considering giving FC5 a try once it's released, but I'm not sure if it'd be worth it, considering that Ubuntu and Debian have always worked far better for me.

Re:Not in my experience. (1)

talksinmaths (199235) | more than 8 years ago | (#14114207)

One client had an existing Debian setup on fairly common PC hardware. They wanted to transition to FC4, after hearing about how great it was....

...At that point I had to tell my client about the problems with Fedora Core 4.

Damn, it would suck to be your client. If it were my client, I would have advised them that "hearing about how great it was" isn't really a valid basis upon which to make business decisions. Secondly, if I'd known about "problems" with a particular disto, I wouldn't wait until the client started bitching to disclose them.

As with all of these discussions about distos, most of the arguments break down into: "I'm not familiar with the particular idiosyncracies of product X, and therefore product X is flawed. However, I am familiar with the particular idiosyncracies of product Y, and therefore product Y rules.

Re:Not in my experience. (1)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 8 years ago | (#14114239)

Unlike you, I listen to my clients. If they suggest something, and it sounds reasonable (such as using Fedora to replace an existing Debian installation), then I will consider it.

I had been expecting FC4 to work. Of course, when I ran into those problems my reaction was to not use it, just because the quality was so lacking. Had you read my post, you would have seen that we found these problems while testing the viability of Fedora Core. Indeed, Fedora made it nowhere near their production systems.

As for your last comment, this isn't a matter of me being unfamiliar with Fedora. The problem was the corrupted packages on the installation CDs. That's a problem with the distribution itself, not a problem with how it is used. It's flawed because the data was corrupt.

Re:Not in my experience. (1)

LnxAddct (679316) | more than 8 years ago | (#14114291)

I'm not arguing the merits of one distro over another, but the data was probably corrupt from a bad transfer to CD, not because of a lack of quality. There are over a half million servers on the net running Fedora Core, not even taking into account desktop machines, and they all used the same disk images you did. The data wasn't corrupt, your CD was.

Re:Not in my experience. (1)

talksinmaths (199235) | more than 8 years ago | (#14114312)

Unlike you, I listen to my clients. If they suggest something, and it sounds reasonable...then I will consider it.

Again, I feel bad for your clients if you feel that switching distros because someone heard that it was great is 'reasonable'.

Re:Mature? (1)

AlexMax2742 (602517) | more than 8 years ago | (#14114036)

As yet another person who used FC in production, I had a less than satisfactoy experience with it, most notably YUM breaking completely after upgrading from an already unstable FC2 to FC3. I beleive the company I am working for is still using the computer even after I left, but they put more stock in it for being from Red Hat than it's individual merits...they mainly use it as a testing machine in my absense.

Friends of mine had similar experiences with Fedora, and in that time they converted to Slackware and stuck with it. Me? After the headache that was Fedora Core 2, I've been progressing to more and more stable distros on my own personal computer....first Slackware, now Debian, and at the moment I've even been messing around with FreeBSD on a seporate partition in my free time.

I understand you had good experiences with Fedora Core, but understand that not everyone's experiences with all distros have been roses and blue jays.

Re:Mature? (1)

ZorinLynx (31751) | more than 8 years ago | (#14114252)

Funny, I had the opposite experience.

We have about twenty FC3 workstations where I work. Nearly all of them used to be FC2 workstations which were upgraded to FC3.

I had to update the yum configuration, but yum update worked fine afterwards. There were some exceptions (mailman was installed on one box, and the configuration broke, but it was easily fixed.)

I think the issue is that each of us uses the systems differently, installs different custom software, and has different skills for fixing issues. A relatively minor yum problem for me might be a major one for someone who isn't really experienced with Linux.

Hopefully the FC3 -> FC4 transition will be smooth. We always run the N-1 release because it usually has most of the bugs worked out by the time N is released.


Re:Mature? (1)

hey (83763) | more than 8 years ago | (#14114187)

Yeah, I used each new Fedora in production. The only problems I had was.. my own code had to be recompiled. Its be a nice ride.

Re:Mature? (1)

Jarlsberg (643324) | more than 8 years ago | (#14114308)

And as a Fedora Cora 4 user I can attest to this. It's a good OS. Everything is well put together and it's stable as a rock.

Ditto. (1)

btarval (874919) | more than 8 years ago | (#14114314)

I concure with the statements about its stability, in production systems no less.

In fact, I prefer it over the RH Enterprise stuff, simply because it has been reliable, and it also has the latest set of features, which has saved my butt in being able to get things done. This has happened over and over again. The Fedora folks deserve Kudos for their efforts.

I would also say that the FC releases aren't flawless. But there are always issues with every O.S. release, be it FC, other Linux distros, Windows, OS X, or BSD. The key thing is being able to recognize which OS meets your needs for the work you need done.

For much of my work, FC has been able to meet my requirements betther than the other Distros or O.S.'s, and it's been extremely reliable. As always, YMMV.

Re:Mature? (1)

Professor_UNIX (867045) | more than 8 years ago | (#14114324)

Fedora has rapid releases, a short life-cycle, and a lot of new code.

That alone is reason enough to not use it for a server.

Re:Mature? (1)

LnxAddct (679316) | more than 8 years ago | (#14114195)

It is *very* mature and very stable. That is why many hosting companies use it now as well. It has all the greatest tech before everyone else, but it all integrates really well and is really stable. They are releasing their first test release now, and the final product isn't expected to be released for at least 3 more months. That means they've spent about 6 months developing code for the release, and now they are spending 3 months testing and working out bugs, that is a damn good ratio of development time to bug stomping. Better than any distro I can think of.

Off to Debian (-1, Troll)

gatzke (2977) | more than 8 years ago | (#14113747)

RH started wanted to charge me for support. Even at academic rates, this amounts to hundreds of dollars per year for a few machines for what basically is a few security patches.

Knoppix-> Debian installs for me. Forget RH.

Tried using FC core for a while, but they kept pestering me for accounts. I should not need an account to do security updates. apt-get update or apt-get install for me.

BTW, Taco, if you don't stop the popups...

Re:Off to Debian (-1, Offtopic)

prichardson (603676) | more than 8 years ago | (#14113770)

Slashdot has ads!? You could have fooled me.

Re:Off to Debian (3, Informative)

tolan-b (230077) | more than 8 years ago | (#14113791)

Fedora uses yum as the backend for up2date for its updates, no accounts required.

Re:Off to Debian (1)

gatzke (2977) | more than 8 years ago | (#14114122)

Has that always been true? I thought FC1 / FC2 used up2date be default. I could be wrong.

I would be happy paying RH a one-time fee per box, assuming we get free security updates.

Re:Off to Debian (1)

LnxAddct (679316) | more than 8 years ago | (#14114304)

On Fedora, both yum and up2date are completely free. Up2date is for a GUI, yum is for command line, yum is alot like apt for debian. Up2date sits in your icon task tray and flashes when updates are available, you double click it, click install, and away it goes. No accounts, no money required.

Re:Off to Debian (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14114130)

yum is totally separate from up2date. up2date doesn't seem to be supported well in FC, so yum alone is the recommended rpm updater.

Re:Off to Debian (1)

hey (83763) | more than 8 years ago | (#14114168)

Does that mean the up2date front-end is going to retired in favour of the yum command? Why have two commands that just use the same back-end!

Re:Off to Debian (2, Informative)

Erwos (553607) | more than 8 years ago | (#14114200)

up2date is being retired in favor of the yum front-end "pup".


A little clarification? (1)

Stevyn (691306) | more than 8 years ago | (#14113749)

Does anyone know what "final version of the application suite" means? Are they simply referring to whatever the current version of openoffice is at the time?

Re:A little clarification? (1)

plover (150551) | more than 8 years ago | (#14113762)

Thanks, I was just going to ask this. I'm hoping it was just poorly worded, because OOo has a ton of projects [] in the development pipeline.

Re:A little clarification? (2, Informative)

R.Mo_Robert (737913) | more than 8 years ago | (#14113948)

I'm assuming they just mean the final version of 2.0, which had been in testing for quite some time.

Re:A little clarification? (2, Insightful)

LnxAddct (679316) | more than 8 years ago | (#14114220)

The Fedora devs are pretty involved with OpenOffice. When Core 4 was released it was shipped with OpenOffice.Org 1.979 or something like that. Obviously Core4 has since been update to 2.0, but they are either referring to 2.0 or maybe 2.1x which is still in development but will be more stable by release time (and Fedora will be undergoing a ton of testing and stability checks over the next 3 months now that the test releases are out). Fedora was the first distribution to have use a native interface, they tend to have the coolest stuff first, mainly because the Fedora developers code large portions of the code themselves (in contrast to many other distributions which simply package up other people's programs and call it a distro without really contributing any code back).

[no subject] (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14113752)

apt-get yawn

Why is there a Red Hat article here? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14113756)

I thought it was common knowledge that all the cool open source hippies are running Ubuntu right now. Red Hat was sooooooo 2000.

skimpy (1)

Quixote (154172) | more than 8 years ago | (#14113795)

This is hardly an "article". The submission above is 80% of the article itself, and short on details.

But more importantly: can someone expound a little on what "stateless Linux" is?

Re:skimpy (4, Informative)

un1xl0ser (575642) | more than 8 years ago | (#14113837)

Stateless Linux (from [] )

The Stateless Linux project is an OS-wide initiative to ensure that Fedora computers can be set up as replaceable appliances, with no important local state.

For example, a system administrator can set up a network of hundreds of desktop client machines as clones of a master system, and be sure that all of them are kept synchronised whenever he or she updates the master system. We provide several technologies for doing this.

The scope of the project is the entire OS, since we are trying to improve configuration throughout all packages. However, there are some packages which are specific to Stateless Linux:

        * readonly-root
        * stateless-common
        * stateless-client
        * stateless-server

clones of a master system (1)

daveed (545432) | more than 8 years ago | (#14114120)

"as clones of a master system"
Hundreds of networked Segas! sweet!

Stateless Linux (2, Interesting)

RichiP (18379) | more than 8 years ago | (#14114141)

The description and whitepaper on Stateless Linux reminds me of how lab computing used to be back in college (around 1996) where all of our lab computers didn't have harddisks but would boot from an image on a Novell Netware server (via network PROM boot). All the programs and the user's data would reside on the server but the processing power used would be the client workstation's. Seems to me Novell would be one of those companies who'd be interested in this approach and would get on the Fedora Stateless Linux bandwagon. It would be nice if the two companies would actually work on this since the Fedora project is neutral grounds.

I think Stateless Linux is a great idea. In fact, I think Gnome should be extended so that a session can span several computers where the person logs on to. Then we could couple up distributed computing on top of that and make it part of the Stateless Linux-Gnome system.

Exciting times!

Re:Stateless Linux (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14114282)

I think Stateless Linux is a great idea. In fact, I think Gnome should be extended so that a session can span several computers where the person logs on to. Then we could couple up distributed computing on top of that and make it part of the Stateless Linux-Gnome system.

Gnome had saved session stuff for a while now... and it all sucks.

What we need more is...

Have you ever used 'screen'? It's a multiplexor for the unix shell. Allows you to open up multiple shell instances on different computers on the same terminal, and then be able to disconnect the shell and still leave everything running on the background. Allows you to move from computer to computer while disconnecting and reconnecting over ssh and such without loosing anything.

It's very handy.

X Windows is a networking protocol. The X Clients are just programs like Firefox, or Nautilus, or Abiword, or any game that runs ontop of your X server, which is simply the program that controls your inputs and monitors and displays the outputs of your X Clients on your local machine.

X Clients can be anywere (once the networking is enabled.. there are certain security considurations with X, which is why networking outside your local computer is disabled by default) on your network.. They can be on your local machine, remote machine, on the internet anywere.. It doesn't matter.

Think of it like your X server is your X Browser and the X clients are like frames or websites on that you interact with. They can be anywere.

What we need is a standard way for X windows to have a thing like 'screen' were you can save your current output and move it to any computer that can handle X windows.

Sun already has this for their excellent X terminals that they sell.

Not only that we need a way to move programs from one X Server to another. You can run multiple X servers on your machine, I do that all the time. I also run X servers on my laptop and other computers that I have aviable.. I should be able to move the a X client from machine to machine, from output device to output device without stopping or restarting any programs.

If you combine that with network-based home directories, some sort of networked sound system, and network authentication and directory system, then you should be able to use any system transparently. It will be roaming desktop.. but on steroids. Not only you could use and have your home enviroment on every single computer in the system.. but also be able to use any program on any computer on this system.

Combine that with clustering capabilities, such as distributed file systems and the ability to migrate not only proccesses from computer to computer, but using Xen moving entire running operating systems from computer to computer.. then we would have a true Network-based operating system.

The entire computer network of a corporation, school, or other orginization will be able to share proccessor, memory, and disk resources transparently. Any part of the system, any computer, would be a plug-n-play system.

You buy a Dell. You format Windows off of it, you plug said Dell into network. Thats it. Thats all it would take to install Linux on it and make it work with the rest of your networked computers.

This is what stateless linux is working for. Stateless linux is the first major step in this direction.

Re:skimpy (1)

joib (70841) | more than 8 years ago | (#14114283)

One can get largely the same results with cfengine or something like that. Well, except for the diskless support, which I guess can be useful.

More info (1)

sopuli (459663) | more than 8 years ago | (#14113877)

here [] you can find some more info on what is likely to go into FC5.

better wireless hopefully... and install... (2, Insightful)

taxman_10m (41083) | more than 8 years ago | (#14113806)

My experience trying to setup wireless with Fedora Core 4 was brutal. Nothing I needed was in the initial install. With no net connection in linux I had to keep booting into my windows partition to search for any help at all on how to set things up and then download what I needed. And then go back into linux to toil and then fail. And then repeat the process. Eventually I got my card at least detected, but when I activated it the whole machine hung. So I gave up on Red Hat.

Ubuntu detected my wireless card. But has no WPA support.

It seems that Suse will also detect things, but also has no WPA support. They also have no Live CD. Why they can make a Live DVD but not a Live CD is beyond me. Just shave off some crap. All I want to know is if your distro will support my machine or not.

Linux on the Desktop? Not if the user has a wireless card.

The last time I installed Fedora Core 4 off a boot CD I was amazed that to do an ftp install I still had to punch in manually what mirror I wanted to do the install from. Computer games have been grabbing "master server lists" for some time now. Can't something similar be worked into the FTP install?

Re:better wireless hopefully... and install... (4, Informative)

spazimodo (97579) | more than 8 years ago | (#14113849)

Ubuntu has WPA support - search in Synaptic for WPA_supplicant. (You may need to enable Universe/Multiverse)

This post brought to you on a Dell D600 running Ubuntu Breezy Badger using WPA.

I'm not down with the Ubuntu terms... (1)

taxman_10m (41083) | more than 8 years ago | (#14113870)

When you say Universe/Multiverse that means what exactly? Something on the install CDs but not on the Live CDs? Or something that is downloaded?

I can't download when I don't have my wireless working. Why isn't WPA_supplicant included by default at the beginning? It's a 50k file! Couldn't cram it onto the CD?

Re:I'm not down with the Ubuntu terms... (2, Informative)

jcupitt65 (68879) | more than 8 years ago | (#14114105)

Yes, something you download.

In Synaptic, click Settings / Repositories, click Add, tick the Universe box, click OK. Now search for WPA again and you should see the package. Except if you don't have a working network connection :-(

You'll also notice more packages available: my Synaptic has 17,000+ of them, heh.

Re:I'm not down with the Ubuntu terms... (1)

Dan_Bercell (826965) | more than 8 years ago | (#14114128)

Its not support if its from the Universe/Multiverse, thus not in the default install. You are countering your own complaint.

You ask why one distro can do a Live DVD but not a Live CD, then you ask why they cant have a feature YOU want by default... Well they have to make cuts to make a distro small enough for a CD.

Personally I like Ubuntu because most of the crap isnt on the OS CDs. I still dont understand why other distros require so many CDs for the installation (ie, RedHat.. at least the old versions required like 2-3 CDs.. thats insane.)

but it's a basic networking component (1)

taxman_10m (41083) | more than 8 years ago | (#14114152)

Doesn't it make sense it should be included?

"Sorry, the default install only supports UDP. To get TCP/IP working you need to download TCPIP_suplicant."


Re:but it's a basic networking component (1)

Dan_Bercell (826965) | more than 8 years ago | (#14114173)

No it doesnt because its NOT STABLE! Look it up, if you have to change the settings / servers for 'GET' then its not stable or supported (probably not supported for stability reasons) by UBuntu.

so the better alternative is to (2, Insightful)

taxman_10m (41083) | more than 8 years ago | (#14114199)

Give the user a complete non-working system?

At the point where the STABLE system does not detect the networking correctly or cannot configure the user should right then and there be able to grab the UNSTABLE stuff which in all likelihood will get their networking to work, albeit unstably.

Re:so the better alternative is to (1)

Dan_Bercell (826965) | more than 8 years ago | (#14114226)

Not detect the networking correctly?, WTF you talking about? I am talking about WPA, what are you talking about? WPA is an 'optional' security setting for wireless, MANY cards on Windows XP dont work with WPA.

SO your argument is that if Ubuntu cannot stabilize any feature it shouldnt ship? Our it shouldnt ship if it doesnt support everything you require?

I know now why Linux freaks think us Windows lovers are idiots

I'm not a windows lover (2, Insightful)

taxman_10m (41083) | more than 8 years ago | (#14114289)

I keep trying to install linux because I've used it in the past and like it. At this point it's like battered wife syndrome.

You think wireless security is optional and call me an idiot?

I think getting networking working is fundamental. And if that means giving the user the option of using an unstable piece of software then that is what must be done.

Re:better wireless hopefully... and install... (1)

Dan_Bercell (826965) | more than 8 years ago | (#14114107)

Who is gonna take advise from a Dell user?

Re:better wireless hopefully... and install... (1)

chrisgeleven (514645) | more than 8 years ago | (#14113896)

Amen to that. Linux wireless is beyond pathetic.

A few weeks ago I tried out Linux, downloading a couple of distros (Ubuntu and SUSE) that were recommended to me.

I was plesantly surprised that these distros detected the hardware on my Toshiba laptop as well as it did.

Except for the wireless card (a Linkyss WPC54G), since I wasn't about to run a cat5 cable across the apartment for an laptop.

So I rebooted into Windows, saved to a flash drive all the instructions and files I supposedly needed to get wireless working, and rebooted back into Linux.

I managed after 3 hours to get Linux to detect the wireless card and get ndis_wrapper to work.

Then came the work to get WPA working. I downloaded the wpa_supplement. No luck getting it to connect to the wireless router for 3 more hours. I wasn't about to use the broken WEP encryption either.

Then there is the fact that is beyond pathetic how you choose to connect to wireless networks. From what I could gather, I had to type a bunch of commands in order to connect to a single network. How the hell am I supposed to do this for the many wireless networks I connect to at clients?

In the end, I determined linux wireless is a joke. I understand needing to install a driver (that was actually the easy part). But how about an easy way to connect to wireless networks AND to connect using WPA?

That can't be too difficult.

Re:better wireless hopefully... and install... (1)

Jumpy (24568) | more than 8 years ago | (#14113963)

I'm finding no problems with my wireless macintosh G3 ibook running fedora core 4. (ppc version) But I understand it does suck when you have a piece of hardware that the installer and kudzu can't handle. Had that happen other times with certian desktop systems I've tried to put Red Hat on. And fedora didn't find the ibook's modem. But since I don't use the modem it wasn't a show stopper for me. Maybe by fedora 5 or 6 I'll be able to use the mac modem if I care to.

Re:better wireless hopefully... and install... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14113985)

"How the hell am I supposed to do this for the many wireless networks I connect to at clients?"

It's OK, the clients will have discovered that basically no-one can get WPA working right, and they'll allow you to use plain wireless, which works just fine. I've never been anywhere that had WPA without someone saying "Oh, you probably won't be able to get it to work" and either offering an alternative wireless network or a cat5 cable.

I have NetworkManager, currently in an up2date FC 4 system it works pretty well for any (non-WPA) kind of Wireless, I'm sure it will support WPA, on some hardware, when the wind blows correctly, at some point in the future, but I don't care for the same reason I don't care whether it supports ISDN (it does do dialup, and presumably ADSL). I can see a GUI list of wireless networks, pick one, and it will remember that as a "friendly" network and try to connect to it again without prompting in the future.

In my experience, if you've got NetworkManager on a laptop with working 802.11 drivers for Linux then you're no worse off at a new location than the average Windows or Mac user. Admittedly I haven't been to the US for many years, so perhaps there it's all WPA and everyone has the latest cards & drivers... but my guess is not.

most wireless security FAQ/checklists (1)

taxman_10m (41083) | more than 8 years ago | (#14114039)

go something like this...

1) Change the default SSID on your router.
2) Change the default password on your router.
3) Turn off SSID broadcasting.
4) Enable encryption.

And usually under step 4 in parens is (WEP encryption is insecure and susceptible to hacks/attacks/whatever. WPA is better. Use WPA).

I don't know why WPA is better than WEP. Maybe it isn't. But I'm just doing what the checklist says, because I don't want my connection to be compromised. That is why I want to use WPA rather than WEP.

Re:better wireless hopefully... and install... (2, Insightful)

ettlz (639203) | more than 8 years ago | (#14113899)

I think you're being a little unfair. You can't simply install FC4 and expect everything to just go like Windows does, because the latter operating system often has vendor support — so Linux does damn well to get as far as it does! Sure, some post-install work is required, but once it's set up it works like a charm. I have WPA EAP/TLS working quite happily with my IPW2200. OK, I had to download and build the drivers and wpa_supplicant, but is that much less hassle than the rigmarole of sorting it all out in Windows? Once NetworkManager is completed, with full WPA support, things will be much smoother. Until then, be patient — or get hacking.

I didn't expect it to do everything (1)

taxman_10m (41083) | more than 8 years ago | (#14113941)

I understand I need to grab the driver from the manufacturer. But that should essentially be it. Ndiswrapper should be good to go as well as WPA_supplicant. Why should I have to futz around with these things at all?

Shouldn't getting a network up be somewhat high on the list of things a linux system should do automagically at the very beginning? If you don't have the networking then a user is plain dead in the water so far as grabbing updates to get other things working.

Re:I didn't expect it to do everything (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14114177)

I can relate to your frustration in not being able to grab a driver and have things automagically work. That'd be nice, but honestly, you're pretty lucky if that's all you need to do. Imagine discovering support for your network card hasn't even been written yet. In my case, there was a "Linux" driver on the accompanying CD, which didn't work, and wasn't even for the right hardware. Not even close. Neither ASUS (mobo) nor 3COM (NIC) nor ATI (chipset) had anything on their websites that worked.

Sometimes, you need to roll up your sleeves and figure it out, or wait patiently for someone else to do the same. Driver support is generally a kernel issue, not a distro issue, anyway. Once support has been added to the kernel, you'll need to wait for Fedora to release a new version (with a newer kernel) if you want the automagical effect. Or download the new kernel source/patch yourself.

Re:better wireless hopefully... and install... (1)

pyros (61399) | more than 8 years ago | (#14114072)

Once NetworkManager is completed, with full WPA support, things will be much smoother.

Does NetworkManager still do caching DNS (either builtin or using nscd)? Last time I tried using NetworkManager DNS was too slow. I like the interface it provides for configuring wireless, but I just couldn't handle the slow DNS.

...better users hopefully..that read the FAQs... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14113970)

Not that I can't understand your ignorance, but Fedora 4 is a DEVELOPMENT release of their product. If you want to make emprirical observations, realize 4 is only a different number than 3. Fedora 3 was (emprirically) a much more stable release than 4; but it was still a development release, as are all the Fedora Core versions.

I doubt your expectations were because you read what was released vs. your expectations that 4 is 'better' than 3.

that's just a sad excuse and you know it (1)

taxman_10m (41083) | more than 8 years ago | (#14114008)

I disagree strongly with the way "development" is bandied about as if this were some alpha version 0.3. Yes, it is a development version, but it does not infer what you want it to, which is "hey stupid user, can't blame us it don't work." As a development version I would have an even greater expectation of it working since it should include more recent versions of the software needed to get wireless working. But you want me to use the stable whatever last version of Red Hat/Fedora came out. 9.something was it from 1999? Yeh, I'm sure using that will get my wireless working. Stupid me for using a "development" version.

Re:that's just a sad excuse and you know it (1)

thaig (415462) | more than 8 years ago | (#14114231)

Lots of people feel angry about failing to make a free product work but that's the way it is. Your kind of complaints have been made about every part of RedHat and then Fedora. First the installer, then the desktop then the applications . . . . they get fixed and people move on to complain bitterly about something else.

Of course . . they would never put any effort in themselves . . .no . . . someone in the Fedora community must do it for free.

I'm not a programmer (1)

taxman_10m (41083) | more than 8 years ago | (#14114260)

I downloaded what I needed to download. Futzed with config files for a lot longer than I should have. My goal was actually to get it working and write it up because the current documentation is so poor. But it's so poor that I can't get it working and can't document how to get it working.

And read up a few threads. This totally validates my point. What is it STABLE and usable? Or unstable and unusable? People are trying to have it both ways.

A common myth regarding Fedora. From [] []

MYTH - Fedora is unstable and unreliable, just a testbed for bleeding-edge software

FACT - This misconception comes from two things:

From [] []: "It is also a proving ground for new technology that may eventually make its way into Red Hat products."

Fedora has rapid releases, a short life-cycle, and a lot of new code.

Re:better wireless hopefully... and install... (1)

xtracto (837672) | more than 8 years ago | (#14114061)

Why dont you try Mandriva 2006?

I tried to install FC-4 on my laptop USB HD without success, first tried booting from CD, but FC would not recognize the USB disk.

Then installed using VMWare (which only made FC see my USB disk as a normal HD) using a persistent native disk config. After that tried to boot from the USB disk and it was almost done until I got a FC kernel panic because it didnt find the USB disk (WTF i had just booted from there lol).

Anyway, I got Mandriva 2006 and installed flawlesly from the DVD into the USB2 disk. And it even recognized all my ati based chipset hardware (sound, 3d ati card, etc).

Fedora FTP Installs - Think about this? (2)

RotateLeftByte (797477) | more than 8 years ago | (#14114256)

There is a very good reason for having to tell the installer where you want to download the files from. In an organisation with several systems, you would be better of copying the RPMS directories from the CD/DVD's to a FTP/NFS/HTTP server on your own network. Point the installer at that resource and you can install the whole lot a great deal faster than over the internet.

Here is what I do.
1) install say FC4 on a server box. Select EVERYTHING.
2) then setup a cron job to do a daily "yum update". Add some logic in the script to detect if there has been a kernel update and reboot if required.
3) Copy the CD/DVD stuff into an FTP/NFS/HTTP accessible place. I prefer NFS as I can then use the X version of anaconda.
4) Setup another cron job to run on a daily basis to package the rpms downloaded to the master system into your very own yum repository.

Then on the other systems, point the installer at the master server and bingo, it all loads quickly. Once your system is booted, point yum at your own repository and update. No traffic over the internet etc etc and its much faster.
This is "REAL WORLD LINUX SYSADMIN". As Fedora is a test bed for RHEL than the majority of users who run FEDORA will appreciate this sort of approach.
The one great thing about Linux is that there is a Linux Distro that will fit the way you want to work. Be it SUSE, Deviant (sorry Debian), Gentoo or DSL.
Finally, 99.99999% of people who do a FTP install of Fedora couldn't care less about the way dumb ass things like computer games work with network master server lists. Again, this is REAL WORLD LINUX Sysadmin. "Welcome To The Machine!"

redhat sucks (-1, Troll)

LOLDONGS (926831) | more than 8 years ago | (#14113817)

Seriously, why are people still using this bullshit? Also, about this "Linux Revolution" movement everyone's trying to do. Fucking stop it. I'm tired of seeing Linux machines compromised just like a Windows machine because a Windoze user switched over to Linux to hop on the "open sores" aka open-source bandwagon. That Windoze user hasn't matured in the way they manage a system. That Linux box will be patches behind, have insecure passwords, and will be on the outside of most DMZ because the Linux operating system is speculated on tech blogs like this as being "secure out of the box". I would never put a Windows or Linux box on the DMZ. The only box on my DMZ is an OpenBSD 3.7 box. I am very serious when I say this. The terrorists love it when we run Linux, because they can code a mass-rooter to take out Fedora boxes, install PsyBNC/EnergyMech IRC bot, then use the box to DDoS.

Timely? (1)

Moggie68 (614870) | more than 8 years ago | (#14113831)

At first glance I thought to myself "wow, for once software is being tested sufficiently long and not just during the last two crunch weeks"... But what is a long testing period for an entire distribution? And what do /.ters think the right testing period is?

Re:Timely? (1)

LnxAddct (679316) | more than 8 years ago | (#14114227)

Well Fedora is already pretty stable, but figure they've been developing code for this release now for 6 months. They are spending 3 months on testing and stability requirements. That is a damn good ratio for any piece of software and is plenty of time to do regression checks too.

Congrats Fedora Core Team! (5, Interesting)

shane2uunet (705294) | more than 8 years ago | (#14113863)

Why do a lot of the postings to articles boil down to

"that is crap use this"

Don't these people realize that no solutions fits every situation? It blows the mind.

Anyway, I love Fedora Core. I use it on my desktop at work, Running FC 4 right now. Stable as can be, gives me the tools I need. See, I'm a system administrator. I have about 7 RHEL systems under my administration that I personally over see. Fedora Core allows me to see what will soon be included in RHEL and get familiar with it.

Why Redhat? If you have to ask, you don't know linux or open source. They contribute millions of dollars to opensource and to linux development. Sure they're making a buck off support and I'm glad to pay it, in return I get a rock solid OS that is guarenteed to be there in 7 years. Oh, and Redhat seems to be doing pretty good finacially too, as seen on Slashdot here recently. 1732235&tid=110&tid=187&tid=106 []

I just don't understand why they are upbraided for that. They're just trying to make a living at linux, same as me. I mean, if you don't want to pay, RH has even allowed (by the GPL) others to make almost identical OS (CentOS), only thing missing is the shadowman.

I can't wait for FC5 to go live, I'll be upgrading.

FC5 due end of Feb, not 2nd half of 2006 (1)

saikatguha266 (688325) | more than 8 years ago | (#14113878)

The article and the summary have a typo: "The next version of Raleigh, North Carolina-based Red Hat's enterprise Linux distribution is not scheduled for release until the second half of 2006" (emphasis mine)

According to the FC release schedule [] :

27 February 2006: Fedora Core 5 Release open, announced

The original article likely meant second month instead.

But RHEL *is* due second half 2006 (1)

Snorpus (566772) | more than 8 years ago | (#14113906)

I think the article is referring to RH Enterprise Linux as being expected in the second half of 2006, not Fedora Core.

Re:FC5 due end of Feb, not 2nd half of 2006 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14113926)

Red Hat's enterprise Linux distribution is not scheduled for release until the second half of 2006

They're talking about RHEL5, not FC5.

FC5 is not RHEL 5 (1)

Anonycat (905015) | more than 8 years ago | (#14113929)

"Second half" refers to the release date of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. That's a different product from Fedora Core. That part of the article is saying "there's a feature that will be available in RHEL 5 late next year, but FC5 will let you see it sooner!"

Any chance of an English translation of this?? (2, Informative)

Tim Ward (514198) | more than 8 years ago | (#14113889)

I know this site is for technically literate people, but really!!

"improved management capabilities" I can cope with, but "stateless Linux and Xen virtualization functionality" and "open source server virtualization software" are worthy of the worst type of social science academic paper or local government policy document!

Re:Any chance of an English translation of this?? (2, Informative)

metalhed77 (250273) | more than 8 years ago | (#14113980)

why not just look it up on say, google?

here I'll even link you, [] .

If you're technically literate enough to read slashdot you should know that google is your friend. I promise you that the first documents for search terms 'xen virtualization' and 'stateless linux' are very useful.

Re:Any chance of an English translation of this?? (2, Insightful)

MSG (12810) | more than 8 years ago | (#14113992)

Calm down, dude. Stateless Linux [] and Xen [] are the actual names of projects included in Fedora Core. They are not buzzwords or marketspeak. "Open source server virtualization [] software" was slightly redundant, but it is also a plain English description of Xen, which is exactly what you're asking for.

Re:Any chance of an English translation of this?? (3, Funny)

gowen (141411) | more than 8 years ago | (#14114003)

I was browsing a baseball site the other day and they kept using terms like "suicide squeeze" and "relief pitcher". Bastards.

Clue : If you're reading a tech news site with a leaning to Linux, it'll probably help to have some idea of the latest major developments in technology, as they relate to Linux. If you don't know what Xen is, or what a virtual server is, it's not as if it's hard to find out []

Re:Any chance of an English translation of this?? (1)

Tim Ward (514198) | more than 8 years ago | (#14114044)

Clue : If you're reading a tech news site with a leaning to Linux, it'll probably help to have some idea of the latest major developments in technology, as they relate to Linux.

Oh, well, if the site is only intended to preach to the converted then that's fair enough of course. I was somehow under the mistaken impression that, as someone who is paid to work on Windows more often than I am paid to work on Linux, the site could be useful for me to keep up to date with "the latest major developments in technology", rather than a pre-existing knowledge of "the latest major developments in technology" being essential before attempting to understand the site.

Never mind, we can all make mistakes.

Will OpenOffice be faster? (1)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 8 years ago | (#14113939)

One of the problems highlighted with is its faster load time. I wonder whether RedHat will do the needful and preload most of the libraries needed at boot time in order to reduce the beast's load time. My hope is that they have not spoiled KDE with the Bluecurve theme.

Re:Will OpenOffice be faster? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 8 years ago | (#14114096)

I know Novell have at least one guy working on improving OO.o load times. Sun are still responsible for most of the OO.o development, with Novell a distant second. I don't know if RedHat has anyone working on it at all.

Re:Will OpenOffice be faster? (1)

MPolo (129811) | more than 8 years ago | (#14114235)

You can hide the load time by running /usr/lib/openoffice.org2.0/program/soffice -nodefault -nologo. I have a perlscript running that restarts this after exiting OOo. This cuts the subsequent load time to almost nothing.

Re:Will OpenOffice be faster? (1)

LnxAddct (679316) | more than 8 years ago | (#14114248)

One thing that also really slows down OpenOffice.Org is loading java. Red Hat has developed GCJ (Gnu Compiler for Java) over the past few years (2 years I think) and now natively compiles Eclipse and OpenOffice.Org so that no JVM is needed to be loaded. OpenOffice opens pretty well under Fedora.

Final Version? (2, Informative)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 8 years ago | (#14113983)

and the final version of the application suite.

Did I miss some news? Have they actually stopped development of Open Office?

Too Little, Too Late (-1, Troll)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 8 years ago | (#14114315)

I started my Linux Forays with Fedora Core 2. Since then it has given me not a small portion of grief. Yum in paticular is a huge letdown. It is SLOW. Some kind of ipv6 trouble combined with regular operating procedure means even a search will take ~5 minutes on my 3GHz machine. I've since witnessed others like apt and portage and I have to say yum is not a great package.

Even moving to apt isn't helpful because the Fedora packages are quite simply broken. I'm not even talking about the whole DVD/mp3 issue. Most apps requiring GTK2 won't install as Fedora has labeled it as gtk+. Great decision there guys. I've long since abandoned yum and have basically started compiling almost everything. As a result, I'm trying to move to Gentoo.

The complete lack of GUI admin tools was also a serious letdown. I do NOT want to mess around with config files, and in this day and age no one should really have to. On the upside, I've probably learned near as much as someone using Slackware.

I think Fedora will work of medium to large enterprises, as a static business OS. I've seen it working quite well on a network with a RHEL server, being administered by a qualified admin. I think this is really where Fedora is going. Essentially the free client OS on Red Hat networks, and to be fair, it will be well suited to this role. On top of that it is a big incentive for companies to go Red Hat if their client licences are free.

However, for the home Linux user, Fedora is not the way to go. Personally I don't think it is designed with the home hacker in mind. You'll get away with it, but you're simply asking the system for something it was never built to achieve.

Gentoo looks nice because of the portage system and I'm prepared to pay the cost in compile times. i'm already compiling most of my apps anyway. I would have picked debian after I saw a 3 floppy bootstrap system in action, but the glacial pace of the stable branch scared me away. Ubuntu? I'm still not sure about it, being Debian based, and I've had problems with one commerically sponsored distro already. I think I've gained, or survied, enough expierience in Fedora to manage Gentoo.... maybe.

So it's adieu Fedora. Hello Gentoo. We had some good time, it must be said. It's not you... well it is. But you see, we we never really meant to be mon amie!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?