Slashdot Log In
Fedora 10 Released
Posted by
timothy
on Tue Nov 25, 2008 10:32 AM
from the looks-all-around-nice dept.
from the looks-all-around-nice dept.
ekimd writes "Fedora 10, aka 'Cambridge,' was released today. Some of the major features include: 'wireless connection sharing enables ad hoc network sharing, better setup and use of printers through improved management tools, virtualization storage provisioning for local and remote connections now simplified, SecTool is a new security audit and intrusion detection system.' Versions of major software include: Gnome 2.24, Eclipse 3.4 and RPM 4.6. A features list can be found here."
Reader Nate2 suggests LinuxFormat's detailed look at the new release, and adds a few more details about the software it contains: the release includes "a new graphical boot-up sequence, OpenOffice.org 3, many improvements to sound support via PulseAudio and other updates."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.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.
But does it run on .... shit that does not work... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:But does it run on .... shit that does not work (Score:5, Informative)
Problem is when Fedora first jumped off everyone tried it then formed an opinion based on 5 years ago. Most of these opinions spider across slashdot by people who haven't installed fedora since F2. When i was running Fedora a simple yum update command would finish in about 3-5 seconds. I'm also using a p4/2gb.
From the yum FAQ:
How is the speed of yum compared to APT-RPM?
yum automatically checks the repository every time you perform a command, except when run in shell mode, while APT only checks it when you run 'apt-get update' manually. This causes it to appear slower than it is. If you want yum to run from cache instead of checking the repositories, run 'yum -C '. See the man page for details.
yum now uses sqlite for its back-end database by default. This results in an edge in speed over older versions of yum. Beginning with Fedora Core 4, yum contains significant improvements that make it faster and more capable than older versions.
In general to posters. If you haven't installed an OS in 5 years would you mind not commenting on it unless you state when you used it. People out there get the impression nobody fixed yum when it was fixed 7-8 versions ago.
Parent
Re:Will it fix the most notorious Linux bug?? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Will it fix the most notorious Linux bug?? (Score:5, Funny)
There is been a bug in the Linux kernel that makes computers reboot every 47.9 days. This bug has been around for nearly 15 years!
I think you've misspelled "Windows NT" as "Linux".
I don't think that Linux can claim to be ready for the desktop (nor the server for that matter) until its development process is streamlined. As it is, the development priorities are set at the whims of one person.
I think you've misspelled "Windows" as "Linux".
--
Linux violates 235 Microsoft patents.
I think you've misspelled "inspires" as "violates".
Parent
Re:Will it fix the most notorious Linux bug?? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you've misspelled "Windows NT" as "Linux".
This bug actually applies to Win 9x, rather than to NT[1]. I'm led to believe that the reason is that MS used an int as a millisecond counter in VMM[2]. At 49.7* days, the int wraps, and Windows panics.
The bug was not discovered until 1999. Reportedly, that's how long it took for someone to convince Microsoft that they actually managed to keep Windows up for 49.7 days.
* Yes, the number is 49.7, not 47.9.
[1] Windows may crash after 49.7 days [cnet.com][3]
[2] Windows crash after 49.7 days, Automatically... Do you know? [winmatrix.com]
[3] That's right: it's cited, bitches!
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
My Linux based email server is currently sitting at 55 days uptime. Before that, it was up for over a year without a reboot. Only reason I rebooted it 55 days ago was to physically move it from one building to another.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Will it fix the most notorious Linux bug?? (Score:5, Funny)
Viva Vista!
;)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
My Linux laptop can move from one building to another without rebooting.
Now with that trivial criterion met, we can declare that it's officially the Year of Linux on the Desktop! w00t!
The big question is. (Score:5, Interesting)
Does it come with easy access to the "restricted" repositories?
That is the thing that makes Ubuntu so easy. You just take a check mark off the evil restricted repositories and you can download all those evil codecs that let you play video on your Linux box.
Oh and those evil closed source video drivers as well.
Re:The big question is. (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:The big question is. (Score:5, Informative)
You can install the rpmfusion-nonfree repo's signing keys and update the binary blobs via yum. However RPMfusion is not included in the release by default and you'll have to do this by yourself.
AFAIK distributing "evil" codecs are against Fedora's policy so they don't do that. But that doesn't prevent anyone else from doing it.
Parent
Re:The big question is. (Score:5, Informative)
Does it come with easy access to the "restricted" repositories?
Well it's certainly easier now since all the "restricted" repositories are now in one place - RPM Fusion [rpmfusion.org]. So you just install the rpmfusion rpm and then you get access to all the goodies. Not too sure how this is presented GUI-wise though.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Well it's certainly easier now since all the "restricted" repositories are now in one place - RPM Fusion [rpmfusion.org].
Except for the package libdvdcss, which could not be included into RPM Fusion and is still sitting in Livna.
Different Audience (Score:4, Insightful)
Fedora and Ubuntu are aimed at different audiences and/or "market" segments. Ubuntu is a great "just works" distro, whereas Fedora is much nicer for tweakers.
Both have little things the other lacks, or work slightly differently in some ways.
I say use the one you prefer.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's pretty easy, last time I did it was with Livna - click on the RPM on their website and install it (using the GUI, naturally), then the new packages can easily be found in the Add/Remove software GUI along with all the usual Fedora stuff. Piece of cake.
RPM Fusion (Score:4, Insightful)
It's never been difficult to add Dag and Livna, but it's now even easier: http://rpmfusion.org/ [rpmfusion.org] I really liked the polish of Fedora 9, it was a huge step up from 8. Hopefully Fedora 10 continues in that direction.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you're running rawhide, this is almost never an issue anymore.
Breaking the law is always easy (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
The same goes for openSUSE. However there you can just add the Packman repositories that will install MPlayer. Also you can add the ATI or NVidia repositoeries and install those drivers.
The latter one are at the respective companies themselves.
They are just not enabled by default.
Then there is the one-click-install where you can just click on a link and that will do the rest for you (after entering the root password and click on OK once or twice)
Yes, it is a work around.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but Fedora is not Red Hat.
Re:Breaking the law is always easy (Score:5, Informative)
I believe GP was referring to the fact that in the US, DVD playback software can't be shipped on a box without a license from the DVDCCA. Thank you so much for the DMCA, Congress.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Warning: I is a n00b (Score:5, Interesting)
I remember having fun installing Fedora 9 on my PS3. I'd never used linux before (I know, I know, I'll hand in my geek card at the next meeting...) and I figured it'd be more interesting to get a distro NOT designed for the PS3 to run properly than one that was (Such as YDL).
But for those "in the know", would this distro feature any changes/improvements with regards to the PS3? Or is it still "unofficially" supported and thus will be about the same?
They are using RPM 4.6.0 release candidate (Score:3, Interesting)
RPM 4.6 is an RC, not a stable release. I have to say it's a somewhat bold move. RPM is the heart of the distro. It is even more important than the kernel.
As a Fedora supporter I for one welcome the move.
Now cue the RPM haters.
Re:They are using RPM 4.6.0 release candidate (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you hit it right on the head. Fedora can do this, because that's what it's for. It avoids getting trapped behind painful changes because of worries that it'll cause short term pain.
Fedora should be all about long term gain, and if RPM 4.6 is a little bit experimental, great. Let's get the bugs out in the open and sort it out.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Fedora (and the old free (non-enterprise) Redhat) were always about the bleeding edge. You get the newest stuff that they can cram in, and bugs aren't that uncommon.
RedHat Enterprise uses much older, much more tested code. They use Fedora for their testbed, use them to push wider adoption and testing of software that they want to put into their flagship product.
It's not a bad deal, but people who put the "newest" redhat stuff on their servers make my skin crawl. It's not really for that.
Mirrors are still unavailable (Score:3, Informative)
10:40 am Eastern
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Portland State seems to be working. I'm just about done downloading a minimal set of packages.
I always look forward to new Fedora Core's (Score:2, Redundant)
I expect this one will be better still.
(No I don't work for Red Hat.)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I expect this one will be better still. (No I don't work for Red Hat.)
As a Fedora user perhaps you (and your many cohorts in the community who are reading this) can offer some input.
I used to use Red Hat and Fedora in olden times. I got to know them really well (I'm even an RHCE). But when FC2 came out it really bothered me. While FC1 was basically an evolution of Red Hat 9, FC2 was way too experimental to be an everyday business or personal OS, and it revealed what Red Hat was going to do with its free OS: turn me into a guniea pig. It was the first Fedora to sport the 2
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Try upgrading to the latest 9.04 alpha if you're not using it on a critical box. KDE4.1 has been much improved (might even be 4.2... dunno), but there are still lots of random broken packages and such.
That said, KDE4.1 is definitely the issue with Kubuntu. It's still not mature, though it is "stable".
Xen slowly being discarded ? (Score:2)
This dom0 [fedoraproject.org] was rather important for me. I am still running FC8 for that reason. I guess xen virtualization is slowly disappearing. Kvm I presume will be the way to go eventually...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I've been following the fedora-xen mailing l
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Xen as a dom0 is in fact losing favor in the Red Hat world. There are technologies being developed that will allow a KVM host to run Xen guests. It's called "xenner" http://kraxel.fedorapeople.org/xenner/ and is coming along nicely, but not super stable yet.
Virtualization is important to Red Hat, and given how much of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 was focused around virtualization, there is little doubt that existing deployments on Xen won't have a migration path to what RHEL 6 offers. Red Hat hedged their
Distro comparison? (Score:3, Interesting)
Is there a web site that compares distros? I look at the release list for FC10 and I don't see much compared to how Ubuntu is, but there is a lot of techy stuff under the hood also on that list that causes me to wonder what is good "inside" of Ubuntu, versus FC10.
Re:Distro comparison? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well, then that's what we mean when we say FC10 here, too! So there.
Re: (Score:2)
You can compare the softwares (and versions) distributed by each one on http://distrowatch.com/ [distrowatch.com]
Or, download the Live CD for both of them and try out :-)
Tip: if you don't want to burn a CD just to test a distro, you can write the Live CD images to a USB stick. Just look at the livecd-iso-to-disk script in Fedora's ISO.
Re: (Score:2)
Fast boot (Score:3, Informative)
Competitive Advantage? (Score:3, Interesting)
Why should I use this new Fedora instead of Ubuntu or OS X or FreeBSD, etc.?
What a shitty summary (par for the course, I know, I know).
Re:Competitive Advantage? (Score:5, Funny)
Use Ubuntu if you are lazy and like free beer
Use Fedora if you like free beer and Free software
Use FreeBSD if you like free beer and dont like GPL
Use OSX if you like to flash $100 bills when you pay for your beer
Parent
Happy anniversary Fedora !! (Score:3, Interesting)
I am using Fedora from the first version on ...
I have a server, that still runs Fedora core 1:
[messner@Server messner]$ cat /etc/*-release
Fedora Core release 1 (Yarrow)
Fedora Core release 1 (Yarrow)
[messner@Server messner]$ date
Tue Nov 25 18:16:34 CET 2008
I will shut it down this month .... now it can go to rest ....
Sometimes Fedora wasn't so polished as it should be, the first versions were very problematic, documentation and community were scarce ... sometimes it was hardly usable for me, because I am not an expert.
But it got better and better with each release. Number 9 was excellent, first class ... I think number 7 was the first one, that really rocked, but No. 9 rocks ...
I am downloading number 10 now. I know it will be good. It is getting better and better with each release.
Re:Enjoy the porn (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:2+GB rpm's? (Score:5, Funny)
My package is at least that big.
Oh come on, someone had to say it.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I seriously hope nobody is shipping RPMs with more than 2 GB of executable code, but many applications ship with gigabytes worth of templates, samples, artwork, models, benchmark data sets, maps, etc. Even if you break the contents of an installation DVD into functionally distinct subpackages, you can easily end up with a dozen libraries that are a few hundred KB, a few distinct applications that are tens of megabytes each, and few GB of application data that can't logically be split any further.