openSUSE 11.2 Released 207
An anonymous reader tips news that openSUSE 11.2 has reached its official release. You can get it from their download page, or just grab the torrents (32-bit, 64-bit).
"openSUSE 11.2 will come with the latest version 2.6.31 of the Linux kernel, the beating heart of every openSUSE system. The default file system of openSUSE will be switched to the new Ext4 as well. Of course, openSUSE will continue to support Ext3 and other filesystems — but on install, new partitions will automatically be designated Ext4. ... Desktops and servers can use the same kernel, but it's better to tune the kernel for the job at hand. That's why openSUSE now includes a desktop kernel specially tuned for desktop users. ... In addition to the work of the openSUSE Project in the desktop, openSUSE 11.2 includes the latest versions of the two desktop environments, KDE 4.3 and GNOME 2.28. KDE users will enjoy the new Firefox KDE integration, OpenOffice.org KDE4 integration, consistent KDE artwork and all standard applications being ported to KDE4 including KNetworkManager, Amarok, Digikam, k3b, Konversation and more."
Finally (Score:4, Informative)
Finally, easy upgrades come to OpenSUSE.
sudo zypper dup !
I just had to cleanly install OpenSUSE 11.1 the other day because I was in the middle of patching 10.3 when Novell took down the repositories. I worked on the broken system for a week before making the time to reformat/reinstall. I started patching it by hand to make the 10.3 -> 11.1 dup work, but it was just too time consuming.
But anyway, I'll be running zypper dup in the next few days after demand on the servers dies down. It's about time SUSE users get a clean in-place upgrade process. :-)
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why switch to openSuse? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Ext4 makes me nervous as Hell. (Score:4, Informative)
Ext4 has been mature and stable for at least 3 years now.
No, it's been in the kernel for three years but was developmental for most of that. It was only declared stable with 2.6.28 [h-online.com], which was released just over one year ago. Personally, I'm going to wait another year or two here. When it comes to file systems, I tend to be on the conservative side.
Re:Why switch to openSuse? (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, one of the major advantages of Yast is that it has an excellent NCurses-based terminal interface, which works beautifully over ssh. Easiest distro to remotely manage that I've ever tried (also, back in the day, easiest one to fix on the occasion that a graphics driver update made X stop working).
For those who don't know, Yast is basically the configuration tool for *everything* - repository and package management, network configuration, video driver configuration, user accounts, runlevel and login behavior, configuring a hypervisor, re-partitioning, managing GRUB... basically, it's a centralized management tool. It's graphical and designed for user-friendliness, with help info for every setting, but it will also display the relevant config files and allow you to edit them manually too. I've actually found it useful when trying to learn the format of a given config file, since Yast's help info + comparing the options on the graphical display with the generated config file = an easy way to learn the format and options of a config file.
Re:Why switch to openSuse? (Score:5, Informative)
If you want to get actual work done, OpenSUSE is pretty much ready to go out of the box. Its achilles' heel has historically been poor wifi support (requiring a lot of tinkering, whereas Ubuntu has worked consistently well with wifi in my experience) but hopefully 11.2 fares a lot better in that regard.
Re:Why switch to openSuse? (Score:2, Informative)
For those who don't know, Yast is basically the configuration tool for *everything* - repository and package management, network configuration, video driver configuration, user accounts, runlevel and login behavior, configuring a hypervisor, re-partitioning, managing GRUB... basically, it's a centralized management tool.
Your forgot to mention that Yast also manages Apache, Samba, security, sshd, printers/scanners, fax, network time ntp, etc. Pretty much Yast configures everything that is configurable:-)
Re:Ext4 makes me nervous as Hell. (Score:5, Informative)
Actually those "Ext4" data corruption issues that set the Internet all ablaze (including Slashdot) were mainly due to KDE 4 not handling metadata correctly. In the end, it wasn't an Ext4 issue. However, feel free to spread FUD.
And you're right. I shouldn't have suggested he run Fat32 if he is paranoid that newer filesystems are inherently unsafe. He should run Fat16 to be sure.
Certainly, an older file system that doesn't have the nicer, fine-grained journaling (and journaling controls) which be much safer.
Ext4 is a wild, data-eating beast that just can't be trusted.
Re:Ext4 makes me nervous as Hell. (Score:3, Informative)
IIRC, they neglected to call fsync when writing out configuration data, and the POSIX spec states that unless you call fsync, there's no guarantees that the data actually hits the disk right away. Combine that with the fact that ext4 extended the delay between write() and physical write out to disk (which, I believe, they've changed, although I could be wrong about that), and a sudden crash can result in data loss/corruption due to blocks having never been written out.
So, that said, it's absolutely true that KDE4 was making invalid assumptions about the behaviour of the underlying storage, which resulted in corruption. But it's also true that ext4's unusually long sync times exacerbated the problem. As such, I'd say there's plenty of blame to go around.
Re:Ext4 makes me nervous as Hell. (Score:3, Informative)
Actually those "Ext4" data corruption issues that set the Internet all ablaze (including Slashdot) were mainly due to KDE 4 not handling metadata correctly. In the end, it wasn't an Ext4 issue. However, feel free to spread FUD.
Bullshit. The error was very generic and not limited to KDE, any system crash could lead to zero byte files in almost any application. It broke an extremely standard way of writing a new version of a file by writing it to a new file then renaming it in place of the old.
You have a file foo.txt
You write foo2.txt
You rename foo2.txt to foo.txt
Now your machine could crash for up to half an hour (I think, a long time), and you'd have neither the old or the new file. Unless you didn't explicitly fsync() the write, it could have renamed foo2.txt into place without having written the contents of f002.txt, and gone was all your data. It just became painfully obvious in KDE because it broke vital configuration files but it broke thousands of applications. It's a horrible case of the denial you see in Linux land, hiding behind the POSIX specification to defend all the real world damage.
I have no faith in the people developing ext4 after that stupidity, and wouldn't use it on any of my machines. One thing would be if they handled it responsibly, but the childish approach they took was embarrassing. Any person that breaks convention wtih so little regard for the consequences, then tries to defend it so vigorously will not come near my systems. How knows how much else he's willing to break unless there's a standard that says he can't? Because there's sure as hell are many other Linuxisms that aren't POSIX in there as well, fortunately Linus has never been this kind of reckless idiot.
Re:Ext4 makes me nervous as Hell. (Score:3, Informative)
You misunderstand.
KDE 4 wasn't following POSIX standards for writing to a HDD. Most file systems have delayed writes and caching at some level.
In an extreme sense, some were concerned that Ext4 could delay a write for up to a minute. It wasn't 30 minutes. The operation should still be in the journal. It should be recoverable.
And before you get all upset, you should realize that these delayed writes also exist in Ext2 and Ext3.
NTFS also supports OS-level write caching. Even worse, Windows Server will often enable it by default on top of a RAID controller having it's own level of write caching. So you can be told a file is written, when neither the OS actually sent the write to the RAID controller, and even if it did, the RAID controller hasn't actually performed the write yet.
Ext3 and Ext4 both support varying levels of journals. You make the decision of which journal behavior you want. Do you want faster performance, or do you want more piece of mind?
And since this discussion is in regards to openSUSE shipping with Ext4, openSUSE defaults to the safer ordered journaling mode.
However, feel free to talk about your ass, spread FUD and live in the stone age.
You're not any safer for it.