Slashdot Log In
Intel Switches From Ubuntu To Fedora For Mobile Linux
Posted by
timothy
on Thu Jul 24, 2008 03:19 PM
from the all-good-all-good dept.
from the all-good-all-good dept.
An anonymous reader writes "According to a report on heise, Intel is switching from using Ubuntu to the Fedora Project for the second version of the Intel supported Mobile & Internet Linux Project Moblin, citing a desire to use RPM package management." So far, of the various subnotebooks I've been glancing at over shoulders at OSCON, though, most of the ones with an easily identified operating system seem to be running Ubuntu.
Related Stories
Submission: Intel switches from Ubuntu to Fedora for Mobile Li by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.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.
Oh, the fools... (Score:4, Informative)
There might be valid reasons to pick Fedora instead of Debian based systems, but package management is not one of them. Debian's package management is absolutely superior compared to everything else that I know about out there.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you a packager?
What are your opinions on deb's handling of patches against the upstream source?
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't run into any issue with debian-local changes so far. Why, is there a problem with the way dpkg is doing it?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm not a maintainer of any package in debian, But I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
There, fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'll 2nd that. Way too many times to see Fedora, RHEL, and CentOS users posting about problems as a result of packaging issues. And didn't some big Linux fan make a switch away from RedHat because of RPM issues?
Redhat does currently have a more profitable enterprise so maybe the reason has more to do with RedHat corporate and/or employee backing.
IMO, the customers are going to pay for this as a result since Ubuntu is more consumer oriented and has a good history with their application package management.
LoB
Re: (Score:2)
I have had debs blow up on me as well.
RPMs can work very well as can Debs. I have used both and frankly it really depends on the people running the repository and if you need to install odd stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
packages in Redhat repos seem to cause a lot of problems while there seem to be far fewer issues with packages in Ubuntu repos
huh? Are you saying that individuals bollixed some packaging or that there's a problem with the Redhat repos?
From what I've seen, it must be very rare for somebody to report an issue at Redhat's bugzilla and for it to not get fixed. The RPMForge guys are also astonishingly fast.
yum (Score:4, Informative)
Ever since yum became part of the standard Redhat distro, I have had almost zero trouble with rpm packages. With the repository aware wrapper on top of rpm, dependencies are resolved automatically, just like apt. With the main repository getting larger and larger, there is less reason to use 3rd party repositories that could lend to dependency issues. The main reason to use a 3rd party repository is to add support for proprietary codecs and drivers.
There is even talk of removing the rpm command entirely so that all package management goes through yum.
Parent
Re:Oh, the fools... (Score:5, Interesting)
And didn't some big Linux fan make a switch away from RedHat because of RPM issues?
That was ESR. He forced rpm to remove a package, even though rpm warned him that other packages needed it in order to function. Surprise of surprises, his system stopped working just like he was told that it would.
It was in no way rpm's fault that his system broke. ESR thought he knew better than rpm, and he was wrong.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-February/msg01082.html [redhat.com]
Eric was never forthcoming about what he did to break the system, which is no surprise because it was clearly an idiot thing to do.
If he had a problem with a repository, it's because he was trying to use a repository that wasn't compatible with Fedora. libcom_err was and is part of e2fsprogs-libs.
Absent any better proof than is available, I'll maintain that rpm is not at fault, and neither is Red Hat or Fedora. Eric was doing som
Re:Oh, the fools... (Score:5, Interesting)
I've used both, and for what little it's worth, I disagree.
For one thing, with yum I don't need to know what package name I want to install. I can "yum install certtool", and it will determine that certtool is provided by gnutls-utils and install that package. IIRC, apt-get can't do that.
I can also ask yum to install a package that's in the local filesystem, along with whatever it requires. apt-get can't do that, either.
Half of the docs that I've seen indicate that debs should be built by hand, and then the results should be packaged. I don't know what the deal is there, but rpm has always used the "spec" file to build and package software, which is a more repeatable process. Deb has "rules" now. If they were always there, I'd like to be corrected on that point. The fact that there is documentation for other processes suggests to me that the deb build process has been much worse than rpm's.
Beyond all of that, Fedora is building some really nice tools on top of rpm for automated rebuilds and packaging. Basically, all of the tools that they use to manage the distribution are open source, which makes it much easier for someone else (like Intel) to build a distribution based on Fedora's tools.
I know that Ubuntu attracts a lot of users, but I can definitely see why developers would prefer to use Fedora's tools as a base.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Apt has a concept of virtual packages which are implemented by several different packages. That way I can easily switch between free or non-free JVM, for example.
Re: (Score:2)
On Ubuntu Heron:
stephenj@lords:~$ banshee
The program 'banshee' is currently not installed. You can install it by typing:
sudo apt-get install banshee
bash: banshee: command not found
stephenj@lords:~$
That's pretty neat. Something DOES know which package contains what I want.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
it will determine that certtool is provided by gnutls-utils and install that package. IIRC, apt-get can't do that.
apt-file search path/to/myfile [debuntu.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Depends, auto-apt will actually suggest the package to install just by typeing in the command, or you can configure it to search and install the package you need to run that command the first time you try to run it.
*NOT* exactly (Score:5, Insightful)
Debian's package management is absolutely superior compared to everything else that I know about out there.
Debian's package management *IS* the best.
But this has *nothing* to do with the DEB format.
Debian's package management rocks because :
- "apt-get" & friends are very well designed to track dependencies (compared to Slackware's TGZ system, for example, which does no tracking by design).
- Huge efforts from the community have gone into building the official repositories in a coherent manner. Thus every package has a clear and non ambigous dependence on other packages (I've seen minor distros where the distro's original package have broken dependencies because the actual needed package got renamed, but the packages needing them didn't get updated)
- Debian is a huge honking distribution with a crazy amount of packages. Most of the time, you only need to get packages from the default repositories, which where well designed as said before.
- As the repositories are well designed and coherent : it's easy to target for 3rd party package maintainers, and produce packages whose dependencies relate nicely to the rest.
- DEB is mostly only used by Debian. Other distro using DEB are usually variants of Debian (for example: Knoppix is basically Debian-installed-on-an-image and Ubuntu is a very close derivative of Debian), they are not unrelated distro. Thus if a user picks up a .DEB somewhere, chances are high that the package will work, because it was designed for debian to begin with.
Whereas RPM are used by pretty much everyone else - sometime by distro that have nothing in common (RedHat is mainly used in RedHat derivatives, but openSUSE for example has some Slackware in it's ancestry - thank fully they have also participated in important efforts such as UnitedLinux and LSB to make the distro compatible with others). A Fedora user may pick a RPM from a random site on the intertubes thinking it will work, but, surprise, it was designed for a distro with a different layout or organisations.
- apt-get & friends are fast (openSUSE has nice depencencies solving systems in YaST, and has good quality 3rd party repositories like Packman - but all this is bloody slow compared to apt-get)
So in short, Debian package management is good because of the software handling it and even more because of the quality of the repositories.
The exact same could be imagined with RPMs.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Most of the reason Debian is so good is due to their very strict policy and review of packages before being allowed into the repository. apt-get is just icing on the cake.
Re: (Score:2)
dpkg -i --force-nodep --force-all?
I don't understand most of your complaints; I shipped a deb package that brought and applied its own source patches.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The base rpm command can tell you what package a file belongs to, what a package provides, what it requires, _even when it is not installed_. Not one Debian command can do that. Several, separately, but not one.
dpkg does all of that:
what package a file belongs to
dpkg -S (filename)
what a package provides
dpkg -L (packagename)
if you mean what files it provides otherwise package provides are seen via
dpkg -p (packagename)
what it requires
dpkg -p (packagename)
_even when it is not installed_
dpkg -l (packagename)
--
a
RPM vs DEB (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Dependencies (Score:5, Funny)
FUD abound (Score:2, Informative)
Now, I'll preface this with a disclaimer that I avoid Fedora generally. I got reminded of why during a recent attempt to use it and follow it, it really punishes the users with inconsistant updates even after release.
That said, RPM dependencies are no more convoluted than deb dependencies. The difference is that originally, RH distros had only the rpm command and debian out of the gate recognized the need for both dpkg *and* apt. RPM distributions each have at least one repository management strategy now
Well... Um... (Score:5, Funny)
I keep turning this over in my head, and keep coming back to the same scenario:
Steve Ballmer, in the Throne Room of his secret volcano lair: You begin to understand the true nature of my diabolic plan: If we cannot make Windows better, we will make Linux WORSE!
Anonymous Intel lackeys: Yes, master!
Steve Ballmer: Now go! Take these Fedora DVDs and install them on every Linux computer you find! Soon the foolish rebels will be BEGGING for Vista!
Steve Ballmer rips a bolted-down chair from the floor and holds it above his head, cackling devilishly, while his lieutenants and lackeys scramble for the exits.
==
(...with apologies to all three happy Fedora users...)
rpm -qa --queryformat "%{NAME}\t%{LICENSE}\n" (Score:5, Informative)
I *think* what Intel wants is this command:
rpm -qa --queryformat "%{NAME}\t%{LICENSE}\n"
I didn't know that .deb didn't support this. Can anyone provide a similar dpkg command?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There really isn't one. Most Debian packages come from main and are FOSS, so the licensing isn't a big deal. The package does contain /usr/share/doc/$package/COPYRIGHT by policy but that leaves the human grepping around. It would be trivial enough for the dpkg folk to add it but it has not been an issue up to now.
It's not JUST RPM they're after (Score:4, Insightful)
I wasn't sure why Intel would choose Fedora over Ubuntu either until I remembered the maintainer tools that Fedora has been working on.
It's not just RPM that Intel is after. Fedora has made a concerted effort over the last three or four releases to provide all the tools a group would need to make their own customized Fedora-derivative distro. I can't remember the software names off the top of my head, but groups like Fedora Unity use them to create more updated "spins" of Fedora releases.
So all Intel has to do now is build their own repository manager server and they can have automated testing, building, and packaging of any packages they want, up to and including the entire distro.
Re:Intellectual property issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that deb packages (by policy) do include that info.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
That's not what TFA says, guess I should not have read it. Apparently, the DEB package files used by Debian and Ubuntu don't have this information available. I don't use either, so I wouldn't know. Can someone double-check on an Ubuntu system?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Intellectual property issue (Score:5, Informative)
The package metadata does not contain the license beyond whether it's considered free or non-free, however every package is required to include usr/share/doc/[packagename]/copyright with the text of the license.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps they will take the opportunity to FIX RPM's inefficient use on SSD's?
--jeffk++
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong reason (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
KDE support in Fedora may be better as well, I haven't looked at it in a while so I'm not sure. KDE is stagnant as hell in Ubuntu/Kubuntu land for now (no LTS support for KDE in 8.04, etc.), due to all the churn with the very beta-like and some would say ill-planned KDE 4.0 release.
Re: (Score:2)
Disclaimer: Fedora package maintainer.
Re:Problems... (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I have to disagree here. I use RHEL5 on my office desktop, Fedora 8 for the server in my garage, a recent Ubuntu release on an old beater laptop, and used to run Sparc Debian (Sarge) on a variety of old Sun gear. I would say this gives me a fairly good understanding of the differences. Here's my unsolicited opinions
Re: (Score:2)
s/facts/opinions/
HTH. HAND.
Re: (Score:2)
With Ubuntu, you get a more friendly/usable Debian. Ubuntu is pretty much to Debian as Fedora is to RHEL when it comes to new/unpolished features/kernel/software. Granted both Debian and Ubuntu are available for 0$ but that doesn't change the fact that Ubuntu is more usable because the distribution is more flexible. (Blah blah opensource, blah blah centrino drivers, blah blah licensing, blah blah xorg, blah hardware support).
I've used Debian and Redhat before I started using Ubuntu and I totally appreciate
Re:Problems... (Score:4, Insightful)
Fedora by design isn't a *real* distro. It is a testing ground for RHEL. Now, Fedora is usable, and nice and all. But Ubuntu is a *real* distro, you don't have to pay for the "full" version. With Ubuntu, you get Debian cleaned up. With Fedora you get all the bits and pieces that make up RHEL in a developer-oriented way.
You just like Debian is the testing ground for Ubuntu? It would in fact be much more precise to describe Fedora as a testing ground for Ubuntu too, since the technology pioneered there drips back into Ubuntu. Ubuntu is probably a nice distro, but it is not known for its technological contributions to Linux, unlike e.g. Red Hat or Novell who pays a lot of software engineers to improve or develop core Linux software, that e.g. distroes like Ubuntu can use.
Intel needs to give people a real distro, not a "trial" version of RHEL.
There you go again. Fedora is a real distro and a fine one too, a good mixture of the most modern software and maturity. Please state what kind of software Fedora lacks to become a "real" distro.
I have using Linux for many years, and one thing I don't get about distro fan-boys like you is why you need to bad-mouth other distros than you favorite-distro-of-the-month, especially when you are unable to back it up with technical arguments.
And by the way, RPM (at least the "true" RPM versions) seem to be outdated and DEB in most ways is superior. (Note: Not trying to start a flame war, but merely stating facts)
That are some really impressive technical arguments you gave there - not! I wonder if you actually know what DEB or RPM is? Please give an actual example why rpm is outdated to dpkg? Well, you can't. Try to read 'man rpm' one day to get a overview of what you are talking about.
Parent
Re:Problems... (Score:4, Insightful)
DEB in most ways is superior. (Note: Not trying to start a flame war, but merely stating facts)
If you want to state the "facts", try detailing something that the dpkg tools do, which rpm tools do not. Otherwise, you're just flaming.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
So, let's say I have a debain based set up a full year out of date. It doesn't have firefox 3, which I want. I don't have the latest versions of GTK, and associated libs etc. The terminal window is open, what's the process look like? Go!
Easy:
$ sudo apt-get upgrade firefox
Hard:
$ sudo synaptic --dist-upgrade-mode
Is this a trap?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
--dist-upgrade-mode is for upgrading to the next release of your distro, such as for ff2->ff3 (via eg ubuntu gutsy->intrepid).
You're right that "upgrade" only upgrades to the latest version available for your distro. Some distros offer multiple independent versions within one distro (eg) both Python2.5 and Python2.4. In that case:
$ sudo apt-get install firefox3
I still can't see this as any reason to switch from one package manager to another. :(
Re: (Score:2)
Bonus question - is the Debian based answer going to be any easier than "yum update firefox"? (That's exactly the command I used to upgrade an old CentOS 5 box I had to FF3)
I've built literally thousands of packages. RPM is just fine. Some distributions and some repos are fucked (which is just as true for dpkg) but the package format is just fine.
Re:7yrs with Linux and dead set on DEB (Score:4, Insightful)
Funny, from a desktop perspective I went Slackware -> Red Hat -> Fedora -> Ubuntu -> CentOS because HOLY CRAP an Ubuntu upgrade totally hosed my system and ended up with some thoroughly fucked dependency issues. :) And from a server perspective I went from Solaris -> Debian -> CentOS because the idiots at Debian release a 3.0 with a known broken PHP package and then proceeded to leave it broken for six months. /counterrant
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Any people driven away by "stupid bickering" are users we don't need.