Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Fedora Core 6 Preview

timothy posted more than 8 years ago | from the lurking-ahead dept.

138

An anonymous reader writes "Earlier this week Jesse Keating announced the availability of Fedora Core 6 Test 1. New items in FC6T1 include Intel Macintosh support (well, mostly), update notification applet, GNOME 2.15, KDE 3.5.3, and the Fedora Core 6 Extras development repository is already available. With FC6T1's availability, Phoronix has published their own preview of this release. The article is focused on an editorial about changes to come for Fedora Core 6, as well as images from Fedora Core 6 Test 1. The next Fedora Core 6 testing release (Test 2) is due out in July, while the final release is due out this September."

cancel ×

138 comments

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

Does Fedora still matters? (2, Interesting)

ntufar (712060) | more than 8 years ago | (#15595262)

I switched to Ubuntu and never looked back. RedHat was cool back in 1998. Now, frankly speaking, Fedora looks ugly.

Re:Does Fedora still matters? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15595294)

Nothing in the desktop Linux world really matters at all in the big picture, but feel free to sow internal divisions.

Re:Does Fedora still matters? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15595320)

Ubuntu? It's years behind Fedora in case of security... *sigh*

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Security/Features [fedoraproject.org]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-hardened/ 2006-June/000150.html [ubuntu.com]

Re:Does Fedora still matters? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15595634)

At least Ubuntu is moving in this direction. Consider also that Ubuntu is only what, 2 or 3 years old? And Fedora has the benefit of running upstream of a commercial linux distro where features like this are considered important. Ubuntu has been working backwards, hitting the desktop market first and only just now breaking into the server market.

With 1/5th the age of a distro that gets to exchange features back and forth with a commercial, enterprise linux if a few security features is all that you can complain about that's not too shabby. And according to it's creator Ubuntu will NEVER leave us hanging by commercializing and forking off into a crappier, less stable, free derivitive.

Besides, linux distros have not been including the technologies you link to for "years" and even if they have... Ubuntu is years behind simply by chronology yet still has managed to beat out fedora by making a professional desktop ready linux in a fraction of the time. Try to keep a little perspective and save your sour grapes *sighs* for apples vs. apples comparisons. Ubuntu is a baby in the distro market compared to redhat/fedora.

Re:Does Fedora still matters? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15595592)

I found your troll

[ ] impressive
[x] unimpressive

Re:Does Fedora still matters? (1)

ronz0o (889697) | more than 8 years ago | (#15595876)

Same here...I used fedora since FC2 then tried ubuntu...I also never looked back.

Re:Does Fedora still matters? (1)

postmortem (906676) | more than 8 years ago | (#15595891)

And your Ubuntu does not use GNOME 2.1x ? That is why it is so "different"...right.

Re:Does Fedora still matters? (1)

ntufar (712060) | more than 8 years ago | (#15595934)

And your Ubuntu does not use GNOME 2.1x ? That is why it is so "different"...right.

Well, Redhat distributions always created impression like it is just bunch of stuff piled together without giving thought on fine tuning applications to give a feel of a consistent desktop. Especially now, that RedHat admit that Fedora is just a playground for testing packages for Enterprise Server. RedHat will never be a polished desktop distribution. And don't get me started on "RPM hell"...

Help a noob day: (1)

wild_berry (448019) | more than 8 years ago | (#15596074)

I run Fedora Core (from 2, now at 5) at home. What is this 'RPM Hell' you're talking about?

Re:Help a noob day: (1)

ntufar (712060) | more than 8 years ago | (#15596207)

I run Fedora Core (from 2, now at 5) at home. What is this 'RPM Hell' you're talking about?

This one [germane-software.com] for instance. Maybe it is just me but I tend install non-mainstream odd software that has non-standard library dependences. When I run RPM-based Linux distributions. I download RPM, try to install, then figure out it need a library, I find RPM for the library, try to install but itneeds another library. That another library is installed but, alas, incorrect version, I search for correct version, and so forth...

Re:Help a noob day: (4, Insightful)

Kiaser Wilhelm II (902309) | more than 8 years ago | (#15596416)

That is not RPM's fault. Ubuntu/Debian are not any different. If you download a .deb of something and it has dependencies on packages you don't have installed, you will encounter the same problems. You may have heard of "apt" for Debian based distributions. There is also "yum" for RPM.

Knowledge is power.

Re:Does Fedora still matters? (2, Informative)

postmortem (906676) | more than 8 years ago | (#15596080)

RPM hell? As a Red Hat Network subscriber I enjoy one-click installations of pre-configured software packages that you won't find anywhere else. Plus apt-get works as good as on Ubuntu. Like it or not, RPM is de-facto standard today. Having one more supported format helps, you know?

Re:Does Fedora still matters? (1)

ntufar (712060) | more than 8 years ago | (#15596226)

You are right, hese times RedHat has that 'yum' utility that pulls the required RPMs for you, but, previus experiences left an unpleasant taste in the mouth and I am reluctant to go back to RPM-based destribution.

Re:Does Fedora still matters? (2, Interesting)

Quino (613400) | more than 8 years ago | (#15596545)

It might have more to do with the quality of package maintainers than the technology itself, but getting codecs or obscure packages installed from freshrpms, livna, etc. *often* left me with broken installs in Core. Fixing the problems meant uninstalling packages that I actually wanted to run, or picking between packages I wanted so as to not mix repositories.

Getting the same with Ubuntu has yet to be a problem, not to mention that getting all the weird repositories is done graphically, with less hassle than on RedHat. I say this as a former RedHat gushing fanboy too.

Again, it might happenstance, or it might have to do with how the two groups manage or coordinate (or don't!) the different package repositories.

Re:Does Fedora still matters? (2, Informative)

BestNicksRTaken (582194) | more than 8 years ago | (#15596211)

WOW, I can't believe you prefer the look of Ubuntu to Fedora!

One of my main reasons for not even looking at Ubuntu for longer than about install+1 hour is that it just looks plain ugly compared to Fedora. How weird.... I mean I really hate the brown/orange thing and the Gnome icons and text seem to look years behind Fedora, more like RedHat before Bluecurve or SUSE's Gnome, it's just unfinished.

I was considering putting Ubuntu Dapper LTS on my new fileserver as I don't want to wait for CentOS 5 (RHEL5) and would like to brush up on my Debian skillz, but after playing with Dapper for a bit I'm just not impressed.

I mean, there seems to be so many options for installing software and configuring Ubuntu that it's actually a become a A Bad Thing(tm). With Fedora you install software using YUM and there's one or two "best practice" ways of doing things. Fedora is to Ubuntu as Python is to Perl in that way.

Re:Does Fedora still matters? (1)

jc87 (882219) | more than 8 years ago | (#15596756)

Have you never heard about One of my main reasons for not even looking at Ubuntu for longer than about install+1 hour is that it just looks plain ugly compared to Fedora. How weird.... I mean I really hate the brown/orange thing and the Gnome icons and text seem to look years behind Fedora, more like RedHat before Bluecurve or SUSE's Gnome, it's just unfinished.

Have you never heard aboutGnome look [gnome-look.org] orGnome art [gnome.org] , if only there was an easier way to install eyecandy than drag - drop

Google Trends for Fedora and other distributions (3, Interesting)

Snowhare (263311) | more than 8 years ago | (#15596940)

Based on http://www.google.com/trends?q=ubuntu%2C+fedora+%7 C+fc5+%7C+fc4+%7C+fc3%2C+RHEL+%7C+redhat+%7C+red+h at%2C++suse%2C+debian&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all [google.com] at Google Trends, my belief is that RH and Fedora are losing ground while Ubuntu is making a serious run at becoming the most popular distribution.

I'm still using FC5 on my desktop for now, largely because I found it the simplest to 'extend' with non-vendor apps and drivers (such as the proprietary ATI drivers and the intense multimedia support available via the Livna repository to replace the frankly useless sound and video "support" in the vanilla FC5). I am fairly likely to stick with it either until FC7 or until Ubuntu reaches the critical mass where most app and driver vendors explicitly support it as a preferred distro.

Re:Does Fedora still matters? (1)

Chiisu (462604) | more than 8 years ago | (#15597207)

FC5 is easily the best Fedora release yet. I switched from FC4 to Ubuntu and have used it since, but Dapper has been a huge disappointment for me, including the live installer and freezing at startup after enabling my wireless lan interface. And you want to talk about ugly? How about Dapper's translucent orange look?

FORM TROLL!!!!!! (1)

porkThreeWays (895269) | more than 8 years ago | (#15597430)

I can count at least 10 times I've seen this post in fedora threads (including bad grammer).

errm (0)

smash (1351) | more than 8 years ago | (#15595270)

New KDE, new Gnome, an updater, and CUPS?

Yawn...

hey! HER! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15595326)

I used to date Jesse Keating. She was not bad looking. yep, CUPS.

Re:errm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15595433)

Umm.. It's new distro release.. It's not something that is nearly as cool as something like sex with your mom.

Soo... 'Yawn' yourself. Come back when you've done anything worth mentioning anywere for any reason.

Anyways. Fedora Core 5 is pretty cool. I am a Debian user, but from my perspective they've done a better job then either Ubuntu or Suse with this latest release. Kudos to Fedora core.

Re:errm (1)

Frightening (976489) | more than 8 years ago | (#15595463)

I know what you mean, and it's probably not worth an upgrade..but they said the same for the FC4-FC5 transition (with some differences)and FC5 is several light years ahead of FC4.

Is it possible to upgrade the kernel to FC6 without hurting my setup though?

Re:errm (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15595526)

* g o a t s e x *

        vvvv
  arse vOOOOv  arse
arse vO    Ov  arse
arse vO    Ov  arse
arse  vOOOOv   arse
a      vvvv       a
  arse ..vv...  arse
       vvvvv
     vvvv  vvvv
     vvvv  vvvv
      vv    vv

* g o a t s e x *

fedora's problem... (3, Insightful)

joe 155 (937621) | more than 8 years ago | (#15595279)

I started to use fedora a few months ago and really like it. The main problem I find with it is they seem too willing to update too quickly. I was speaking on a forum about the problems I was having (Kernel update 2107 had real problems) I was told "core 5 is very new, it will get more stable over the coming months"... I kind'a feel like they should make core 5 as stable and as good as it can be and keep it going for about a year or two from when it is completely setled. The only reason that I am a little worried is I'm pretty sure yum will update me to core 6 automatically if i forget to "--exclude" everytime I do a update

Still, it is a really lovely distro (I know it sounds like I slagged it off)... but give it a go : D

Re:fedora's problem... (2, Insightful)

TerminaMorte (729622) | more than 8 years ago | (#15595310)

That's the entire point of Fedora; if you want something with a slower release cycle, try debian (joking!).

Seriously though, something like Ubuntu or Mandrivia might suit you better if stablity is more important to you than bleeding-edge.

Re:fedora's problem... (2, Insightful)

joe 155 (937621) | more than 8 years ago | (#15595327)

it's not the bleeding edge that bothers me, infact I like it with the software, but I want a stable base for it

Re:fedora's problem... (4, Informative)

Homology (639438) | more than 8 years ago | (#15595401)

it's not the bleeding edge that bothers me, infact I like it with the software, but I want a stable base for it

Fedora Core is more or less beta testing of software that may eventually end up in Red Hat Enterprise. So by the time a new, say kernel, feature is part of Red Hat Enterprise, then it has been widely tested in Fedora. This means that Fedora is not very stable, but many (most?) Fedora users find this very acceptable.

If you want to have a stable base, then you should use another Linux distro or one of the *BSD.

Re:fedora's problem... (1)

furry_wookie (8361) | more than 8 years ago | (#15595725)


YES, in fact.

At the RedHat summit in Nash last month, the RHEL Roadmap shows a copy of FC6 being split-off later this year and becoming RHEL5 by the end of the year.

(note RHEL4 is a direct decended of FC3, RHEL3 is of FC1 etc).

Re:fedora's problem... (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 8 years ago | (#15595823)

Not very stable is a subjective term. For day to day use, I've yet to find any Linux dist where crashes are anything but extremely infrequent events. Fedora was pretty stable when I played around with it on my Linux machine. I recall around FC2 or 3 that SELinux policies were pretty flakey but that was about the extent my problems with it. I switched to SUSE 10.x not long after, not for any particular reason but simply for the change and experience.

I guess if you're trying to run a server then you shouldn't be using FC, Ubuntu or any other dist which is basically a moving target. While Fedora is probably just fine, if I were running something critical I wouldn't trust anything less that RHEL or similar for the task. I think that support would be another deciding factor in choosing a dist. Community support is fine when its just you and your machine. It's not fine when your job or your business depends on high uptime.

Re:fedora's problem... (1)

rufty_tufty (888596) | more than 8 years ago | (#15595927)

Unless you need* a Red Hat like install. Than Fedora is the most legal way I know of getting an up to date one.

* e.g. my new raid controller only has official support under red hat enterprise - so far running with fedora everything has been ok. As a rule I find that Fedora has the best driver support because it is the testing platform for redhat...

Re:fedora's problem... (1)

Slithe (894946) | more than 8 years ago | (#15596403)

What about CentOS?

Re:fedora's problem... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15596831)

CentOS is nice and solid, perfectly legal, but how ethical is it, really?

A couple installs where you need RHEL but just can't get the RHN updates, fine. But what about 10 servers? 100? When does redhat deserve returns on all their configuration, testing, and packaging work? If you think that part is trivial, take a look at their kernel sometime.

I'm about to recommend CentOS for some lab servers just because of the political hassle in getting RHN updates. But I really don't feel good about it.

Re:fedora's problem... (1)

Ryan Amos (16972) | more than 8 years ago | (#15597017)

There's always CentOS [centos.org] .

Re:fedora's problem... (1)

eneville (745111) | more than 8 years ago | (#15596157)

> "That's the entire point of Fedora; if you want something with
> a slower release cycle, try debian (joking!).
> Seriously though, something like Ubuntu or Mandrivia might suit
> you better if stablity is more important to you than bleeding-edge.

No that is *exactly* why I use debian, I got sick of Ubuntu's frequent releases. I don't want to think about that sort of thing when I use my workstation, there's just no need to keep updating FF, when a given version in sarge is known stable, and it's just security patches that are applied once in a while.

Re:fedora's problem... (5, Informative)

Alioth (221270) | more than 8 years ago | (#15595343)

Fedora is really for those who want to be on the bleeding edge.
If you want a Redhattish distro that is NOT bleeding edge, try CentOS 4.3 (which is built from Red Hat Enterprise 4.3) or the other RHEL descendents like WBEL. CentOS is very solid - but it does not tend to have the bleeding edge stuff (and it will remain supported for years).

Re:fedora's problem... (4, Informative)

smoker2 (750216) | more than 8 years ago | (#15595389)

The only reason that I am a little worried is I'm pretty sure yum will update me to core 6 automatically if i forget to "--exclude" everytime I do a update
No it won't.

yum works by checking for updates to your current version.

ie. the contents of your /etc/yum.repos.d/fedora.repo read:

#baseurl=http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/f edora/linux/core/$releasever/$basearch/os/
the key term here being $releasever which means it only checks within your current release.

The only way to make yum upgrade to a newer core version is to download and install the newer version kernel, reboot into that kernel, then tell yum to update. I have used that approach to go progressively from FC2 to FC3 to FC4.

HTH.

Re:fedora's problem... (1)

joe 155 (937621) | more than 8 years ago | (#15595404)

ah, I hadn't realised, thanks for the advice... I'll use that method when 6 gets to a workable point of use

Re:fedora's problem... (4, Informative)

A Masquerade (23629) | more than 8 years ago | (#15595720)

The only way to make yum upgrade to a newer core version is to download and install the newer version kernel, reboot into that kernel, then tell yum to update.

Actually updating has zilch to do with the kernel. You can normally do an online update by manually updating (with the rpm command) the fedora-release packagae, and then using yum to update from there.

However this is not the recommended route, and things may be more complex than this (for example requiring you to update yum, rpm and associated packages first). The kernel does not normally need to be updated first, and you run a greater risk of ending up with an unbootable machine if you do so.

There are normally howtos on upgrading using yum available - Seth Vidal typically has notes in his blogs about doing so.

However the recommended and supported upgrade route is to boot from a the new version installation image, and then use anaconda to upgrade - that can do more invasive updates like the udev changes, which are much easier to do with your system being offline.

Re:fedora's problem... (1)

FireFury03 (653718) | more than 8 years ago | (#15596283)

However this is not the recommended route, and things may be more complex than this (for example requiring you to update yum, rpm and associated packages first). The kernel does not normally need to be updated first, and you run a greater risk of ending up with an unbootable machine if you do so.

I'm hoping these kinds of upgrades become supported at some point, especially now Fedora is using yum at install time too. Although I've usually avoided doing upgrades, preferring complete ground-up reinstalls since most of the upgrades I've done (using Anaconda) have ended up slightly broken at best case or completely trashed at worst case.

Whilest I've used RedHat distributions for years and will likely continue to use Fedora Core in the foreseeable future, the attitude to some of these bugs has at times shocked me. I think it was in my upgrade from Fedora 2 to 3, FireFox didn't exist in Fedora 2 so I had it installed from the Mozilla release instead of in an RPM. The upgrade tried to install the firefox RPM, found an existing firefox directory and failed. Rather than handling this error cleanly and just skipping the (fairly unimportant) RPM Anaconda aborted the whole install, leaving a half upgraded and completely unbootable system. A fairly serious error I thought, so I reported it and got a reply "well don't do that then" and it was marked as NOTABUG. Now I'm sorry, but if an upgrade can completely trash a fully functional system I think that qualifies as quite a serious bug. Interestingly, it got reopened a few months later and I was asked to provide more debugging, which of course I couldn't do since I had long since erased and reinstalled the trashed system.

I do think they've missed a trick with using yum as the installer though - when doing a network install there's still no way to use the fedora-updates repository at install time, you still have to install the system with the old packages and then yum update it later.

Re:fedora's problem... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15596607)

Wrong. I had stock FC4 install and did a 'yum update'. It took me all the way up to FC5.

So, if this is not supposed to happen, FC4 has a very serious bug.

Please note that this was not user-error. This has happened to others as well.

Re:fedora's problem... (3, Informative)

Znork (31774) | more than 8 years ago | (#15595406)

Fedora is an early integrator of many things; as those things sometimes havent had as many testers yet, you're bound to run into some issues. As some features get integrated into the base of the system, for example, Xen, you cant get a super-stable base either.

Dont worry tho, yum update shouldnt upgrade you, you'd have to run yum _upgrade_ for that, as far as I know. Live upgrades of that sort are not recommended tho.

Re:fedora's problem... (1)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 8 years ago | (#15595459)

If you are interested in stability and support along with a slower release cycle give Slackware a try, simply the best!

Re:fedora's problem... (1)

pwrtool 45 (792547) | more than 8 years ago | (#15595716)

I'm currently running KDE 3.5, kernel 2.6.17, OO 2.0, and K3B 0.12.15 on my Slackware 10.2 system. Version 10.2 was relased nearly a year ago. The last message on the security mailinglist included security updates for version 8.1 which was released 4 years ago. If you want the ability to install the latest software easily but also a base distro that moves more slowly than the rest, you might consider Slack.

Ubuntu/FC/Suse are all good distros, but are designed to move a bit more quickly than it seems like you want. That being the case, you might consider other options.

fc5 woes (1)

zogger (617870) | more than 8 years ago | (#15596131)

I just recently updated from 4 to 5 and did some updates and now gnome is totally hosed. My repo list is fairly conservative, updates-released, extras, and livna. I checked on fedora forums last night and apparently it has bitten some more folks as well. What seemed to happen is loss of PNG support (maybe something else as well), which means a lot of icons don't show up and some of the gnome apps simply don't work. It be real, real ugly, I know it is the worst I have seen with any of my linux installs. I'm still finding more stuff that is broken. I think I will be forced to reinstall or go with something else at this point.

I think fast release cycles are *too fast*. Once a year ought to be fast enough. 2-3 releases.....I don't see a need anymore, we have a ton of functionality, what needs to be there is stable and secure functionality. Teh grand supreme fedora overlords council might want to think on that some.

Re:fedora's problem... (2, Interesting)

Waffle Iron (339739) | more than 8 years ago | (#15596179)

The only reason that I am a little worried is I'm pretty sure yum will update me to core 6 automatically

I don't think that it will automatically upgrade your version number. However, over time you do largely end up with most of the software for the next version because of the huge volume of updates that happen in the current FC version. For example, the update to KDE 3.5.3 was recently posted for FC5.

This has actually been bothering me lately. Right now yum tells me that I've got more than 500 megabytes of updates to download, only a few weeks after the last time I did a full update. I haven't seen a simple way to tell it to *only* install security updates without me manually choosing the packages marked with [SECURITY] in the announcement list. As someone who goes by the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" principle, I'd rather not churn all of these versions through my system unless there's a really good reason. Maybe there is an automatic way to do only security updates, but it sure doesn't seem like they make it obvious how to do it.

Re:fedora's problem... (1)

AlanS2002 (580378) | more than 8 years ago | (#15596739)

Yum will not update you too Fedora Core 6 unless you upgrade fedora-release-5.noarch.rpm to fedora-release-6.noarch.rpm when Fedora Core 6 is released. In which case you would be doing it on purpose and one would hope you would know that Yum would be affected in that way. As for support, it is provided for apporoximately one year after each release. So support for Fedora Core 5 will end about when Fedora Core 7 is released.

Fedora (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15595281)

is dying. Still have to hunt for packages to fix the broken RPMs.

Re:Fedora (0, Flamebait)

hdparm (575302) | more than 8 years ago | (#15595572)

Bullshit. You probably need to read

man rpm

Re:Fedora (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15596302)

The command you are looking for is yum, not rpm.

Re:Fedora (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15596510)

I've always wondered, why did RedHat go away from RPM to Yum? AFAIK Yum's been usable in its latest versions, but frustration over how unusably slow Yum was in several incarnations of Core is the reason why I stopped using RedHat. Forcing Core to use rpm (and have apt-get available!) stopped being worthwhile for me.

Can someone explain what advantages Yum had over RPM that make it worthwhile putting up with its frustrating sloooo(grind! grind! grind!)ooowness?

Even when Yum became usable, it still seemed pretty darn slow compared to RPM -- so I'm guessing it must do something better, but what that might be has never been clear to me.

Re:Fedora (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15597050)

yum runs on top of RPM much in the same way that apt runs on top of dpkg (in debian systems). You can use apt with rpm (haven't used redhat in a few years though, but I would presume its still the case) if you like. Or, you can just use plain RPM and find the packages you need manually.

Installing on a USB hard drive? (1)

Travoltus (110240) | more than 8 years ago | (#15595295)

Can that be done yet?

Re:Installing on a USB hard drive? (1)

joe 155 (937621) | more than 8 years ago | (#15595373)

I don't really see any reaosn why not

there seems to be advice on how to do it with RH around (you can find it on google pretty easily)... if you dig around a bit more fedora should be pretty easy to find. I think it should just be a question of selecting to instal it to sda instead of hda at the start... have a bit of a read round first but give it a go

Re:Installing on a USB hard drive? (4, Informative)

Ankou (261125) | more than 8 years ago | (#15595790)

Maby not the easiest way but I have been doing it since fedora 3:

Insert Fedora core cd #1 and turn on your computer. Boot to the cd.

When the boot screen comes up, type "expert" and hit enter. That will allow you to install to the usb drive. Install as normal, and make sure you install grub to the MBR.

Now, shut down. Boot up with Fedora disk 1 in the cd drive. at the boot screen, type: "linux rescue", and answer the questions about language when they come up. when it asks you if you want it to search for the installation, click "skip this step", and you will be brought to a shell.

mount /dev/sda2 /mnt/source
mount /dev/sda1 /mnt/source/boot
chroot /mnt/source

Next, create the initrd, with the usb driver included:

mkinitrd --preload=ehci-hcd --preload=usb-storage --preload=scsi_mod --preload=sd_mod /boot/initrd.img kernelversion

Now, you have to edit your grub.conf:

nano /boot/grub/grub.conf

put the new initrd file name "initrd.img" in place of whats there. save and exit nano. reboot and it should work

of course your bios needs to be able to boot off usb devices. Hope that helps.

Resume (2, Interesting)

KarMax (720996) | more than 8 years ago | (#15595303)

Well i was bored and i read the Article, so.. here i quote the (IMO) important stuff. I don't like neither use FC but I admire the effort of his developers, they are doing an excellent work.

However, at the time of writing we have yet to personally try out FC6T1 on any of these Intel-based Macintosh computers.
With Core 6 Test 1, not many visible Anaconda changes have been implemented. However, one of the notable features is IPV6 support in the installer. Anaconda had locked up a few times when attempting to detect previously installed Fedora installations, or even when clicking the next button. With the i386 DVD we had also run into a problem with the repodata being for the FC6 i386 CDs, thus during the installation process we were asked for the CDs even though all of the packages could be found on the DVD. One of the features that will hopefully make its way into Fedora Core 6 is the ability to add the Fedora Extras, or other custom RPM repositories
The Pup applet shows on the desktop when there are new updates in the repository, while hovering the mouse over the applet will yield the amount of packages that need to be updated
Another notable advancement with FC6T1 is the integration of a new printing system -- a new system-config-printer and CUPS v1.2.1. The new system-config-printer interface is very easy to work with.
The road to GNOME 2.16 is certainly shaping up quite nicely, and we have been pleased by the GNOME 2.15 development releases thus far.
Yes, KDE continues to be bundled in Fedora Core 6 contrary to belief that it may move to being community managed, and/or moved into the Extras project.
Some of the other items in the Fedora Wiki for Core 6 include trimming down the Core, replacing sysklogd with syslog-ng, use early log-in and get rid of rhgb, sound server replacement, better firewall configuration utility, home user backup, support Fedora Extras and custom repositories during the installation, CD image generation tool, encrypted file systems, and more.

patented codec support? (3, Interesting)

prockcore (543967) | more than 8 years ago | (#15595325)

Do I still need to jump through ridiculous hoops to get mp3 support in rhythmbox and get *any* support in totem?

Out of the box, Totem can't play *anything*.. completely useless.

At least make it like Ubuntu, where I can add a repository that has all the stuff they can't ship in the box.

Re:patented codec support? (5, Informative)

Alioth (221270) | more than 8 years ago | (#15595348)

No, you've not had to jump through ridiculous hoops since at least Fedora Core 2, probably earlier. There _is_ just a repo you can add - it's called the Livna repository. It contains all the 'patented' codec support (sound, video, DVD playing etc.) as well as proprietary video card drivers from nvidia and ATi.

See http://rpm.livna.org/ [livna.org]

The ridiculous hoop you have to jump through is to simply type:

rpm -ivh http://rpm.livna.org/livna-release-5.rpm [livna.org]

and you've added the Livna repository. All the stuff in Livna now appears in GUI software installer (Applications -> Add and Remove Software) as well as on the command line (using 'yum'). Couldn't be simpler. Livna is an essential repository for a home user of Fedora Core.

Re:patented codec support? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15595359)

Yeah, I was bitching about this to Grandma when she spouted off with the livna repo. After I tried it she giggled and said, "pawn3d noob!"

Re:patented codec support? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15595516)

I think distros that disallow MP3 playback out of the box are being over zealous for 4 reasons:

1. All software violates patents
2. The patent holder says that FLOSS players are ok.
3. The patents are only valid in the US and Japan
4. The point is moot in 3 years anyway when the patent expires. So, there's no time to popularize ogg if that's what they're attempting.

I'm all for keeping things 100% FLOSS, but as long as a piece of software has source code and is freely licenced then personally I don't care if it violates patents. Its one thing being forced by law not to use MP3 playback, but voluntarily removing it preemptively...isn't that a little like jumping off a cliff to avoid getting pushed off?

Re:patented codec support? (5, Informative)

thebrid (772919) | more than 8 years ago | (#15595583)

1. All software violates patents

There are so many software patents nowadays, I'm sure it's impossible to write all but the simplest software without treading on somebody's patent. But to suggest that distro owners should knowingly violate patents is kind of negligent.

The patents are only valid in the US and Japan

I know they're slightly biased, but on the MP3 Licensing [mp3licensing.com] web site, there's an extensive list of patents which have been granted in an equally extensive list of countries.

The point is moot in 3 years anyway when the patent expires. So, there's no time to popularize ogg if that's what they're attempting.

Again, I'd refer you to the MP3 Licensing web page. If you assume a patent duration of 20 years from filing, the first patents may have begun to expire but there's still quite a number of years to go until all the ones necessary to implement a full-featured decoder will have expired.

I'm all for keeping things 100% FLOSS, but as long as a piece of software has source code and is freely licenced then personally I don't care if it violates patents. Its one thing being forced by law not to use MP3 playback, but voluntarily removing it preemptively...isn't that a little like jumping off a cliff to avoid getting pushed off?

Apparently quite a number of the big free distros have legal teams who would disagree with you. From what I've used, neither Fedora nor Ubuntu include MP3 playback support and it's precisely for this reason. It's OK you advocating violating patents but these distros are made by non-profit organisations who have a lot to lose if they come on the wrong end of a patent lawsuit. At least they make the effort to make MP3 support available. If you want MP3 support, either pay for a commercial distro or quit whining and take the 2 minutes to install support for your distro. As you say, one day all these patents will have expired and even the free distros will be able to ship with MP3 support out of the box.

Of course, most Linux distros ship with support for 2 excellent audio formats out of the box: Ogg Vorbis [vorbis.com] and FLAC [sourceforge.net] , both of which are better than MP3. Ogg Vorbis is a lossy CODEC which provides better quality than MP3 [rjamorim.com] at a lower bitrate. FLAC is the lossless CODEC and provides CD quality with 30-60% compression. Neither contain any patents that we know of (that in itself is important) and both work great on Windows too.

Re:patented codec support? (2, Interesting)

JebusIsLord (566856) | more than 8 years ago | (#15596281)

I'd just like to point out that the listening test you linked to, supposedly indicating Vorbis' superiority to MP3, actually states right at the top: "Let me try to be clear: there was no winner in this listening test". That test is also exceedingly out-of-date... the latest one can be found here [maresweb.de] . Results are still statistically insignificant @ 128kbps though. At lower bitrates Vorbis does okay, but doesn't come close to AAC-HE (AAC+). Anyhow... off topic.

Re:patented codec support? (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 8 years ago | (#15597288)

Of course, most Linux distros ship with support for 2 excellent audio formats out of the box: Ogg Vorbis and FLAC, both of which are better than MP3. .... Neither contain any patents that we know of (that in itself is important) and both work great on Windows too.

Vorbis and FLAC may have been built from the ground up in a FOSS setting, but it's still beyond question that the USPTO has granted some kind of spurious patent that they could be, at this very moment, be seen by an incompetant judge as infringing on.

Re:patented codec support? (2, Interesting)

kasperd (592156) | more than 8 years ago | (#15595532)

Yes, this is one of the great things about yum. There is a simple and clean way to have installation and upgrading of base software and third party software managed with a single interface. Livna is not the only such repository, personally I'm quite happy with freshrpms. Probably there are more.

I don't know if Ubuntu have something similar, but I guess they have.

I have seen how this is handled on Windows, I have seen how this is handled on Red Hat Linux, and I have seen how this is handled on Fedora Core. And except from the problem with rhn-applet being totally broken in FC4, I like the way it works in Fedora. I hope that has been fixed in FC5 (or FC6) or at least replaced with some alternative.

But it could be a lot easier.... (5, Insightful)

MarkByers (770551) | more than 8 years ago | (#15595605)

The ridiculous hoop you have to jump through is to simply type:

rpm -ivh http://rpm.livna.org/livna-release-5.rpm [livna.org]


Why do I have to type something at the command line to get basic multimedia support? Can't they just make a button during the install that you can press to get 'illegal' software. The button could read:

'I want to play mp3 files and I don't care if it's illegal. I take full responsibility for my actions.'

or:

'Software patents don't apply in my country, give me an mp3 player already!'

Why do they make you use the command line? It doesn't make sense.

Re:But it could be a lot easier.... (4, Insightful)

quintesse (654840) | more than 8 years ago | (#15595654)

Because I'm sure a judge would agree with you completely that only putting a button to the illegal downloads would absolve the distro makers completely in case anyone decides to sue them. Besides, I like Fedora exactly for that attitude, they have their principals and they stick to them even though it might hurt them at times.

And if entering one line on a console scares you maybe Linux is not for you. And I'm not being elitist here or anything, but it's just that you will be confrontend with a shell at some time during your Linux usage. The same way that for Windows you will be confronted with driver downloads (Why doesn't Microsoft give me a big button "Install latest nVidia drivers, I know what I'm doing").

Re:But it could be a lot easier.... (1)

ErikZ (55491) | more than 8 years ago | (#15596298)

Why doesn't Microsoft give me a big button "Install latest nVidia drivers, I know what I'm doing".

It does. It's part of the automatic updates.

Yes, it's not the "Latest" driver. But that's not the issue at hand with MP3s. You can't get them to work at all, you don't need the "Latest" MP3 player. You need an MP3 player.

I've switched to SUSE in the meantime. I was impressed with it being able to correctly identify all the hardware on a PC I recently built for a friend. And I had gotten tired of the weird problems that were cropping up with Fedora.

Re:But it could be a lot easier.... (1)

quintesse (654840) | more than 8 years ago | (#15596691)

> It does. It's part of the automatic updates.

Uhm, no, it doesn't, what it installs is A driver that happens to work with your nVidia card but you'll be missing out on a bunch of features that the official drivers give you. Doesn't matter if you "just" want your card to work, but that's the same as saying you "just" want to listen to music. But you say you want to listen to MP3s (not supported by Fedora) and I say that I want to use my stereoscopic glasses that came with my card (not supported by the driver that MS installs).

But that doesn't mean I don't understand your frustration, especially when many other things in Linux are so easy to do why does this have to be difficult. For me I just like Fedora and I understand the reasoning of the people behind it, never had much problems using it and I love the enormous community that supports it.

Re:But it could be a lot easier.... (1)

c_forq (924234) | more than 8 years ago | (#15596042)

Spoiled young'n. If I recall correctly RealPlayer for linux supports MP3's right from the start, if you feel like putting realplayer into your distro. In order to play MP3's you need to have a program that pays the fee to decode MP3's. You used to have to download Winamp or an alternitive if you wanted to listen to compressed music, but now Windows Media Player pays the fee and is included on every Windows computer and iTunes pays the fee and is included on every Apple computer. If you can talk a distro into including realplayer, or if you want to start a company that pays the fee and roll out a media player for linux then you can have your out-of-the-box MP3 support.

Re:But it could be a lot easier.... (1)

kasperd (592156) | more than 8 years ago | (#15596043)

Can't they just make a button during the install that you can press to get 'illegal' software. The button could read: 'I want to play mp3 files and I don't care if it's illegal. I take full responsibility for my actions.'

Like if that wouldn't get them into trouble. Better warn people that the software is only legal in some countries, and provide them a question similar to this: Have you verified that using this additional software is legal in your country of residence? Yes/No.

Re:But it could be a lot easier.... (3, Interesting)

Alioth (221270) | more than 8 years ago | (#15596330)

If you really need to do it via the GUI, just point your browser at http://rpm.livna.org/livna-release-5.rpm [livna.org] - Firefox as installed on FC5 understands by default what program needs to handle RPM packages.

I'm sure the Fedora team has thought of putting some 'install illegal codecs' button somewhere in the GUI, but RedHat's lawyers probably say it's a very bad idea. If Livna does it all independently then RedHat can easily claim clean hands and get the case dismissed if Fraunhofer tries to sue them. It might be harder to get the suit dismissed if they do as you suggest, and that means lots of money - a patent holder's lawyer would be able to argue that it is tantamount to Microsoft putting a link on the GUI to the Pirate Bay in Windows.

Re:patented codec support? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15595358)

I'm so sick of all this whining.

The release notes link to the Fedora wiki which explains, why the patented stuff is left out and links to a mp3/multimedia/DVD installation procedure described on the Fedroa FAQ site (http://www.fedorafaq.org/#mp3).

3 mouse-clicks and half a dozen commands and you're ready to all your multimedia stuff.

You have to know how to read to do this, of course.

Re:patented codec support? (1)

McNihil (612243) | more than 8 years ago | (#15595921)

Ever heard about livna and freshrpm?
/etc/yum.repos.d/
livna.repo
freshrpms.repo
and then yum install xmms* mplayer* true it could be simpler... but as you see its not impossible.

Re:patented codec support? (1)

AlanS2002 (580378) | more than 8 years ago | (#15596700)

Set either apt or yum to look freshrpms repository, instructions can be found somewhere at http://freshrpms.net/ [freshrpms.net] . Hardly jumping through a hoop, infact it's exactly the same as Ubuntu.

Re:patented codec support? (1)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 8 years ago | (#15597168)

At least make it like Ubuntu, where I can add a repository that has all the stuff they can't ship in the box.
See livna.org

Red Hat's view of Fedora (3, Informative)

Builder (103701) | more than 8 years ago | (#15595350)

Red Hat view (or at least did when I was in Raleigh last September) FC as an incubator for RHEL.

I discussed the release frequency and period of support, and they were pretty unsympathetic to the user's point of view. Their requirement is fast turnaround of new releases to ensure a strong test of new technologies / versions of new packages.

This has some upsides, like the multipathing support in RHEL4, Update 3 which means we can finally do away with Veritas on most of our machines. But it can suck for the user.

On one hand... (1)

Phil John (576633) | more than 8 years ago | (#15595367)

On one hand it can suck for the user, however, on the other, it's pretty darned nice having the latest release of everything, integrated (mostly) tested and working. True, it's not for everyone - for those people there's RHEL or even Debian. For those of us that like the bleeding edge (in a desktop distro I don't mind, never would I use it for a server though) it's the best thing since sliced bread.

Re:On one hand... (1)

Ash Vince (602485) | more than 8 years ago | (#15595490)

I just thought I would throw in my two cent regarding fast release cycles and living on the bleeding edge. I actually stopped using Redhat / Fedora on my home PC as it was not as recent as I would have liked. I have now moved to Gentoo.

The other thing that always bugged about Redhat was that I kept breaking the RPM system. I know this could always be blamed on me, but since I started using Gentoo, Portage (The gentoo software repository) has never given me any problems whatsoever.

Re:On one hand... (1)

NuShrike (561140) | more than 8 years ago | (#15595548)

Now you understand the wisdom of Ports and pkgsrc. :)

Re:Red Hat's view of Fedora (1)

AlanS2002 (580378) | more than 8 years ago | (#15596646)

Red Hat view (or at least did when I was in Raleigh last September) FC as an incubator for RHEL.

I discussed the release frequency and period of support, and they were pretty unsympathetic to the user's point of view. Their requirement is fast turnaround of new releases to ensure a strong test of new technologies / versions of new packages.

This has some upsides, like the multipathing support in RHEL4, Update 3 which means we can finally do away with Veritas on most of our machines. But it can suck for the user.


And yet each new release of Fedora Core has been an improvement over the last. Bleeding Edge does not necessarily equal less stable.

Evolutionary rather than revolutionary (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15595391)

As someone whose been using Fedora since Core 1, this release seems more evolutionary. Even without major changes between releases, the accumulated bug fixes contribute to a desktop that 'works' better and has the functionality I need. We all remember the bad old days of manually mounting your USB peripherals.. well now I have suspend, easy networking (thanks to NetworkManager) and useful stuff like Beagle to play with, so thats quite good progress. This release will be worthwhile just to get the latest of everything, and it looks as if some nice eye-candy will be ready in GNOME 2.16.

I personally would like to see a general reduction in memory usage in GNOME and various apps; it's been moving in the right direction, I hope it stays that way. I believe there is an effort to remove various deprecated libraries to help here.

Re:Evolutionary rather than revolutionary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15596094)

I personally would like to see a general reduction in memory usage in GNOME and various apps; it's been moving in the right direction, I hope it stays that way. I believe there is an effort to remove various deprecated libraries to help here.

I hate to say it, but Gnome is embarrassing. When I load my 512M machine with fluxbox, I have 350M available once I log in. If I load the Gnome desktop, it's 160M free. So somewhere Gnome is using up an extra 190M just to put up the desktop without any apps. I've heard arguments that these are shared libraries and that any app I launch in Fluxbox will end up consuming more memory than Gnome apps. I've heard that 190M is nothing anymore. I've heard that Gnome is pre-caching stuff that Fluxbox doesn't. But that's just a lot of excuses. The memory footprint of Gnome is so huge that I regularly hit virtual memory when I load it and that's pretty bad with 512M and just a few apps. I hope that they do something about the bloat soon. It's a good environment if you have 2G of RAM but it's just way too fat otherwise.

Re:Evolutionary rather than revolutionary (1)

AlanS2002 (580378) | more than 8 years ago | (#15596767)

I personally would like to see a general reduction in memory usage in GNOME and various apps; it's been moving in the right direction, I hope it stays that way. I believe there is an effort to remove various deprecated libraries to help here.

I have heard that the memory/cpu requirements for FC5 are less than they were for FC4, don't know if it's true though. FC5 certainly feels snapier than FC4 did.

xGnaa (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15595394)

I have only one question (-1, Flamebait)

Beautyon (214567) | more than 8 years ago | (#15595609)

Will you be able to put a DVD of FC6 into your box and upgrade your FC5 install seamlessly? Going from FC4 to FC5 via the 'upgrade' option didn't work, and if you asked anyone, they said, "dont do that, its not reccomended".

Why shouldn't every Fedora user jump ship to Ubuntu, where everything 'just works', its LINUX, you can run everything you need and all your hassles go away?

What is the point of the continuing development of Fedora? Isn't it time that everyone put their effort into developing and refining one distribution for the masses? The duplication of effort that is going into these nearly parralell distributions is totally insane.

From Wikipedia:

Fedora aims to be a complete, general-purpose operating system from open source software. Fedora is designed to be easily installed and configured with a simple graphical installer and the 'system-config' suite of configuration tools. Packages and their dependencies can be easily downloaded and installed with the yum utility. New releases of Fedora come out every six to eight months.

The name Fedora Core distinguishes the main Fedora packages from those of the Fedora Extras project, which provides add-ons to Fedora Core.

Fedora was derived from the original Red Hat Linux distribution. The project envisages that conventional Linux home users will use Fedora Core, and intends that it replace the consumer distributions of Red Hat Linux.

If that is all Fedora is about, its time to stop working on Fedora and switch all that effort to Ubuntu, since it does what Fedora is meant to do much better.

Come to think of it, it would be great to have a Ubuntu utility that allows you to convert a Fedora install into a Ubuntu install so that it is simple to jump ship and join that momentum.

Thats more than one question...bleh.

Re:I have only one question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15595642)

I tried upgrading from FC1 to FC5. And guess what? It suceeded.

Re:I have only one question (5, Insightful)

HuguesT (84078) | more than 8 years ago | (#15595714)

Throwing my mod points away to respond to this :

I run FC5 at home and Ubuntu, Debian and Mandrake at work. Read this series of reviews [debian-news.net] of the latest Ubuntu release (6.06), they are not all positive. A significant number say Drake was rushed and not on par with the previous release.

I have tried many distros out there, everyone has their favourite, and in particular Ubuntu is quite good, but there is no clear winner. Most people I read tend to base their impression of Linux on the latest distro they've tried. Usually this shows some improvement over the one they had tried earlier and (incorrectlly) conclude this is due to the distribution being "just better".

In fact the whole of Linux is progressing at a rapid pace. Both Fedora and Ubuntu have quick and frequent release schedules, a large professional and dedicated team, and as a result they are quite solid, but the same is true of many distros out there. I've come to realize that by and large innovations by one distribution quickly permeate all. See the good work of Debian with apt, that of Ubuntu with their automounter and RH's work with sponsoring Gnome and SELinux.

Ubuntu and FC have different, incompatible aims. Ubuntu is not a testing ground for RHEL, they show little interest with SELinux for instance, whereas this is of strategic importance for FC. However strangely perhaps they cover much of the same ground as far as the end-user is concerned.

Saying that one particular distro among the big ones does something "much better" than any other is misinformed. Because of the nature of FOSS, none holds any permanent advantage over the others, as long as they all continue their development efforts.

Re:I have only one question (1)

Beautyon (214567) | more than 8 years ago | (#15596258)

All of that may be true, but it doesn't answer the question. Will FC6 address the problem of updating. Will it be more seamless, effortless (will I still have to manually install the NTFS kernel mods to access my legacy windoze discs) etc etc. Will this version 'just work'.

Some people just don't seem to understand that hoards of developers hacking away on two or three different distros that are trying to fill the same space is crazy, and that all that duplicated effort is wasted.

To fuller illustrate what I am talking about, Gentoo is sufficiently different for its development to NOT be a waste of time. That is NOT duplicated effort, it is not only worthwhile, but it shows clear demonstrable benefits to its users. Ubuntu and Fedora competing for the same space is ineficient, of no benefit to anyone and actually limits the pace of improvments since effort is duplicated.

Eventually all the many distros out there will die off because the teams that develop them will get old and lose interest in working for niche products. We will eventually be left with a small number of distros that are really distinct and that have very large teams working on them. It is better for the users if this happens sooner rather than later, so that we can reap the benefits of accelerated development and suff that 'just works' now.

Sadly, there are still people who think its acceptable to have to add a repository to Fedora just so that you can play MP3s for example. It is precisely this sort of backwards thinking (remember the people who used to argue that 'no one needs a gui; command line is good enough for everything' where are they now?) that holds back the creation of a 'better than mac' distribution of Linux.

We only need one general use distribution of Linux. Its goal should be that it 'just works' with everything you throw at it. It should have an unambiguous single route to install, update and remove software. It should use one desktop. Nothing should be allowed in it that does not come with comprehensive illustrated documentation....etc etc....

Re:I have only one question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15596642)

I share some of your opinions with respect to peoples inpressions of differrent distros. Throw in any new release and you are bound to get better and newer software. That is the way Linux works.

I'm not to sure how Ubuntu fits into this though as my impressions have been very negative with this whole distro. I believe it is highly overrated and it appears that the rest of the commnuity is starting to catch up with that opinion. This from a huge amount of experience with differrent Linux installs going back to before Redhat5 and my attempt to use Ubuntu on a AMD 64 platform. Ubuntu was the worst distro on AMD 64 by a very large margin. When Fedora came out with the new release and AMC 64 support I jumped on it and have been very pleased.

Now I have heard much whining in this thread about the pecularities of Fedora such as the pattened software issues. Frankly I have to say that if you are to stupid to over come that little issue you really need to think about training wheels and Apple computer. On the postive side Fedora allows one to keep abreast of the latest technologies in a number of areas. Whether it be the latest GCC release or native Eclipse or something of similar newnest Fedora gets you there on a stable platform. Not many distros fo this as well as Fedora nor do they cover the breadth of bleeding edge apps and keep things usable.

Not to sound like a sounding board for the Fedora fan club here but I needed to vent. At one time I was trying several distros a month just because I found the whole concept of Linux so compelling and interesting. On my main machine I've always returned to Redhat and now Fedora. That isn't because Fedora is perfect as no distro is, just that they produce a very nice leading edge distro that works well. Maybe some day linux will be so stable that a bleeding edge distro won't make sense, at that time I might change my tune. That day however is very far off into the future.

Dave

Re:I have only one question (1)

vedant_lath (905577) | more than 8 years ago | (#15595726)

Isn't it time that everyone put their effort into developing and refining one distribution for the masses?
There's Debian for you. :-)

Fedora + KDE !=Genuine KDE (3, Interesting)

nighty5 (615965) | more than 8 years ago | (#15595916)

Redhat hacks KDE beyond the feel and proper use of KDE. Fedora replaces a lot of QT applets with GTK ones to perform a lot of functions. KDEsu is a prime example although there is others.

If you are a KDE fan, than you're being shortchanged if you run Fedora or Redhat products.

SuSE used to be a great product, but 10.1 had so many problems I've lost confidence.

Give Mandrake, Gentoo, Kubuntu a try.

Re:Fedora + KDE !=Genuine KDE (2, Informative)

bhunachchicken (834243) | more than 8 years ago | (#15596551)

Give Mandrake, Gentoo, Kubuntu a try.

Or you could stick with Fedora and just go to http://kde-redhat.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net] , download and install the Yum repo information and upgrade to a proper version of KDE that way...

Re:Fedora + KDE !=Genuine KDE (1)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 8 years ago | (#15597183)

IU'm pretty sure you're spreading FUD, as I am on FC5 + KDE right now and seeing none of what you say.

Live CD? (1)

punkrockguy318 (808639) | more than 8 years ago | (#15595990)

I would like to check this out, but I don't have a spare partition. Is there a live CD of the development snapshot available?

Re:Live CD? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15597035)

check out vmware. they have a free player, and you can download pre-built virtual machines to run in windows, including FC5 and ubuntu 5.10. i've been using vmware to run FC5 for a week now and it works really well.

http://www.vmware.com/products/player/ [vmware.com]
http://www.vmware.com/vmtn/appliances/directory/ca t/45 [vmware.com]

Accelerated desktop (2, Informative)

r_cerq (650776) | more than 8 years ago | (#15596184)

I'm amazed there's no mention of this yet, with all the fuss about XGL and Compiz recently...
The FC development repo (so I assume FC6T1 has it as well) includes AIGLX [fedoraproject.org] , a different approach to the accelerated desktop thing. The metacity that comes with Core has support for a few effects (like wobbling windows), but if you want to try the cube and othe compiz goodies, Kristian has an RPM of compiz for AIGLX here [redhat.com] . Just install it and voilá: eye candy goodness.

No wait! It's too soon!!! (2, Interesting)

erroneus (253617) | more than 8 years ago | (#15596195)

When I went from FC3 to FC4, I was in an excited rush only to be disappointed by some bugs with sound and stuff. I was already accustomed to tweaking and figuring things out, but over the past couple of years, I have grown weary of it and prefer things to just work. As FC5 grew near, I was really hopeful that they learned lessons from the problems of FC4. But somehow, in my continuous updating of my laptop, ATI had finally gotten around to fixing their proprietary driver to allow for suspend to RAM/Disk. I had all but given up on ever having successful hibernation on my laptop, but when I discovered that it worked, I became very excited by the announcement of FC5test#.

I downloaded and installed it on another hard drive. Went straight for suspend and it just worked out of the box flawlessly. I think I might have wet my pants... it was some time ago and my memory is hazy on the details, but there was urination at some point immediately surrounding the event... maybe I closed the lid on my laptop, took a piss and came back to find that the laptop was able to resume where it left off. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that was it. Anyway, I decided FC5 wasn't coming fast enough for me.

When FC5 arrived, I was not disappointed in the least. And with only one problem with periodic "yum" updates, FC5 scores an almost perfect record in my opinion.

Now there's FC6 around the corner? Why? I'm REALLY happy with FC5. I don't need FC6. Of course I will upgrade though. FC5 development will slow down and stop eventually. But I doubt I will scramble for FC6 without something really compelling. The improvements from the summary don't indicate anything compelling to me.

As for competing distros? Ubuntu is the name being used most. I still haven't tried it. It's not what I'm used to, and that's reason enough for me... for now. Maybe one day I'll bump into an Ubuntu user with the OS on his laptop and I'll get a demo I can appreciate. But where Fedora Core is concerned, I feel very well supported with RPMs available for everything I can think of. Only on rare occasion do I find myself stealing RPMs built for other distros because it's not available for FC5. And that's mostly due to the "I don't want to get sued" mentality coming from RedHat.

So yeah, that's the only beef I have with Fedora Core -- the "we don't support MP3 because we're scared" thing. Did the patent on GIF run out already? How much time left on MP3?

Upgrade from FC3 (1)

otisg (92803) | more than 8 years ago | (#15596582)

I'm still on FC3. So can one go form FC3 to FC6 directly?

install everything (1)

Kludge (13653) | more than 8 years ago | (#15596807)

Did they put the "Install Everything" button back in yet?
If not, I'm not interested.

upgrade treadmill (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15596911)

When I can apt-get dist-upgrade from a previous FC release, then I'll consider installing it. Reinstalling from scratch every 6 months is not what I consider a smooth upgrade path.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>