Slashdot Log In
Fedora 9 a Bit Behind the Curve On Installation
Posted by
timothy
on Wed May 14, 2008 06:02 PM
from the click-here-but-only-once dept.
from the click-here-but-only-once dept.
bsk_cw writes "Today, many Linux users are getting blasé about the ease with which they can install Linux. Possibly, they've been spoiled by distributions such as Ubuntu, which is actually easier to install than Windows. Unfortunately, Fedora 9, the latest version of this community edition of Red Hat, was a bit too much of a blast from the past for Computerworld's James Turner." (Except for bits about the installation, the review is actually quite positive.)
Related Stories
[+]
Technology: Fedora 9 "Sulphur" Alpha Released 62 comments
JonRob writes "The first development snapshot of Fedora 9 (Sulphur) has been released, providing both a KDE and a GNOME live CD. This is the first of three test releases before the final version of Fedora 9 this April. The alpha features many changes including KDE 4 by default, GNOME 2.21.4, support for creation of encrypted partitions and for resizing EXT2/EXT3/NTFS partitions during install, speed improvements to X, the Linux 2.6.24 kernel, and much more."
[+]
Fedora 9 Preview Cleared for Launch 158 comments
According to a post made yesterday to the Fedora announce mailing list, a Fedora 9 preview has been cleared for launch. "This is a Preview release, it is fairly close to what the final product
will be like. This is the most critical release for the Fedora
community to use and test and report bugs on. This is the last major
public release before the final GOLD Fedora 9 release on May 13th (we
hope). [...] Live images, KDE Live images, CDs and DVD options are available. http://torrent.fedoraproject.org has a section marked 'F9-Preview.'"
[+]
Fedora 9 (Sulphur) Released 218 comments
BrianGKUAC writes "Fedora 9 has been released as of 10 AM Eastern Time this morning. Release notes can be found here. Some of the more interesting new features include a new package management system, which can be used as an alternative to pup and pirut, known as PackageKit. This release also includes GNOME 2.22 and/or KDE 4.0.3, and Firefox 3 beta 5. Overall, there are a lot of improvements worth looking at, and the Bittorrent seeds are already feeding the release fairly effectively."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Shoot! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it's easier to instal than Windows! (Score:5, Insightful)
"actually easier to install than Windows" (!!)
I'm not sure what rock he's been living under, but Linux has been a lot easier to install than windows for ages. Ubiquity, Anaconda, Debian-Installer... sure, the old Debian boot-floppies installer was kind of a pain, but when you want to get your OS installed quickly and easily you don't exactly reach for silvers from Microsoft.
Lately I got a bit tired of Wine's partial support for Steam so I've been trying to get some kind of Windows installed on my system to run some games. It's been a comic horror show of 0000007B this, 80070241 that, swapping out different optical drives and dumbing down BIOS settings to try to get either the XP or Vista installer to not bluescreen or otherwise give up on life trying to copy data from the installation media.
Thankfully, when I need a sane, easy OS to regroup and try to find out what the cryptic hex codes barfed out by Microsoft's fragile-as-glass, no-system-logs-provided installers, I only have to reach for one of my Linux discs to get things up straight away.
And let's face it... if your goal is to quickly get a quality browser, IM client, office suite, and some basic development tools installed, you're going to have an easier time popping in an Ubuntu disc to get there even if Windows is preinstalled on the box!
Re:Of course it's easier to instal than Windows! (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Of course it's easier to instal than Windows! (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I think SP2 slipstreamed into the install disk recognizes SATA and SAS. Or you could slipstream the drivers themselves, which I don't recommend to anybody who isn't comfortable mucking with inf files.
Re: (Score:2)
XP's installer's insistence on floppy disks or slipstreaming for new drivers is a pain, but Vista's installer is a major improvement and takes drivers on any media during the installer.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Surely you mean just in "real mode" (only at boot) and not all the time and durring "protect mode" operation (once the 32bit OS is running and the bias no longer controls the SATA channel) right? Otherwise you would lose a lot of the benefits of the SATA channels an
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Of course it's easier to instal than Windows! (Score:5, Informative)
It also teaches you the commands, and tells you what it's doing. Very cool little ISO file.
Parent
Re:Of course it's easier to instal than Windows! (Score:5, Informative)
While the plural of anecdote is not data, I think I know what the GP is talking about and have experienced it myself.
There are some known AHCI problems [microsoft.com] with a common ATI southbridge chipset which made installing Vista impossible unless you first disable AHCI (I assume this is what the GP meant by having to dumb-down BIOS settings).
So, lets try XP I thought. Too bad it has no drivers for the sata controller at all, and I have no floppy drive. I ended up having to inject the controller drivers into the XP CD and re-burn it. The XP installer then saw my disk in IDE mode, but not AHCI mode..
I gave up and left the controller in IDE mode.
For reference, Ubuntu 7.10 had no trouble on the same machine.
Parent
Re:Of course it's easier to instal than Windows! (Score:4, Insightful)
That being said, I *always* had a problem getting them into a usable state once they were installed.
Problems include:
1. Having to install multiple service packs and other packages, often with multiple reboots.
2. Searching for the right version of drivers for my hardware on the internet. (Why can't they just use repositories like debian?)
3. Installing all the applications I generally use. (Again, central repositories make it much easier. They can even be used by proprietary applications with a validation on first run.)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's something of a non sequitur. Ubuntu, Fedora, and all the rest also do not write the drivers. They do not take any responsibility for them. Yet the fact remains that their installations have much more complete driver support without all the hunting and fishing around. But still, their installation CDs aren't really different in nature from any Windows
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Of course it's easier to instal than Windows! (Score:5, Insightful)
I am a Solaris/Linux user. Around two years ago, I decided to build a PVR (personal video recorder). I had heard good things about Windows XP, and the mainboard I had chosen had a note in it stating that "USB 2.0 function can only be obtained with Windows XP". And all the hardware (video input devices, video display) came with drivers for Windows XP. So I bought a copy of Windows XP (retail). Assembled the system, and attempted to load Windows XP.
After loading from the DVD drive, XP booted. However, the DVD did not show up. I reinstalled. Same thing. I assumed that the DVD was defective, and replaced it. Same thing. Tried a CD. Same thing. Turns out I need a driver from the CD supplied with the mainboard in order to use the CD/DVD. How do I get it there? XP also doesn't recognize the network adapter (same deal, I need a driver). The drivers are too large to put on a floppy.
I gave up on trying to use XP for this application, and installed Linux. At least it recognized the DVD and network "out of the box" (Fedora). I then put on MythTV (I had wanted to try a Windows PVR program, but, hey... Windows didn't work).
I tried XP on another box. It also didn't work. Turns out to need a "hard disc driver". In fact, the only thing that XP works on (for me) is a VMware session. Hell, even Mac OS works there. And that's where that copy is running today (along with MS Office and some other Microsoft stuff -- development tools, and a laser printer driver).
The only thing I conclude is that you must be a Windows XP expert. Or, that Windows XP came pre-installed. I understand that VISTA supports additional (modern) devices, but I am not going to pay hundreds more to find out it doesn't.
Parent
Re:Of course it's easier to instal than Windows! (Score:4, Interesting)
The main problem I have with installing Windows is that it takes so long. Why does it have to take 1 hour to install an OS? You pretty much just copy a bunch of files onto the HDD, right? Even on a slow CD drive that shouldn't take more than 10 mins max. And why does it ask me questions at several different parts of the install? It should ask them all at once. If it only took a few minutes, this would be forgivable, but if it's going to take an hour, I would at least like to set my options when the CD boots, and then let the install go on for the next hour while I do other things. I shouldn't have to babysit my computer. And why do I have to boot twice to install, once from CD, and once from HDD? And I have to answer questions on each boot.
Microsoft could learn a lot from Linux about OS installs.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not surprised Windows ME bluescreened on you on it's first boot, it w
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure what rock he's been living under, but Linux has been a lot easier to install than windows for ages.
You clearly have not installed Vista. I did an upgrade install and it took hours and left things in a mess. I formatted the drive and started with a fresh install. I started it right before I went to bed, expecting it to take hours like the upgrade, but it was ready to set up user profiles in 30 minutes. Ubuntu asked all the same questions when I installed it, except for the key. I wouldn't consider being asked one less question that doesn't even require thinking to be "a lot easier". In fact, the pa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, the hardware is all fine. Linux runs on it as solid as a rock. The XP installer apparently doesn't crash as long as I disable AHCI. Of course, it wouldn't install at all until my Windows-using friend helpfully reassembled my installer, being sure to include the SATA drivers that Microsoft apparently never cared to add when they updated their installation media. I guess you need a floppy disk drive if you want to do that at install time and don't care to remaster the damned installation media before yo
Re:Of course it's easier to instal than Windows! (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you tried installing Red Hat 5 on anything modern recently with much success?
Yes, it's so horrible that an OS from 2001, when floppies were still pretty common, needs a floppy to install a driver that didn't even exist at the time.
Oops, I forgot, this is Slashdot. We're suppose to complain whether it makes sense or not.
Parent
Re:Of course it's easier to instal than Windows! (Score:5, Funny)
Damned right. If these idiots would just download a more recent release of Windows XP, with all of the updated drivers in place, they'd have no trouble at all.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Not without an existing Windows install.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
My motherboard manufacturer gave me the drivers on a CD. Which was smart, because they didn't include a floppy controller on the motherboard. The Windows installer runs from a CD. The only thing wrong with this picture is "Insert disk into drive A:".
Microsoft doesn't update their installers until they become absolutely untenable. And a bunch of nerds who aren't even being paid for the most part are running circles around them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It was a stupid design decision by Microsoft and has nothing to do with Slashdot readers.
Swap issues (Score:5, Interesting)
This is something which seems to plague some Linux installs - if I recall correctly, Vector Linux (or was it Puppy?) has a similar problem with re-using swap partitions which are also used by other installed distros.
The fact that the author managed to get things going by telling the installer to repartition the drive seems to confirm this. It is a long time since I tested Fedora, so I have no idea if this problem is common with that distro.Luckily, most users will probably not have multiple distros installed and this should not prove an issue to them.
Kudos to the author for reporting the issue as a bug though - that may help to get this sorted for the next release.
Reading the frackin article..... (Score:5, Interesting)
I must have read a different article (whupps, sorry, it's slashdot, I know I'm not supposed to RTFA, backsliding again, I suppose)
the first page was complaints about the installer, a paragraph or two that's positive about the performance, and then a complaint that you have to buy the enterprise edition for support, because you can't buy support for Fedora...
Didn't do much for me as a review of the new Fedora, and it certainly didn't seem like the rest was "Positive".
Re:Reading the frackin article..... (Score:4, Funny)
0.001 > 0. Any questions?
Parent
Re:Reading the frackin article..... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
"(Except for bits about the installation, the review is actually quite positive.)"
I must have read a different article (whupps, sorry, it's slashdot, I know I'm not supposed to RTFA, backsliding again, I suppose)
the first page was complaints about the installer, a paragraph or two that's positive about the performance, and then a complaint that you have to buy the enterprise edition for support, because you can't buy support for Fedora...
Didn't do much for me as a review of the new Fedora, and it certainly didn't seem like the rest was "Positive".
Yes.. I think you did read a different article. The complaints about installing as a second distro on the same computer took the bulk of the first page, The remainder being about the fact that Fedora is not supported by Red Hat. True enough, but then Red Hat is a corporate distro, and Fedora is a bleeding edge test bed/community distro, so two different markets.
The second page was about F9 detecting his hardware, including the Wifi, and the ease of installing stuff. And minor complaint about previous probl
Re: (Score:2)
I truly wish you good luck.
I've finally given up after 4 tries.
For some reason it insists on trying to install itself back onto the DVD.
I even redownloaded the ISO, reburned to CD and DVD, all to no avail.I have never encountered anything like this before, and am now convinced it's 'not ready for prime time' yet.
I'll just stick with my comfortable Kubuntu setup.
Has Fedora fixed the packager manager performance? (Score:2, Informative)
Not too good if you ask me. But hell who needs Fedora anyway when there are much better distros without that RPM crap.
Re:Has Fedora fixed the packager manager performan (Score:2, Insightful)
$> yum remove [package]
yeah, i can see how your dependedncy hell transpired.
( heres a hint though, after yum works out all the dependencies, enter 'y' or 'n' to accept/reject the dependency resolution yum works out for ya...)
oh, and theres a graphical tool for command line averse.
the much shorter ( and accurate ) response to this A/C would of course be 'bullshit'
Re: (Score:2)
$> yum install [package]
$> yum remove [package]
fail on RHEL 5.1 x86_64 with some development package where *yum* installed both 32bit and 64bit versions. It couldn't figure out what to do with the remove statement, and I had to use rpm to nuke the packages.
I guess he never installed Slackware 3.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I guess he never installed Slackware 3.... (Score:5, Funny)
You know, a webpage full of instructions.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Installed easily, almost everything works (Score:2)
So far so good. Compiz and wireless work fine. The volume controls don't but I can live with it for now.
Nice thin
Linux is much easier than Windows (Score:3, Insightful)
Simple fact is that if you think it's hard you are either a Windows user or an idiot or quite probably both.
I guess "installing" Windows involves taking the newly bought HP/Dell out of the box and plugging it in.
That's not the ONLY curve Fedora's behind on (Score:2)
I expect to burn in flamebait karma hell for this, but as a Fedora user I do find it sad. But not surprising.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
doesnt that just indicate more people have to do more searches for issues with ubuntu than fedora?
Re: (Score:2)
Good documentation is more important (Score:2, Interesting)
Being a Fedora user myself, I walked through the install process in about ten minutes (excl. the time of merely waiting for file extraction/copying). And everything worked fine.
Installing Fedora is not a click-through. For new users it may appear to be more intimidating than it actually is. But don't forget the old practice of RTFM. Fedora has an excellent installation guide available from their wiki. The gu
Fedora for Enterprise? (Score:2)
and
Surely if you want an enterprise-grade distro but don't want to pay for it then you go for C
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
...and with the Microsoft/Novell deal, SUSE is fair game, too!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
you can boot straight up into it, and theres a double-click 'install to hard drive' desktop icon.
single cd image, and once installed, you can pick and choose additional packages from the public repositories.