×

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!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

327 comments

bug sorted? (5, Informative)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957417)

It appears as though FC5 contains a bug which prevents none GPL modules (read nVidia) from being used.
Has this been fixed in this one yet, or is it worth waiting a few more days for the fix to be rolled out?

(It was identified too late to be pushed to the mirrors)

Info about it is here [lwn.net].

Re:bug sorted? (-1, Troll)

Conor Turton (639827) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957527)

It appears as though FC5 contains a bug which prevents none GPL modules (read nVidia) from being used.

Nothing like proper bug testing to find all the obvious faults eh? After all, it's not as if nVidia cards are a fringe make is it? Fedora is a stinking pile of putrid puss now and gets worse with every release.

Re:bug sorted? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14957551)

nvidia binary drivers are against linux core philosophy. This isn't a bug, it's a feature.

Re:bug sorted? (4, Insightful)

typical (886006) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957675)

Actually, this *is* a bug. It was not intentional on the part of the Fedora folks.

Of course, I don't *like* binary drivers very much, but ATI and NVidia have agreed to stick with 'em if you want 3d support on their modern cards. I have a Radeon 9250 (with the 128-bit datapath), which is about as peppy a card as you can get and still have open source drivers.

If the Open Graphics Project [duskglow.com] ever releases any hardware, unless it's $400 or something like that, I'll buy it -- it'll be fully open source.

If one vendor would release even a half-decent card and support it fully with open-source drivers, I'd buy it in a moment (binary microcode is okay, but I want everything running host-side to be OSS).

I know that few people feel this way, and most gamers are happy just using binary drivers and the current NVidia or ATI cards, but there are a group of people who feel the same way I do.

Re:bug sorted? (1)

Maffy (806058) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957812)

This is very OT...

Presumably you're using the open-source drivers developed at r300.sf.net (although now merged into X.org, I think)?

I've been considering switching to a Radeon card and using these drivers. It would be great to know how well you found them to work. In particular, how stable are they and how does their performance compare to the official drivers?

Thanks,

Matt

Re:bug sorted? (3, Informative)

skogs (628589) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957673)

I believe you will find that the kernel that is autocompiled beforehand will not accept the binary drivers...just like any other non-custom-built kernel that leaves out that option.

Rebuild your kernel per directions found on several sites, install the drivers per nvidia's instructions...

game. xgl. whatever.

Re:bug sorted? (1, Informative)

gr8_phk (621180) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957755)

"I believe you will find that the kernel that is autocompiled beforehand will not accept the binary drivers...just like any other non-custom-built kernel that leaves out that option."

You make it sound like it's supposed to be that way. IT'S NOT. FC3 and 4 both worked fine. You make it sound like Fedora decided to change policy on their default kernels. They didn't, that's why they've stated that an update will correct the problem. This is a bug introduced right before they created the images (commence conspiracy theories).

Someone F***ed up, didn't test properly, and isn't owning up to it.

Re:bug sorted? (1)

skogs (628589) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957914)

bug...not really a bug. Just a two keystroke mistake. It isn't a bug in any program or anything. My appologies for not being so up on fedora's policies...its a simple reconfiguration. One that I wish more distros would auto-compile into the kernel, but sadly many don't.

Poor testing (4, Interesting)

gr8_phk (621180) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957691)

Never mind that they don't test with proprietary drivers. They applied a patch that affected the functionality of tainted kernels - normal development practice would natrually require *that patch* be tested with a tainted kernel regardless. Throwing a patch over and saying it's OK because the automated testing didn't find a problem is like saying "it compiled - ship it".

So if I wait for 2.6.16 kernel on FC5 is that going to break with nVidia too? I saw a comment in the 2.6.16 story saying that doesn't work either (may have been distro specific).

Damn people, I understood the 4K stacks thing - make a good decision for good reason and let nVidia catch up. This utter disrespect for drivers used by a large number of people is really unacceptable. Actually, when a disto fails to test with drivers used by a large portion of their userbase, it is the user who feels the disrespect. Please don't make excuses - that's disrespectful too. Just get FC6 right.

That said, I'm downloading FC5 now ;-)

No tag (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14957424)

[+] (tagging beta)
Hmm..no tag...does that mean it's worthless?

Flash is Evil! Evil, I say! (4, Funny)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957426)

Linclips also has a short screencast on some of the default functionality.

That screencast is in Flash, and we all know that Flash is evil.

Thus, Fedora must be evil by extension.

Fedora is the development branch for RedHat. If Fedora is evil, RedHat must also be evil.

Microsoft is well known for being evil.

We all know that RedHat is a competitor to Microsoft.

Ergo, RedHat is the next Microsoft.

QED

(Yes, this is a joke. Laugh.)

Re:Flash is Evil! Evil, I say! (1)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957573)

-1 Troll? Drats, I thought it was funny. Ah well.

FWIW, the new Fedora version does look nice. Each version of GTK & Fedora really help smooth out the looks. However, am I the only one who thinks that the latest bluecurve is starting to look a lot like the alloy look and feel [incors.com]?

It's too bad that RedHat got out of the Desktop business at just the point where they started to become a strong competitor. Fedora has really been feeling a lot more solid than their jury-rigging of the past. Add in features like Multimedia playback for a RedHat branded Desktop, and you'd end up with a pretty decent home machine.

Re:Flash is Evil! Evil, I say! (0)

cozzano (666947) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957607)

(Yes, this is a joke. Laugh.)

If it was funny I might.

Re:Flash is Evil! Evil, I say! (1)

eno2001 (527078) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957836)

You obviously have absolutely no sense of humor. Hmm... I wonder if you thought Friends was funny. If so, then you definitely have no sense of humor at all. At least not one worth speaking of.

Screenshots? (5, Funny)

Orestesx (629343) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957428)

I don't believe there is any power way to evaluate a linux distro than screenshots, except for maybe it's logo.

Re:Screenshots? (1, Funny)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957479)

the name has to sound cool, uncool names are out. Like Gentoo and Slackware: pfft, gay! Ubuntu and SuSE, those just radiate coolness. Though I also agree with logos, if the packaged set includes stickers.

Re:Screenshots? (1)

tehshen (794722) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957819)

OSDir to the rescue [osdir.com]

I don't like how it looks, but I'll probably get used to it. Having used FC3 and 4, the new 'f' logo looks pretty... weird. The theme is also a lot shinier than Bluecurve. Why are all desktop environments slowly tending to shiny?

Re:Screenshots? (3, Funny)

Morrigu (29432) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957916)

Version numbers. Don't forget the version numbers.

If it's not high enough, then it's not even worth booting.

Careful... (1)

include($dysmas) (729935) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957440)

any avid Fedora fans be warned, in a few hours there might be a story saying it was all a mis-understanding, induced by fermenting slurm or something

MP3's? (1)

d2_m_viant (811261) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957452)

Its been a few years since I used FC...but have they fixed the runaround that they put you through just to play MP3's?

Re:MP3's? (5, Informative)

Nighttime (231023) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957496)

Short answer is no.

From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ForbiddenItems [fedoraproject.org]

MP3 encoding/decoding support is not included in any Fedora application because MP3 is heavily patented in several regions including the United States. The patent holder is unwilling to give an unrestricted patent grant, as required by the GPL. Other platforms might have paid the royalty and/or included proprietary software. Other Linux distributions not based in a region affected by the patent might ship MP3 decoders/encoders or they might have included proprietary software. However, Fedora Core cannot and does not ship MP3 decoders/encoders in order to serve the goal of shipping only free and open source software that is not restricted by software patents.

Fedora Suggests: If possible, use patent unrestricted formats such as Ogg Vorbis (a lossy audio codec that has better quality than MP3), or FLAC (a lossless audio codec).

Re:MP3's? (1)

Zerathdune (912589) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957952)

I'd like to go for ogg/flac, but unfortunately, my mp3 player doesn't support them. They'd be fine for my computer, but I wouldn't be able to listen to them on the go. the day I find a high quality mp3 player that supports them, I will drop mp3's without a second thought. unfortunately, for the moment I can't seem to find a good solution.

Re:MP3's? (1)

jb.hl.com (782137) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957968)

I asked this question in another thread, and didn't get an answer. Has anyone ever been sued for building RPMs or DEBs of MP3 codecs, MP3 encoders, Mplayer etc? Ever?

Re:MP3's? (1)

Azarael (896715) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957748)

It's not that hard if you just want a player. Just recompile the latest xmms source or install the rpm. I guess if you want mp3 support in other apps, then that would be a big pain.

Re:MP3's? (1)

Alioth (221270) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957764)

No - they can't, or they would be liable to pay royalties to Fraunhofer for the MP3 patent, which isn't tenable for a Free free distro.

The long answer is if you want to use FC5 and play MP3 files, then it takes approximately 10 seconds to add the Livna yum repository and type 'yum install xine' (or the media player of your choice).

Re:MP3's? (1)

Almost-Retired (637760) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957931)

No, and it won't ever be fixed until the patents on mp3 expire. So you might as well get used to it, its not gonna change in the near future.

--
Cheers, Gene

[off topic] GPL v3 and Linux distribs (1)

sreekotay (955693) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957458)

Hunh - off topic, but makes me wonder. If Linux kernel doesn't adopt GPL 3, will any of the major vendors? *Can* they?

I think ideology and capitalism are about to meet again - mainly because of the server loopholes [kotay.com]
--
graphicallyspeaking [kotay.com]

Re:[off topic] GPL v3 and Linux distribs (1)

/ASCII (86998) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957567)

Distributions don't change the license of the programs they contain. So if the kernel remains GPL2, then the kernel shipped with Fedora will also be GPL2. Basically all Linux distributions ship with programs using a whole bunch of different licenses. The parts of a distribution that are mostly distribution specific can use any license. I seem to remember that Yast, the Suse setup tool used to be closed source.

Yowza (2, Interesting)

MAXOMENOS (9802) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957463)

We're up to *five* CD-ROMs now?

Re:Yowza (1)

ziggamon2.0 (796017) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957520)

Yeah...

Or *one* DVD.

Your choice. IIRC you can get by with only the first couple of discs for a standard GNOME install.

Good to know (1)

MAXOMENOS (9802) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957665)

Of course, I want my KDE.

To the tune of a Dire Straits song... (4, Funny)

jd (1658) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957977)

I want my.... I want my KDE....

I want my.... I want my KDE....

I want my.... I want my KDE....


Now look at them desktops, that's the way to do it

You get your DCOP from your KDE

That ain't working, that's the way to code it

Widgets for nothing and your glyphs for free.


Bow that ain't working, that's the way to code it

Lemme tell ya, them guys ain't dumb

Maybe get a glitch in your brand-new icon

Maybe get a glitchy core-dump.


We gotta install ISO 9000

Custom language packs

We gotta move those partition boundries

We gotta move that Berlin GUI

Re:Yowza (1)

toleraen (831634) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957894)

I don't recall which version it was, but I seem to remember installing off 5 disks several years ago. Maybe Redhat 7 or 8? The last two disks in the past have just been the source code for everything. You'll likely only need the first three disks.

Upgrading (2, Interesting)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957486)

I new to Linux and am still running Fedora Core 3. Am I right in thinking that to upgrade to FC5 I have to basically backup anything I want to keep and reinstall everything? Is there no easier way of upgrading?

Re:Upgrading (5, Informative)

/ASCII (86998) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957514)

No, all you need to do is get the CDs or DVD and boot from them - you will be presented with the alternatives of overwriting the current install or upgrading it to FC5. It is a very good idea to backup your data just to be sure, but I've never had any problems going from one RedHat/Fedora version to a newer one.

Re:Upgrading (2, Informative)

MAXOMENOS (9802) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957539)

It depends. I feel a little better about upgrading my system because I keep all my important data -- photos, tax records, etc -- in its own separate ext3 partition that mounts to /home.

If you've done that very basic and important step, then you can upgrade -- or even install a new system from scratch -- without fear. (There may, however, be a few hours of tweaking involved, to install printers and the like.)

The same works for Windows, too, btw -- and can save you from losing all your data when XP destroys itself and you need to recover your system.

Re:Upgrading (0)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957541)

Who the hell modded that as funny?! I was asking a serious question!

Stop laughing at me :(

Re:Upgrading (-1, Offtopic)

/ASCII (86998) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957605)

A lot of the time, the moderatation on Slashdot make you scratch your head and ask yourself what universe the moderator is from. You'll get used to it.

Re:Upgrading (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14957542)

there is a way to do it without reinstalling. but it's sometimes not easy, it depends. upgrading from redhat9 to fc4 was kind of hard. just use google to search it, guess it's explained on the redhat pages somewhere...

Re:Upgrading (1)

LizardKing (5245) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957555)

Err, I haven't used RedHat since FC3, but upgrading is normally accomplished by selecting the upgrade option when the installer finds an existing installation. That said, backups before major upgrades are *always* a good idea.

Re:Upgrading (1)

ElleyKitten (715519) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957565)

You should backup everything you want to keep everytime you do something major to your computer (such as upgrading your OS). Actually, you should backup your stuff on a regular basis anyways.

I'm not 100% sure about Fedora, but I know other distros support upgrading while keeping all your programs and settings, so I'm pretty sure Fedora does too. The backup is just a recommendation in case something goes wrong.

Re:Upgrading (1)

typical (886006) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957591)

There are three things you can do:

First, Fedora has an "upgrade" (as opposed to "install") option in the installer that lets you upgrade from the previous version. Download the CD images for FC4, burn 'em, boot off the CD, choose "upgrade", and then do the same for FC5. That's the "supported" path.

Second, it may be possible to just stuff the FC5 CDs in and upgrade directly from FC3 to FC5. Dunno.

Third (and this is probably not the best choice if you're new to Fedora), you can usually upgrade via yum. Download the fedora-release RPM package from FC5, and then run "yum update" and with some tweaking (apt is really better than yum at this kind of whole-system update, since it will actually uninstall things), you can generally update a system on-line. This is really best for people who are hobbyists, like me, and aren't worried about a server going down and can handle fixing any breakage. Red Hat doesn't support this approach, and while I've done this for a long time, there have been some nasty interactions -- on one version I remember, RH didn't include a dependency on fsck, and the new kernel required a new modutils that was incompatible both with the old kernel and the old modutils. Doing this meant that you'd get a new kernel with a new modutils, but one that couldn't boot without the new fsck. You do tend to learn a lot about your system doing this. :-)

Re:Upgrading (1)

Jarlsberg (643324) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957608)

Backup, install, and spend the next fortnight tweaking your system back into shape. There is no other way. ;/
(I've got FC4, and I'm *not* upgrading)

Of course, if you've got all your documents etc. on a separate partition, you shouldn't run into really bad problems when installing FC5. Be sure to backup config files etc. that you may have put on the system partition.

Re:Upgrading -- config files (1)

softcoder (252233) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957720)

Quote: "Be sure to backup config files etc. that you may have put on the system partition."
Aye there's the rub. Even if you have all of YOUR stuff in your home directory (on a separate partition), how about all the config stuff? As a newbie, how would you even know what config stuff there was? If you upgrade, and the upgrade installs a new version of shorewall say, will the upgraded shorewall be able to use your existing config? How about hosts.allow and hosts.deny - are ehy preserved? how about your xinetd tweaks?
Not to mention any third party installs you have done that are not distro related, like say an MP3 player, or OpenOffice (say you have 2.0 and the distro ships with 1.x?) What about your custom KDE/Gnome menues?

The FC people don't seem to provide any guidance on any of the above. Not that I've found anyway.
I avoid upgrades like a trip to the dentist; I only do it if I absolutely have to.

Re:Upgrading (2, Informative)

curmudgeous (710771) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957642)

I've built many linux machines over the years (with several different distros) and I've learned through experience that best practice is to keep system files and user data on separate volumes. Either create a dedicated partition for /home or use another physical drive entirely. I've had too many upgrades go bad and didn't have the time or patience to poke around to find the cause, so the quickest and best solution was to format and start over. Just my 2 cents.

Re:Upgrading (1)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957683)

Some people report no problems with upgrading, others report many problems.

Fedora and Redhat have never been intended to be forever upgraded like Debian or Ubuntu have, so it's always a little risky. If you're talking about a production level machine that's doing critical work you rely on every day, I wouldn't trust an upgrade at all. If it's just your desktop where you store some MP3s or whatever, it's not a big deal to try the upgrade.

   

Re:Upgrading (0, Flamebait)

endrue (927487) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957684)

Its easy!

apt-get dist-upgrade

Oh wait...

- Andrew

Re:Upgrading (2, Informative)

moranar (632206) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957975)

Yes, you made a few typos. The command is actually:

yum update

Don't worry, it happens to the best of us :P

Good for Older laptop? (2, Interesting)

SaidiaDude (155962) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957495)

Would this distro work for an old laptop - UMAX 233MHz 256MB 3GB? I have one lying around and was thinking about creating a wireless terminal to check email and possibly display pictures. A basic Core 4 installed fine but the UI wasnt very responsive sometimes. Thx for your help.

Re:Good for Older laptop? (2, Informative)

LizardKing (5245) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957598)

NetBSD may be a better choice for older hardware, as it consumes less resources than recent versions of Linux. Note that this is not an anit-Linux troll, much of that extra resource hungriness seems to come from the added functionality rather than superfluous bloat - and despite my personal preference for NetBSD, I'm considering putting FC5 onto my PowerBook, as there appears to be support for Java on PowerPC Linux.

Re:Good for Older laptop? (1)

/ASCII (86998) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957632)

You can probably compile GCC4 and Classpath yourself to get the same Java support FC5 has for NetBSD. On the other hand, you can use DSL or some other lightweight Linux distribution that runs like a champ on a Pentium 233 MHz.

Re:Good for Older laptop? (1)

SClitheroe (132403) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957615)

I'd be interested in the answer to this as well. I tried Ubuntu on an older Dell Latitude running at 233mhz, and although it was well supported, it was pretty slow (although everything on it seems slow, I guess)

-Scott

Re:Good for Older laptop? (1)

Mdalek (702460) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957633)

No, i would try a distro which is a bit less heavyweight, even with the Gnome 2.14 speed improvements it would still feel rather slow. I would recommend Debian with a simple Desktop Env, look into XFCE4 or fluxbox etc.

Re:Good for Older laptop? (1)

iwnbs (633321) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957672)

I wouldn't recommend it. I've got FC4 installed on a similar machine but with a P-III 650 and it's almost unusable. You might be able to get away with a smaller desktop environment (i.e. don't use KDE or Gnome), though. Fedora is built for hardware that was created in the last 5 years. That's my rule of thumb.

Re:Good for Older laptop? (1)

nath_de (535933) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957708)

Seeing that the main focus of the new Gnome included in FC5 was higher speed, it should be better than with FC4.
I'm running FC 4 on a P2 300 Notebook with 192MB RAM and will upgrade when the torrent is finished.

selinux (2, Informative)

typical (886006) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957504)

Someone on the target webpage asked how to disable SELinux. I don't really feel like making an account on that website, but you should edit /etc/sysconfig/selinux.

Re:selinux (1)

ihavenospine (541249) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957655)

At the installer prompt:

linux selinux=0

Re:selinux (1)

typical (886006) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957710)

Surely that only disables selinux for the kernel being used to execute the installer, and does not actually affect the installed copy?

Re:selinux (1)

typical (886006) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957754)

Although that does disable selinux earlier in the boot process, which, I guess, could be useful if somehow selinux was preventing you from booting.

You'd add "selinux=0" to the kernel arguments by (E)diting the boot option and then (E)diting the line starting with "kernel". That'd disable it for the current boot. To permanently disable it, you can edit /boot/grub/grub.conf and add "selinux=0" to the list of arguments after "kernel".

I ran into this mostly because I wanted to try out reiserfs v3 (and reiserfs does not support selinux).

FWIW, while I've seen the benchmarks that should mean that resiser is somewhat faster than ext3, I was kinda disappointed -- I didn't notice any speed benefit on my machine.

Re:selinux (1)

Azarael (896715) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957784)

I'm not sure if this is still the case, but SELinux and the nVidia graphics drivers do not seem to get along either. I had this problem in FC4.

Re:selinux (2, Informative)

LnxAddct (679316) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957885)

Or disable it in the installer by clicking "Disable SELinux" when prompted, you can't miss it. If you happen to miss it, just go to Desktop->System Settings->Security Level from gui and disable under the SELinux tab. New users don't like editing config files, Fedora will let you disable SELinux through the gui.
Regards,
Steve

Re:selinux (1)

typical (886006) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957938)

Fair enough.

I've been using RHL and Fedora for a long time, though, and never bothered to learn the GUI. The GUIs always change and shift around -- first there was the Tk control-panel back in the day, then system-config, then a sequence of other utilities. If you learn some of the GUI, you wind up having to relearn the thing down the road. The config files stay in the same place over the years.

Re:selinux (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14957915)

Very wise. SELinux: designed by fascists and control freaks and implemented by fools.

SELinux is probably the worst thing that Red Hat has ever done. It's ridiculously fragile, incomprehensible and a DRM dream (part of one, anyway.. tie SELinux to TCPA hardware to remove the possiblity of root altogether and it's practically the MPAA/RIAA's wet-dream operating system). Every update to the policy file breaks something. Red Hat even managed to render FC3 systems unbootable with a simple update to the policy file not too long ago.

Seriously... even SUSE decided they'd had a gutful of it and bought (and opened up) AppArmour. Google for it... it gives 99% of the benefits of SELinux without the pain and sinister input from the "Treacherous Computing" boys.

Spare me the bandwidth and tell me (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14957521)

Does Fedora still suck with this release?

screencast (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14957553)

"screencast" ...

Jesus..

Redhat Naming (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14957562)

I never understood why Redhat chose Fedora. 'Fedora' is the feminine for 'Fedor' which in Portugese means 'STINK'

Re:Redhat Naming (5, Informative)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957638)

I never understood why Redhat chose Fedora.

Fedora is a hat. You see the "Red Hat" logo? The type of hat the guy is wearing in the logo is called a Fedora [wikipedia.org]. Given that the hat is named after a Frech play, I don't think that anyone is really worried about what it means in Portugese.

Re:Redhat Naming (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14957950)

Typically on /. english is spoken. Can you define 'Frech'? Is that the Chinese pronunciation for 'fletch'? We all know what that means.....

Fedora Mirrors (4, Interesting)

Brian The Dog (879837) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957593)

Am I the only one that thinks it is awesome that playboy.com mirrors the distro? They should have 'customized' it. (Special backgrounds, prepopulated bookmarks, etc.)

what's included (1)

b17bmbr (608864) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957596)

silly question, but I'd like to know what kernel version, hardware support, etc. is included. perhaps a link would have been nice. but, i dumped fedora a while ago for ubuntu.

Zen (1)

skogs (628589) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957609)

This comes with the virtual machine support now I believe. I look forward to wiping my current win2k install and installing virtual machine.

I like the idea of being able to do some extensive testing on virtual machine setup, run win2k, run FC5, run gentoo, and probably ubuntu too. All at the same time.

Very slick.

I look forward to it.

Re:Zen (1)

/ASCII (86998) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957657)

If my memory serves me correctly, Xen needs either special virtualization support from the guest OS (meaning you can pretty much only run Linux as the guest OS) or special virtualization support from the CPU (On the way from both Intel and AMD, I belive), so you'll probably have to wait a bit before you can use Xen and Windows.

Re:Zen (1)

ColourlessGreenIdeas (711076) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957682)

I don't think Xen can currently run Windows.

Well, it can, but you need to re-compile the windows kernel with a special patch that Xen can't give you. Since you probably don't have the source to the Windows kernel, this is totally theoretical. This may change when CPUs have proper support for virtualisation (assuming you have a new CPU)

Xen can... (1)

LuckyStarr (12445) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957736)

Well, I did actually run Windows Server 2003 using Xen 3.0.1. This was only 2 weeks ago. The only prerequisite is a Intel processor with the Vanderpool virtualization technology. Access to the screen is done via VNC.

Oh, great, I've just upgraded to FC4 (1)

Russ Nelson (33911) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957622)

Oh, great, I've just upgraded from FC2 to FC4 ... and now there's an FC5?? Technology marches on....

Re:Oh, great, I've just upgraded to FC4 (1)

ziggamon2.0 (796017) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957771)

Yeah, but you should be thankful you don't have to compile it all like in gentoo! ;-)

Fedora is on a fast development cycle (3, Insightful)

winkydink (650484) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957803)

If you prefer something that looks like RH but evolves at a more stately pace, may I suggest CentOS [centos.org]. This is RHEL built from the the Open Sources.

Beagle (Dashboard) in Gnome (1)

SlashdotOgre (739181) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957690)

One of the main features I'm looking forward to in FC5 is the inclusion of Beagle (a personal information search tool written in Mono). I currently use Beagle in Gentoo, and I have been quite impressed. It doesn't seem to suck up my processor like most document indexers (unless I pass the variable BEAGLE_EXERCISE_THE_DOG=1), and it handles a lot of formats. I've tried getting Beagle to work in FC4, but always ran into issues (mainly had to do with mono). What I'm really hoping is now that Beagle is so easy to install (yum install beagle -- ought to work out of the box in FC5, no need to add repo's), it will expose it to more people and motivate development.

Probably the worst beginner's distribution (2, Informative)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957693)

I had a professor who loved Fedora and made his classes use it. In particular, he made us develop and deploy web apps onto a Fedora Core 4 system that each team built and wouldn't let anyone use Red Hat Enterprise, even though we had a department-wide site license that allowed that use. For most of the people there, it was their first experience with Linux and damn were people turned off to Linux by it.

1) It was slow.
2) It was a bitch to install... the installer kept freezing halfway through or dying on certain packages for certain teams.
3) The whole system would sometimes get unwieldy.

IMO, it is the worst beginner's distribution because of how little time there is between releases. It takes the cake from Mandrake. Knoppix, Ubuntu, SuSE, RHEL, these are good distributions to start with. Fedora is not. It's cobbled together compared to these distributions. Just look at how much time has been put into the changes in OpenSuSE by comparison, just to go from .0 to .1. Fedora doesn't even do point releases.

I know some consider it trolling and some love Fedora for various reasons, but I have seen it make people say that Windows kicked ass compared to Linux because the Fedora installer alone just crapped out on them so much that it wasted their time. If you want to introduce someone to Linux, use any other major distribution, even if you have to **buy** it from RedHat or SuSE. I used to be one of the "Linux guys," but the experience for many was so painful, and Linux got such a bad name among those with no prior experience, that out of embarrasment I had to remind people that I am first and foremost a Mac and BeOS guy, not a Linux fan. The Linux users really got undeserved egg on their faces based on how bad FC 4 was for most of the students, and what they were doing was not so hard that it should have been happening.

Re:Probably the worst beginner's distribution (2, Interesting)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957864)

FWIW, Red Hat has always liked to be on the Bleeding Edge of Linux, but in their own way. (e.g. If GNOME 2.x isn't ready to ship, make quick patches around the problems and ship it.) This tended to get them into a lot of trouble, because their OS would have all kinds of idiosynchrasies and inconsistencies that other distributions didn't exhibit.

RedHat decided to address the matter with the Fedora branch. Fedora is a perpetual beta of RedHat's enterprise product. By releasing this beta, RedHat is able to get real-world testing of their latest tech before they foist it upon paying customers.

As a result, Fedora tends to look very nice and has a lot of nice features that are hard to find elsewhere. (e.g. Its beautiful BlueCurve theme.) Unfortunately, it also means that you're testing beta software. Unless you are completely comfortable with that, you shouldn't use Fedora.

So you're right. Your professor was being a little kooky on this one. He was probably blinded by the "latest and greatest" mentality that tends to permeate the software industry.

Re:Probably the worst beginner's distribution (1)

ziggamon2.0 (796017) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957900)

Right... cause Ubuntu's release cycles are much longer than fedoras... right...

Isn't it time we get a new Godwin's law about comparing OS:es to Windows? ;-)

Upgrade via yum is easier (4, Informative)

Cosine0 (466566) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957728)

Just download and install fedora-release.xx.rpm
Next, "yum upgrade"
And you don't even have to reboot...

Fedora is great for server duties (1, Insightful)

realmolo (574068) | more than 8 years ago | (#14957765)

As a desktop distro, it sucks pretty hard. But for servers, it's great. It seems that *every* piece of server-oriented software is designed with Fedora/Red Hat in mind.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...