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 Linux

samzenpus posted more than 7 years ago | from the read-all-about-it dept.

176

Ravi writes "Fedora — the Linux that is developed as a community effort, is the sand box of Red Hat. They incorporate all the new features after they have been exhaustively tested into its commercial product, namely Red Hat Enterprise Linux . Fedora has a 6 month release schedule and the most recent release is core 6. In all respects Fedora is the same Red Hat Linux but with cutting edge packages. What I really like about Fedora apart from the vibrant community participating in its development is the mark of quality it has from its association with Red Hat." Read the rest of Ravi's review.

Coinciding with the release of the latest version of Fedora, O'Reilly brought out the new book titled Fedora Linux authored by Chris Tyler. The book is divided into 10 chapters spanning over 600 pages with each chapter catering to a particular topic. Like all books of this genre, this book also starts by explaining how to install Fedora on ones machine. But what is different regarding the Fedora installer is that it provides a lot of flexibility, variety and finer control over the install process. Not surprisingly, the author has dedicated two chapters for explaining the various ways in installing Fedora. The first chapter titled "Quick start: Installing Fedora" covers the basic installation from start to finish. Where as the 10th chapter titled "Advanced Installation" covers the advanced features of the installer such as creating logical volumes and Raid during installation, automating the installation process using the kick start file, installing from locations other than a CD/DVD such as NFS and PXE boot as well as a detailed coverage of the Grub boot loader. This chapter also has a short section explaining how to install and use Xen virtual machines.

At a first glance, one might be tempted to bundle this book with the rest of the books available on this subject. But on close scrutiny, I discovered a certain method to the madness. That is each topic that is covered in the book is divided into 4 broad sections. There is a section titled "How do I do that?" which explains the nuts and bolts of accomplishing the given task. The next section titled "How does it work?" gives a good understanding of the theoretical concepts if any behind the topic, the third section titled "What about...?" introduces potential configuration bottlenecks and any additional tasks related to the topic and provides solutions to them. And lastly, there is a section titled "Where can I learn more...?" which provides a bunch of resources on the web and pointers to the respective documentation which will provide further insights about the topic being discussed. It is really refreshing to see this book take such a unique structured approach to explaining the concepts.

The 2nd chapter titled "Using Fedora on your Desktop" apart from covering details about Gnome and KDE Desktops also provides information about additional topics like configuring the XServer, adding new fonts and configuring sound and printing to work with Fedora. There are topics like partitioning a flash drive which makes this particular chapter quite interesting.

The third chapter titled "Using Fedora on your Notebook" explains how to configure Fedora to handle laptop specific features such as power management, mobile networking and configuring touch pad. This chapter also gives a firm introduction to configuring the networking interfaces be it the ethernet or wireless. One thing which holds Fedora in good stead over its peers is the good set of GUI front-ends available to configure each and every aspect of Linux. And configuring networking is no different. But the author does not limit himself to explaining the GUI way of configuring but also explains how to do it the command line way.

No book on Linux is complete without an in depth coverage of the basic commands used for system maintenance. The fourth chapter titled "Basic System Management" is one of the largest chapters in this book where the author explains all the important commands one might be expected to know to keep Fedora Linux in ship shape. Apart from the ubiquitous commands, I also found detailed pointers in enabling secure remote access to Fedora using SSH.

Package management forms the basis for the fifth chapter. Fedora has a great set of tools which aid the user in a variety of ways in installing, removing and upgrading packages. Fedora uses the software management system called RPM Package Manager. But with popular demand, it has also incorporated an apt-get like tool called Yum which automatically resolve dependency issues. I found this chapter to provide an in-depth coverage of all the tools related to package management in Fedora. For example, the author explains how to roll back the installation of a package to a state 10 minutes ago or for that matter to a previous date using the RPM tool. There is also a section which explains how to create ones own RPM packages.

The chapter titled "Storage management" gives a broad explanation of Logical volume management and setting up Raid. Fedora comes with its own LVM administration tool which makes it a snap to set up and manage logical volumes. The author after explaining how to accomplish creating, resizing and deleting logical volumes using this GUI tool, goes on to describe how to do it the command line way too which makes this chapter really useful. All along the chapter, I found useful tips on tasks such as creating backups of the disk and how to go about doing it, stopping a raid and so on.

But the one chapter which I found really comprehensive was the seventh chapter titled "Network Services". Here the author explains how to setup the gamut of network services including but not limited to DHCP server, BIND, CUPS print server, MySQL server, sendmail and more. This chapter spans around 100 pages. There is also a short section providing tips on analyzing the web and ftp logs.

Lets face it. Even though Fedora is a community supported venture backed by Red Hat, it has all the characteristics which propel it to the enterprise level. One of the notable characteristics is the extensive integration of SELinux (Security Enhanced Linux). SELinux controls what a program is and is not allowed to do, enforcing security policy through the kernel. Fedora has very good support for SELinux and has even developed GUI front-ends to make it much more easier to configure. In the 8th chapter, the author explains in detail the steps needed to configure and fine tune selinux on Fedora. This chapter also contain sections which explain the pluggable authentication module as well as other security related features such as configuring a firewall and using access control lists.

The unique structure in which the chapters are layed out makes it more suitable to be used as a reference more than a cover to cover read. The author is eloquent in his narration of the topics and has done a good job of explaining the concepts. I found this book to be an ideal resource for coming up to date with all the system and network administration tasks that can be accomplished in Fedora Linux.

Ravi Kumar maintains a blog where he shares his thoughts related to GNU/Linux, Open Source and Free Software at linuxhelp.blogspot.com. He has also reviewed in a concise way the history of GNU/Linux.


You can purchase Fedora Linux from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

cancel ×

176 comments

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

Don't forget... (0, Troll)

SCO$699FeeTroll (695565) | more than 7 years ago | (#17006862)

...to pay your $699 licensing fee you cock-smoking teabaggers.

Comment on Fedora in general. (2, Informative)

aquaepulse (990849) | more than 7 years ago | (#17006894)

For my CSE432 class, Operating System Internals, we delve into the Linux 2.4 kernel code to show examples of how operating systems are implemented. So I, being a lifelong Windows user, decided to setup a VMware virtual Linux box. Started with Ubuntu, but couldn't get the VMTools installed properly.
Format.
Install Fedora, update the kernel packages, VMTools up and running.
Easy.
I like Fedora and this book look like it could make anyone a more knowledgeable Fedora user.

Re:Comment on Fedora in general. (2, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 7 years ago | (#17006956)

I never found Ubuntu all the user friendly. I don't have any idea where it gets that reputation from. I've never found Fedora to be that much better. The best distro I've found so far is Mandriva. It's the only distro that consistently (for the last 5 years) that I've been able to install and have everything "Just Work". I have tried other distros because every else is raving about Ubuntu, or Fedora, or Suse, or Gentoo, but I haven't found that any of them work as well as Mandriva has.

Re:Comment on Fedora in general. (1)

Fry-kun (619632) | more than 7 years ago | (#17007890)

I've started using Ubuntu as my first Linux - I loved the kind of support I was able to get at Ubuntu forums (fast responses, nobody being condescending to a n00b like me...) - but for me the dealbreaker was that the packages were not up-to-date for a long time. It's true, the working packages should only be updated after they've been through a lot of testing - but the problem is, not all software works correctly in the old versions.. I'm using Fedora now - grinding my teeth whenever a problem occurs - but using it nonetheless.
Anyway, it would've been perfect if Fedora came with Ubuntu-level support... oh well, I can dream :P

Or maybe it doesn't have to be a dream.. I've seen Fedora-specific questions being answered on Ubuntu forums - maybe there's still hope

Fedora's version of KDE lacks polish, attention (3, Interesting)

billybob2 (755512) | more than 7 years ago | (#17009122)

The modified version of KDE that ships in Fedora 6 is really buggy and unpolished. There's been talk for two years about placing KDE in Fedora Extras [fedoraproject.org] so that it will be better supported by the dedicated KDE community, but Redhat seems to keep refusing the help and treating KDE apps as second-class citizens.

Some of the Fedora 6 changes (like taking away MP3 playing capability from KDE music players) are justified on a legal basis, but other changes (like using a 4-year old window decoration and widget styles) are at best the result of ineptitude or at worst a deliberate attempt to make KDE look bad and outdated.

Gentoo? (0, Troll)

Tarlus (1000874) | more than 7 years ago | (#17009176)

Who told you that Gentoo is user friendly?

You didn't "setup" a VMware virtual Linux box. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17006986)

You "set up" the box.

Maybe you should stop taking CS classes and enroll in remedial English classes
instead.

Re:You didn't "setup" a VMware virtual Linux box. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17007430)

You "set up" the box. Maybe you should stop taking CS classes and enroll in remedial English classes instead.
Perhaps it was a typo (missed the spacebar). Nevertheless, the omission of a space hardly warrants a grammer flame. My rule of thumb is this: If the mistake makes the message difficult to understand, then you might want to bring it to the other person's attention (if you are feeling like an anal jerk on a given day). If the only reason the mistake is bothering you is because you have a 2x4 piece of wood rammed up your ass, then maybe you should invest your time in going to the convenience store to get some laxative.

Re:You didn't "setup" a VMware virtual Linux box. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17007892)

I doubt it was a typo. This seems to be a new trend, running a verb and an
adverb together to form a legal noun that is then recast improperly back to
use as a verb.

Now that the possessive "it's" is firmly entrenched, we have to add this
insult to injury. Pardon me if I "loose" my composure.

Perhaps the original poster will let us know if it was a typo, or if he is
an illiterate slob. I'm voting for "illiterate slob".

Literacy is important. Language is important. Somehow there is a bigger
principle at work here. It has to do with the individual commitment (or
lack of commitment, as the case may be) to academic excellence. I cannot
come to terms with the idea of an otherwise intelligent person who calls
himself educated, but doesn't give a damn about basic grammar.

This would be a fair description of the Slashdot editor, come to think of
it.

Having said all that, I have to logout, shutdown and turnoff my computer.

Re:You didn't "setup" a VMware virtual Linux box. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17008112)

Folks, we have a new leader in the competition for the coveted Most Pompous Post of 2006.

Re:You didn't "setup" a VMware virtual Linux box. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17007590)

You "set up" the box.

Gratuitous use of quotation marks is also a grammatical error.

Re:You didn't "setup" a VMware virtual Linux box. (1)

Massif (875445) | more than 7 years ago | (#17007798)

Someone "set us up" the box. Main screen turn on.

Re:You didn't "setup" a VMware virtual Linux box. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17008532)

"Set up us."

If you're going to make lame-ass attempts at humor, get them right, moron.

Re:Comment on Fedora in general. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17007072)

You're pretty worthless if you're in a 400 level CS class and haven't already used an operating system other than Windows. I suggest ditch digging would be a more suitable career for you.

Re:Comment on Fedora in general. (1)

scoot80 (1017822) | more than 7 years ago | (#17009478)

Is that career working out for you? Get back to ditch digging mate, computer break is over.

Re:Comment on Fedora in general. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17007188)

Are you telling me that you can hack the linux kernel but you can't set up VMWare on a Ubuntu box??

Re:Comment on Fedora in general. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17008180)

He didn't say he hacked the kernel, he said he "delved into it". Meaning he looked at the slab allocator code, his brain vapor-locked, then he hurled into his wastebasket and staggered off to take a bong hit.

Re:Comment on Fedora in general. (2, Insightful)

Rix (54095) | more than 7 years ago | (#17009050)

So in other words, you had little interest in understanding how the system works. You just wanted to point to it and say "Oooo, Linux Pixie Dust(TM)".

More widely used than you'd know (1, Interesting)

fishdan (569872) | more than 7 years ago | (#17006908)

In an informal survey on my IM list, more people are using Fedora than any other distro. Not that that's good or bad, but considering all the hype for Ubuntu recently, I'm happy to see Fedora getting a little love. It's been my workstation of choice since FC2.

Re:More widely used than you'd know (1)

micromoog (206608) | more than 7 years ago | (#17007028)

I'm happy to see Fedora getting a little love. It's been my workstation of choice since FC2.

What a coincidence -- FC2 was the distro that drove me away from Red Hat and all of its relations.

Re:More widely used than you'd know (5, Insightful)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 7 years ago | (#17007470)

I hate to say "me, too", but "me, too". I started losing faith when RH9 came out so fast after 8, especially considering how happy I was was the whole 7.x line. (and even 6.1) I still have FC1 on a couple of boxes, and unfortunately FC4 on a couple as well. What has kept RH on those boxes is the fact that I simply know RH's quirks/methods better than anything else.

What is ironic is that everyone is bitching about how it took 6 years to go from xp to Vista (which I won't migrate to) but I felt the opposite. I am tired of learning new operating systems just for the sake of learning new operating systems. I don't buy computers to run operating systems, I use operating systems to run PROGRAMS.

Eventually I will have to make the switch to Debian (which seems to be the best for NOT changing the version every freaking 6 to 12 months), but have just been too busy running the actual programs to learn a different Linux version.

Re:More widely used than you'd know (2, Informative)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 7 years ago | (#17008046)

8 & 9 definitely sucked. Those were both crappy, mediocre distros, especially considering how excellent the Valhalla (7.3?) distro was...It's still a hugely popular distro for web hosting companies.

I was pretty pleased with Fedora Core 2-4, felt like they were modern, without being bloated and slow like 8 & 9. FC5 was a real dog, though, so I don't know what to say about that. In all, I tend to use Fedora more than any other distro. It's got its issues, but when you use it enough, you just sort of tune them out by default.

Redhat and Fedora have their moments of brilliance, but you really have to watch 'em, they can bite you. Definitely not an automatic upgrade, whenever the new one comes out.

Re:More widely used than you'd know (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17009114)

I quit Fedora with FC5 and am back with FC6. Great distro and it works
well except for mplayer video plugins which work like shit. But who cares
as long as everything else work better than on SuSE.

Re:More widely used than you'd know (1)

Shawn is an Asshole (845769) | more than 7 years ago | (#17008776)

Eventually I will have to make the switch to Debian (which seems to be the best for NOT changing the version every freaking 6 to 12 months), but have just been too busy running the actual programs to learn a different Linux version.


Have you tried CentOS? It's based off of RHEL4 and the versions are fairly stable. It will be supported for a while. The program versions are quite old, though. I can't stand the version of Gnome it ships with (2.14 was the first version I found usable). With KDE-Redhat, though, you can get a current version of KDE.

If you do decide to go to Debian, though, give Ubuntu a try. 6.06 will be supported for several years. Another plus is unlike Fedora/RHEL you don't need to piece together many different repositories just to get the programs you need. Just enabling main, universe, and multiverse are enough. I also throw in PLF for libdvdcss2 and w32codecs.

Re:More widely used than you'd know (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17007220)

An interesting note, sourceforge.net is still using a tweaked version of FC2 for their project web servers.

I started with RHL4.2 and transistioned to FC when the $60/year RHN subscriptions were no longer offered. At first I was disappointed by the loss of cheap RHN support but I'm actually in better shape now with a local mirror of the base, updates, extras, and livna repositories. I suspect small businesses didn't fair as well if they didn't have the resources to either use RHEL or transition to FC.

FC is not perfect but its a very good distro with some nice features.

package manager need tons of work (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17006958)

Fedora is a nice distro. The biggest problem I have faced in using it, though, has been yum. But to be fair, it is improving with every version of FC. However, it's very feature deficient when compared to apt -- which is a big big plus for Debian based distros. Also, the various repositories of FC also add to the confusion: which mirrors to use and which mirrors to avoid is not straightfordward (dependency hell) and the combinations of various 'acceptable' repositories can be a confusing issue. The other problem with yum has been its speed: the last time I checked (that was in FC5), it still took ages to do every operation.

Having said all this, I hope yum has imoproved in FC6, yet to try that though.

Re:package manager need tons of work (2, Informative)

Kelson (129150) | more than 7 years ago | (#17007068)

One problem yum has had is that it wants to check the network for updates before every operation. This has improved recently, either in Fedora Core 6 or one of the updates to Fedora Core 5. Now if you run more than one yum operation within a period of time -- I think it's an hour, at least by default -- it will use its cached copy instead of calling out to the network.

It still needs to re-read the data, which takes longer than it should, but only has to call out to the network if something is likely to be different, which makes a *huge* difference when you're installing individual packages or querying it with search or info.

Re:package manager need tons of work (5, Informative)

slamb (119285) | more than 7 years ago | (#17008146)

One problem yum has had is that it wants to check the network for updates before every operation. This has improved recently ... It still needs to re-read the data, which takes longer than it should, but only has to call out to the network if something is likely to be different, which makes a *huge* difference when you're installing individual packages or querying it with search or info.

Reading and re-reading the data should be quicker now, too.

The repository data is stored in a giant XML file which is incredibly slow to parse. Back in the day, it would read this file in every time you ran yum. Last year [1] they added a SQLite cache, so this step could be skipped if the data hadn't changed.

Relatively recently, they added a separate yum-metadata-parser written in C that dramatically reduces the time the parse step takes. Take these changes together and what used to take 45.5 seconds every time you ran yum now takes 7.5 seconds only if the data have changed. [2]

It sounds like they've done as much as they can without changing the transferred data to be an indexed binary format (with the associated forward/backward compatibility complexity).

(I'm not running Fedora Core 6, so I'm not sure if this change made it in.)

[1] - Looks like [duke.edu] yum 2.3.1 introduced the cache, around March 2005.

[2] - See this message [duke.edu] introducing it around May 2006 sometime after yum 2.6.1.

Re:package manager need tons of work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17007352)


the various repositories of FC also add to the confusion: which mirrors to use and which mirrors to avoid is not straightfordward (dependency hell) and the combinations of various 'acceptable' repositories can be a confusing issue

If you were using a mirror there would be no issues, its when your using someones custom repository that you can run into dependency issues, i.e. freshrpms. This will never change as it should be obvious that the Fedora project team will never have control over every repository out there. Mirrors on the other hand are not an issue and never have been thats why they are called mirrors.

Ive use debian for years, and wonderd why (1)

walterbyrd (182728) | more than 7 years ago | (#17009482)

anybody would use redhat.

IMO: debian still has the best package management in the business. Also, you don't have to download and install a ton of cruft that you don't want. And you only install debian once - then just incrementally upgrade.

To each, his own, I guess.

Missing a Chapter (-1, Troll)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#17007006)

Wake me up when the book has a chapter entitled "How Red Hat Software broke its covenant with the linux community" talking about how the supported stable free version of the software disappeared, to be replaced by a beta test program for RHEL.

Many of us, myself included, were formerly RedHat users but we learned that they don't give a fuck about us when they shifted from free RedHat to Fedora, and haven't looked back since.

Re:Missing a Chapter (5, Funny)

Anonymous Crowhead (577505) | more than 7 years ago | (#17007088)

Yeah, it sucked when RedHat decided they needed to concentrate on making money or they were going to go out of business.

Re:Missing a Chapter (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17007764)

Perhaps someday the rank and file contributors to Linux will decide to concentrate on making money too and the free ride will be over for companies like RedHat.

Re:Missing a Chapter (1)

Tet (2721) | more than 7 years ago | (#17008462)

the free ride will be over for companies like RedHat.

I know I shouldn't feed the troll, but to claim Red Hat are getting a free ride is just plain ridiculous. I'd like to be pointed to a single organisation, commercial or otherwise, that has done more for the free software community than Red Hat. And yes, I'd probably say they even eclipse the FSF in that respect now.

The answer is simple - OpenSSH (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17008794)

Simple answer: OpenSSH, even RedHat hasn't helped fund or even donate anything, not even $1.00 - yet they use it and rely heavily on it and make butt loads of money. Some help for the FOSS communit(y|ies) as a whole from RedHat, pfft, funding or donating to OpenSSH (even OpenBSD for that matter) would only make sense in helping everyone, including themselves...! Has RedHat developed anything as widely used and ported as OpenSSH? I don't think so. Have they even cared to give anything back? I don't think so.

Fedora's pace is just right for me (1)

thule (9041) | more than 7 years ago | (#17007174)

The pace of Fedora is just right for me. For servers I can still use EL or Centos, but I like to keep up with what's happening out there on my notebook. Fedora provides that environment. Not too slow (Debian) and not too fast (gentoo or Rawhide). If you look at RedHat linux releases previous to Fedora, the pace was about the same. It seems to me that RedHat decided they needed to slow down the cycle without loosing momentum. The way they did this is Fedora.

Re:Fedora's pace is just right for me (1)

Kelson (129150) | more than 7 years ago | (#17007438)

If you look at RedHat linux releases previous to Fedora, the pace was about the same.

Yeah, they used to release 5.0, then 6-9 months later 5.1, then 6-9 months later 5.2, then 6-9 months later 6.0. Now it's 3, then 6-9 months later 4, then 6-9 months later 5, then 6-9 months later 6.

The biggest change in the release schedule is the numbering scheme. They're just incrementing a full number each time instead of doing point releases.

Re:Fedora's pace is just right for me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17008172)

Boy, are you retarded?

Calling Debian's release cycle slow down right stupid. You know very well that's because everyone who doesn't use Debian, never looks past stable. And you know what, stable is stable.

Re:Fedora's pace is just right for me (1)

thule (9041) | more than 7 years ago | (#17008768)

Boy, are you retarded?

Ummm. Not that I know of.

Calling Debian's release cycle slow down right stupid. You know very well that's because everyone who doesn't use Debian, never looks past stable. And you know what, stable is stable.

What is the point of having a stable release if no one uses it? Cutting stable release a bit more often is very useful. It appears that is what more than a few people want. It seems to be the main thing that is fueling the success of Ubuntu at the cost of creating incompatible repositories.

Re:Missing a Chapter (4, Insightful)

slamb (119285) | more than 7 years ago | (#17008390)

Wake me up when the book has a chapter entitled "How Red Hat Software broke its covenant with the linux community" talking about how the supported stable free version of the software disappeared, to be replaced by a beta test program for RHEL.

There never was such a convenant, and RedHat releases all the source packages as required by the GPL. This means you can download a RHEL-based stable, free distribution recompiled by a third party in the form of CentOS [centos.org] . My company tends to buy RHEL where we want paid support or where we have to buy an operating system with hardware (Dell offers Windows or RHEL at the same price). We use CentOS elsewhere. It's the same software, and it's free and legal.

Many of us, myself included, were formerly RedHat users but we learned that they don't give a fuck about us when they shifted from free RedHat to Fedora, and haven't looked back since.

For a company that doesn't give a fuck about open source, they sure hire a lot of people to develop it. I can't find it now, but somewhere there's a webpage with a list of all the open source projects RedHat has developed, maintains, and contributes to. It's amazing how much they've given back to the community, and how many idiots like you there are who are deliberately blind to it.

Can someone please mod the parent down as a troll? And someone else please post a link to the page I can't find?

Re:Missing a Chapter (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#17009448)

Can someone please mod the parent down as a troll? And someone else please post a link to the page I can't find?

In the interest of full disclosure, you should mention that you have Foe'd me when you ask someone to mod me down. I have a couple of serial downvoters modding various comments incorrectly already and now you ask people to do more of it? This is not a troll. This is my genuine opinion.

Actually, if you don't even know what a troll is, perhaps you shouldn't ask people to mod things with that modifier. Trolling is when you say something you don't believe to elicit a desired response. If my GP comment deserves any negative moderation, it is Flamebait. However, many unpopular views are often modded Flamebait. The slashbot party line is generally supportive of the Fedora project, although in times past it has gone the other way, like when Fedora was destroying people's CDRW hardware. Ah, how quickly we forget. I guess this is why over the years we have forgiven Sony its many trespasses, and why probably 99% of the people all incensed over their misplay will be buying a PS3 ere long. I can only assume the same element of human nature is responsible for simultaneously bitching about our government yet continually voting for the incumbents.

Oh, and this is the list you were looking for [redhat.com] . I googled for "redhat open source projects" and then clicked about four times to get there. You couldn't find your asshole with both hands and a depth gauge. No wonder you foe'd me, I must have had endless reasons to cuss you out for stupidity in the past.

Re:Missing a Chapter (2, Insightful)

Per Bothner (19354) | more than 7 years ago | (#17008564)

I'm curious what "covenant" you imagine Red Hat broke.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Re:Missing a Chapter (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#17008716)

It's the "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" bit. Except in this case it's "I'll act like Microsoft, and you'll eat it up because we sell Linux!"

Re:Missing a Chapter (1)

Per Bothner (19354) | more than 7 years ago | (#17009096)

It's the "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" bit.

And Red Hat has violated this how? Considering how many millions of dollars they have spent on developers, Q&A, and computer resources for Gcc, Gnome, the Linux kernel, NetworkManager, etc etc etc - and of course Fedora Core.

I apologize for not being familiar with your contributions to Gnu/Linux/Free Software. I'm assuming they're noteworthy; otherwise you wouldn't have written what you wrote.

Re:Missing a Chapter (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#17009366)

I don't get choked up when someone supports Free Software in the pursuit of making money. Sorry.

I apologize for not being familiar with your contributions to Gnu/Linux/Free Software. I'm assuming they're noteworthy; otherwise you wouldn't have written what you wrote.

When I said they didn't care about "us" I meant the users of RedHat, but I guess everyone assumed I was speaking for the entire Open Source and Free Software community. I should have expected that out of the idiots on this thing.

Am I not allowed to have an opinion if I didn't write emacs?

Re:Missing a Chapter (1)

Per Bothner (19354) | more than 7 years ago | (#17009518)

When I said they didn't care about "us" I meant the users of RedHat
I'm a user of Red Hat. I transitioned happily to Fedora, like lots of others.

Am I not allowed to have an opinion if I didn't write emacs?
Of course. It's fine to complain. It's fine to be a free-loader.
Doing both, however, is rather tacky. Thinking Red Hat owes you anything is rather immature.

Pick a random, popular package. (1)

Ayanami Rei (621112) | more than 7 years ago | (#17009184)

And open up the AUTHORS or CHANGES file. Grep for "@redhat.com".

I think they still care.

Check out Microsoft's wrongdoing! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17007014)

It's here: http://malfy.org/ [malfy.org]

Better than the alternative (1)

Numbah One (821914) | more than 7 years ago | (#17007032)

"Fedora -- the Linux that is developed as a community effort, is the sand box of Red Hat.
I guess that's better than being the litter box of Red Hat.

Re:Better than the alternative (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17007794)

Really? My cat can't tell the difference.

Can we mark an article +2, Troll? (0, Redundant)

abaddononion (1004472) | more than 7 years ago | (#17007056)

Cue the inevitable "my distro is better/what's wrong with just using Vista" battle!

Summary of Future Posts (0, Troll)

jmyers (208878) | more than 7 years ago | (#17007062)

This post has been sealed in an envelope and kept in a hermetically sealed mayonnaise jar on the front porch of Funk & Wagnalls since noon today.

1. Fedora Sucks and locks up my system
2. Yum sucks
3. Fedora is great and Ubuntu is hype
4. Yum is great
5. Real men use slackware
6. YAWN....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Re:Summary of Future Posts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17007222)

Also "I don't need a 650 pages manual to learn to use Windows/Mac"

Misleading Summary (3, Insightful)

mpapet (761907) | more than 7 years ago | (#17007092)

They incorporate all the new features after they have been exhaustively tested into its commercial product, namely Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
Really? I thought it was the other way around? It was when I last tested it.

In all respects Fedora is the same Red Hat Linux but with cutting edge packages.
No, it's not!
1. No support. (This matters to some. Not me though)
2. Buggier. Look at the distros created with the Enterprise source code. That's a production ready OS. FC is not.
3. (b)leading edge everything where applicable. Comparable to Debian unstable IMHO.
4. Red Hat's Management/Sales probably don't like "free as good as paid version" statement either.

There are a few great distro's out there and FC is probably one of them, but not for production equipment. Every version I have recently tested I've ended up with randomly broken systems after applying patches. I never knew when or what to watch out for.

Debian stable and copycat Red Hat Enterprise distro's make it into production just fine. The path from Debian Testing versions to Stable is quite good as always.

Re:Misleading Summary (1)

Some_Llama (763766) | more than 7 years ago | (#17007144)

I tried to install FC6 on an old opteron box here at my work, the installer locked up everytime, FC5 installed without a hitch.. even did the media check in case the iso was corrupt..

Re:Misleading Summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17007560)


In all respects Fedora is the same Red Hat Linux but with cutting edge packages.
No, it's not!
1. No support. (This matters to some. Not me though)
2. Buggier. Look at the distros created with the Enterprise source code. That's a production ready OS. FC is not.
3. (b)leading edge everything where applicable. Comparable to Debian unstable IMHO.
4. Red Hat's Management/Sales probably don't like "free as good as paid version" statement either.


This is an important point. Many people who use FC find it to be very stable and capable, the result is that they decide it is a production worthy distro and this is a mistake.

It is quite possible to successfully deploy FC in a production environment and it may even go off without a hitch, but there are risks.
1. There is support, but its community support. There are irc channels, mailing lists, forums, etc. But its not likely you are going to find contract support services for FC.
2. It is not uncommon for an update to break a working system. I've ran into issue with NFS, selinux policies, and kernel issues on Via C3 processors. You had better know what your doing when an update breaks your system.

So while it is possible to use FC in a production environment, and many do, you need to be prepared with contingency plans if/when something breaks.

Re:Misleading Summary (2, Insightful)

frodo from middle ea (602941) | more than 7 years ago | (#17008342)

Using Fedora on a production system, and then complaining about stability is like using Win XP Home on production and complaining about stability/scalability.

Different OSes for different needs. For Desktop use Fedora, for servers use RHEL/CentOS .

Re:Misleading Summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17008996)

"For Desktop use Fedora,"
For the desktop you want a buggy system ?

Ubuntu is much better. The software isn't as old as a fucking RHEL/CentOS (that's for the server) but Ubuntu isn't as buggy as Fedora, on a desktop.

Also, XP home kernel/subsystem isn't in any way inferior to XP Pro. You can even, with third party software, tweak the ACL on XP Home. (or you can tweak them without anything with just a reboot into safe mode)
Most of the things XP pro has is just "out of the box" features that you can get on home with tweaks and third party software. And home kernel is as stable as XP Pro (it's the same, stupid.).
Buy XP Pro only if you need a dual processor setup. (xp home supports one dual core)

XP Home is a production capable OS for a Desktop. Ubuntu is a production capable os for the Desktop.
Windows 2003 is a production capable os for the server. CentOS/RHEL is a production capable os for the server.

FEDORA IS FOR NEITHER.

Re:Misleading Summary (1)

PenGun (794213) | more than 7 years ago | (#17009418)

All crap. Just get slak and be done with it. Wait ... I do find XP a useful 32 bit windose enviroment ... to flash my burners.

    PenGun
  Do What Now ??? ... Standards and Practices !

Re:Misleading Summary (5, Informative)

Kelson (129150) | more than 7 years ago | (#17007702)

They incorporate all the new features after they have been exhaustively tested into its commercial product, namely Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
Really? I thought it was the other way around? It was when I last tested it.

The sentence is poorly structured, hard to parse, and has a few grammatical errors (they/its), but is not backwards. It could use a couple of commas:

"They incorporate all the new features, after they have been exhaustively tested, into their commercial product..."

Re:Misleading Summary (1)

SoapDish (971052) | more than 7 years ago | (#17008386)

Hey at least the correct form of "its".

Re:Misleading Summary (1)

SoapDish (971052) | more than 7 years ago | (#17008406)

I pressed the submit button too early. I forgot a comma, and I used bad punctuation in conjuction with my quotation marks.

I hate making grammatical errors when talking about grammar!

Re:Misleading Summary (1)

Kelson (129150) | more than 7 years ago | (#17008620)

I hate making grammatical errors when talking about grammar!

Heh. I think it's one of those unwritten rules of the internet that posts about spelling must contain speling mistakes, and posts about grammar must grammar mistakes.

Solid but takes some tweaking. (1)

MikeFM (12491) | more than 7 years ago | (#17007826)

Fedora and Debian are fine if you understand their development process enough to hang back from the bleeding edge a little and not to use unstable or testing packages. I've ran both on servers under heavy load, for years, and have never had a crash or a major security issue. The Enterprise editions are mostly useful if you want support.

My biggest complaint is that they often compile software with to many dependicies, that aren't needed, required. This gets to be a pain when you have to compile half of your software yourself in order to keep things running with low overhead and little wasted space. Just because a program can use an optional feature doesn't mean it needs to be enabled by default. Also you tend to get a lot of cruft installed by default, even if you do a minimal install, that you don't need. I'm forced to keep track of these things and make sure they're removed myself - not very user friendly.

Re:Solid but takes some tweaking. (1)

Ed Avis (5917) | more than 7 years ago | (#17008988)

I used to use Red Hat and I've stayed with Fedora out of inertia. It seems like a perfectly reasonable if somewhat boring distribution. Red Hat's enterprise stuff is even more boring. That is usually a good thing.

Right now, however, I'm trying to work out how to replace the hard disk in my PC and transfer files from the old disk to the new one. It used to be you could just 'mount' but Fedora uses LVM by default, which has about forty different commands and manual pages. There's no handy tool to say 'just find all the partitions on this disk and mount them for me read-only'. In a way I miss using Slackware when everything was so simple you could fix it yourself, and tinker around without fear of making irreversible screwups.

Re:Solid but takes some tweaking. (1)

MikeFM (12491) | more than 7 years ago | (#17009268)

I've suffered that problem and it does seem an issue with LVM especially if you're like me and take the drives out and put them, unmarked, in a box for a couple months before trying to figure out how to put them back together. In the end my general solution is to just use proper RAID configurations as it's easier than rebuilding a complex filesystem.

Re:Solid but takes some tweaking. (1)

Rix (54095) | more than 7 years ago | (#17009006)

That's inevitable for a non-source based distro. You either have to maintain dozens of variations for each packages, or compile them with everything. Most choose the latter, as it's simpler, and works better for most people.

Re:Solid but takes some tweaking. (1)

MikeFM (12491) | more than 7 years ago | (#17009356)

It'd seem logical to always provide a minimal version of each package and to use an add-on package to add the kitchen sink. To some extent it may be a problem because of badly written programs that don't have an easy way to add and remove features without a recompile. Amarok comes to mind since installing it in Fedora also forces installing things such as MySQL that the default options don't even make use of.

Re: low overhead. (1)

Ayanami Rei (621112) | more than 7 years ago | (#17009348)

I would argue that point since most packages where the options configured actually mattered for performance reasons tend to have workarounds. Take apache for instance. While the httpd package comes configured with mod_php and mod_perl, by commenting out those modules in the configuration file those interpreters aren't loaded and so apache takes up less memory. Or take Samba -- they have factored out a single large package (which is how it exists upstream) into half a dozen smaller packages divided up between management tools, clients, the server and documentation.
It can cause an installation to be large (relative to say, DSL) to support a few key services, but is 1-2GB really that much space in an era of 160GB RAID-1 mirrored system disks? I try to spend time minimalizing the installation only to increase the speed of full system updates and backups, and not much else.

If you want to install linux on an embedded platform or reuse very old equipment; modern distros are probably no longer suited for this task.

Also, what is in the minimal install that shouldn't be there? Most of that stuff is to support the default configured kernel from userspace.

Re: low overhead. (1)

MikeFM (12491) | more than 7 years ago | (#17009680)

Things that aren't needed are just one more thing to break or cause a security problem. It's best to not put them in.

Besides I run my own servers off 4GB flash drives (read only) because it makes them faster and more stable so it does make a difference. Even my hosted servers often only come with 40GB of hdd space and space does become an issue so saving a couple gigs of space does matter to me. For your average bumpkin that just uses their computer to play Minesweeper sure it doesn't matter but to serious users that push their resources to the limit it can make a difference. I have terabytes of file storage but I'm still constantly out of space so why waste any.

Re:Misleading Summary (2, Interesting)

Nikademus (631739) | more than 7 years ago | (#17007986)

1. No support. (This matters to some. Not me though)

Indeed. Better support at ubuntu forums. But, I think the support is better at ubuntu forums than at any RHEL forums.

2. Buggier. Look at the distros created with the Enterprise source code. That's a production ready OS. FC is not.

Indeed, FC is buggier than RHEL. But RHEL is buggier than most other distros too. Not a reference in my mind.. Especially in package management. I don't even count the problems in RPM database I have had.

3. (b)leading edge everything where applicable. Comparable to Debian unstable IMHO.

Not really, it's bleeding edge, but bleedier than debian unstable. Debian unstable is stable compared to FC.

4. Red Hat's Management/Sales probably don't like "free as good as paid version" statement either.

It is not "as good" as paid version. Paid version sucks and FC sucks even more, so FC sucks more than the already sucking "paid version". It seems that you have to pay for support in buggy applications, like Oracle or the likes, and you don't have to pay for stable applications like postgresql.

Now honestly, I have had much more issues with RHEL (which is usually more stable than FC) than with debian unstable. I know I will be modded down for this post and I know I will probably be flamed by RH zealots, but FC sucks and is probably one of the worst distros. In my mind FC stability is even worse than windows, sorry for this. That doesn't mean I would use windows, but I certainly wouldn't use FC either in a production environment (or even on any of my desktops).

Interesting? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17009028)

How can be such unfunded rant be labeled as "interesting"? He didn't offer anything, not even his own experiences to back up his clams. How can Ubuntu forums better? 99% of their users don't even know what a Kernel is.

This is a textbook example of flamebait and whoever modded this up should be ashamed.

Re:Misleading Summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17008124)

They incorporate all the new features after they have been exhaustively tested into its commercial product, namely Red Hat Enterprise Linux.


Should have read;
  They [Fedora] incorporate all the new features after they have been exhaustively tested into its [their] commercial product, namely Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Who writes this sh1t? (0, Flamebait)

Sir_Ace (147391) | more than 7 years ago | (#17007160)


You've got to be delusional to say the word quality with anything associated with ReHat! All the code is tainted, nothing is built from direct sources, and nothing is current. What a joke. A bad one at that..... Soemthing like saying how Microsoft makes the most secure, bug free, up-to-date OS in the world...

I suggest you eat that dead tree rather than read it, at least you'll get something out of it that's useful. Hopefully toxic shock..

Re:Who writes this sh1t? (1)

Sir_Ace (147391) | more than 7 years ago | (#17007198)

Yes I know I misspelled 1/2 of the words in that post...

Re:Who writes this sh1t? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17007326)

Thank you, Sir Ace. You have just confirmed the general opinion of the mental capacity of Red Hat and Fedora bashers. Keep up the good work!

Re:Who writes this sh1t? (1)

sgholt (973993) | more than 7 years ago | (#17008042)

Not only you can he not spell, he is very wrong...:)

Re:Who writes this sh1t? (1)

hondamankev (1000186) | more than 7 years ago | (#17009510)

You clearly have no idea how much RedHat has contributed to linux over the years.

easy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17007206)

its easy - im a nix* noob but fedora taught me yum...works enough for this simple game server provider

Sales Push? (2, Insightful)

Dimes (10216) | more than 7 years ago | (#17007230)

Without(seriously) trying to be a Tr*ll, this really felt like a sales pitch.

I am not talking about Fanboy Fawning either, but more like "out of a brouchure".

Really, its not a review, but a list of talking points....no critical review, no Pro/Con.....strictly Pro/Pro.

Why is this a book review?

dimes

Re:Sales Push? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17007532)

Why is it that a positive book review about Fedora is considered a "sales pitch"? I've seen reviews of Ubuntu on here that are even more "positive", yet no one complains. The bias on slashdot against Fedora/Red Hat is just amazing. It seems like slashdot has become an Ubuntu fanboy forum, where all other distros are trashed. And yes, I happen to use Fedora and (gasp!) I even like it.

Re:Sales Push? (1)

IO ERROR (128968) | more than 7 years ago | (#17009354)

Maybe the book really is that good....... or maybe not.

Red Hat != the world (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 7 years ago | (#17007300)

Fedora -- the Linux that is developed as a community effort


That rather overstates the case, don't you think?

/vertisement... Stop it. (1, Insightful)

The_Wilschon (782534) | more than 7 years ago | (#17007428)

Ravi Kumar maintains a blog where he shares his thoughts related to GNU/Linux, Open Source and Free Software at linuxhelp.blogspot.com. He has also reviewed in a concise way the history of GNU/Linux.
Dear editors,
We don't want any more slashvertisements. If there is stupid crap like this in a summary or book review, or whatever, especially if it has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the submission, remove it! You are editors. You edit. That is your job. Do it. Or face the wrath...

With love,
The Undersigned

Re:/vertisement... Stop it. (5, Insightful)

SoapDish (971052) | more than 7 years ago | (#17008582)

Ravi was kind enough to provide a book review for slashdot. It is only common curtesy to give him a little attention.

Also, without that little explanation on who Ravi is, I would have no idea. The fact that he writes about linux (even though it's a blog), and has written other reviews makes the entire review a little more credible.

Take your blinkers off... (1, Informative)

lgftsa (617184) | more than 7 years ago | (#17007646)

> Fedora -- the Linux that is developed as a community effort

s/the/a/

I prefer Debian and here's why... (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17007684)

As Bruce Perens said it a while ago:

Fedora project is obviously intended to look like Debian. But unlike Debian, Fedora is an extremely unequal partnership. "Fedora" is where the community developers are supposed to build Red Hat's product, while the certifications and vendor endorsements are held back for the high-priced "Red Hat Enterprise Linux" brand. This is especially obvious in recent certification announcements: the Common Criteria certification will go to "Red Hat Enterprise Linux", not "Fedora". And of course the entire steering board of the Fedora project are Red Hat employees. Red Hat recently announced a second draft of the leadership structure for Fedora, in which they have eliminated voting, expressing the need to keep control in the hands of Red Hat's management.

But the most ludicrous aspect of the Fedora project is that with Fedora, Red Hat seeks to achieve what Debian did long ago. Because they can't (and shouldn't) control Debian, they decided to re-invent the wheel. It would take them years to achieve a fraction of what Debian already has.

If you need a stable, easy-to-administer, well-established, production OS, I would suggest Debian.

Hack a PS3 running on Fedora and win it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17007750)

You can win that Playstaion 3 Lunix (Fedora Core) [shimpinomori.net] if you can pwn it!

Review (2, Insightful)

retsil (763798) | more than 7 years ago | (#17007946)

I have to agree that the review is very poor and misleading. I like the book, I like Fedora and I think that it is underrated. But, this review leads the reader to think Fedora is something which it is clearly not. Could someone re-write a decent review?

sex wIth a gnaa (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17008116)

FreeBSD we.nt out

Re:sex wIth a gnaa (3, Funny)

ettlz (639203) | more than 7 years ago | (#17008306)

Oi, noob, you forgot the Goatse link. It's trolls like you that give the GNAA a bad name.

Fedora for Enterprise? (2, Interesting)

postmortem (906676) | more than 7 years ago | (#17008264)

What a joke. FC6 on day of release had already 20MB of software updates. Day later - 100MB. So called great updater has to download whole RPM package for a minor update.

I can't imagine anybody in large corporations wants to spend all their time and bandwidth propagating bleeding-edge software updates.

Re:Fedora for Enterprise? (1)

caseih (160668) | more than 7 years ago | (#17009594)

RHEL respins the ISOs every so often to incorporate the latest errata into their install disks. Fedora does not do this for obvious reasons. But it does make doing the initial install a bit of a pain, especially 4 months down the road.

As for downloading an entire package for a minor update, that's what debian does too. I think I prefer this anyway. Binary patching is too messy. Something else you might not realize is that, unlike on windows, most linux programs come in a single binary with a few auxillary files (like locale info, docs, etc). And the single binary or library file usually takes up most of the space anyway. So this is a much cleaner and less-error prone way to do it.

I set up a caching web proxy server usually that can help speed up the updates to multiple machines (I do this at home even). Sometimes I'll use repo-janitor to build mirror repositories (works good for install-fests at the local LUG) for my machines. Also it's possible to burn a DVD of all the errata and have yum work with that (I believe; it certainly works with apt), which is sometimes useful.

You're right, though. I would rather use RHEL or CentOS for a server.

my observations with core 6 (2, Interesting)

Doppler00 (534739) | more than 7 years ago | (#17009060)

Okay, I recently installed Fedora Core 6 on a new computer for my class, here are my observations as an infrequent Linux user:

-Frequently crashes on I/O errors (I assume a bad driver, not working well with dual core?).
-Inconsistency between control panels (too many tools do the same thing, scattered around the system).
-File sharing is a _little_ easier to setup, but I still had issues with it. Why can't a right click a folder, set permissions, and share?
-Fonts are still INCREDIBLY UGLY and illegible even after almost 10 years of Redhat.
-Still can't play .MOV files (i.e. movie trailers)
-Can't play divx out of the box
-Flash wasn't installed with Firefox.

Yeah, there are probably ways I could fix the last three, but come on, these should be standard. Are any other flavors of Linux ready for the consumer desktop? I mostly just use it for research, because it's a good platform for that. I can't stand it though for just a desktop OS. I've done slackware before, even scarier to me. Any other distro suggestions?

Re:my observations with core 6 (1)

essdodson (466448) | more than 7 years ago | (#17009556)

The last three at least are by design. Fedora does not ship packages which are restricted by patents or aren't entirely open source. Sorry.

Buy a new book every 6 months (1)

caseih (160668) | more than 7 years ago | (#17009488)

That's great! Now not only do I get to upgrade my OS every 6 months but I can also buy another book too! After all, the FC4 book is now obsolete (and in seriousness, in some ways this is true). O'Reilly's got quite a thing going here!

Seriously, their Fedora books are pretty good.

Fedora Books and Linux Books (1)

clear_thought_05 (915350) | more than 7 years ago | (#17009570)

I am curious. Does a "newbie" actually buy a book on a linux distribution? I would assume that plenty of online guides are much easier, cheaper and are (arguably) a better choice.

For example:
http://gagme.com/greg/linux/fc6-tips.php [gagme.com]
http://www.mjmwired.net/resources/mjm-fedora-fc6.h tml [mjmwired.net]
http://stanton-finley.net/fedora_core_5_installati on_notes.html [stanton-finley.net]

If I'm pessimistic about the "free" part about Linux, would I spend $30 on a book? Additionally, so much changes in a given 6 month period for something like Fedora. Is is really beneficial to recommend a book to someone when any given chapter could be totally outdated for the next release?

Confusion (2, Insightful)

TheoMurpse (729043) | more than 7 years ago | (#17009670)

Fedora the Linux that is developed as a community effort
Well what the hell do you call the other five billion Linuxes (Linuces?) out there? Aren't they community-developed as well? Debian, Slackware, Gentoo, DSL, FeatherLinux, etc. I mean, Fedora is sponsored by Red Hat, so if Fedora is a "community effort," then surely Knoppix, Mandriva, and other corporate-associated Linuces are "community-developed" as well!

Re:Confusion (1)

TheoMurpse (729043) | more than 7 years ago | (#17009748)

I don't mean to insinuate that Knoppix is corporate-owned. I misspake ;)

With much better distro options out there.. (0, Redundant)

ylikone (589264) | more than 7 years ago | (#17009700)

why bother with Fedora? I mean really! Ubuntu, debian, gentoo, archlinux are all so much better... heck, I'd even take mandriva over fedora.
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>