Fedora 7 Released 186
fedoraman writes "Fedora 7 has been released. With Xorg 7.3, KDE 3.5.6, GNOME 2.18, and version 2.6.21 of the Linux kernel Fedora 7 comes with all the latest and greatest open source desktop software. Fedora 7 drops the traditional 'Core' nomenclature, since it includes both what used to be termed the Core and Extra components by default. Fedora 7 is also the first release to be constructed with Fedora's revolutionary new build system, which is designed to improve the ease of developing derivatives and Fedora-based software appliances. As usual, extensive documentation and release notes are available. Torrents are also available and ISO images can be downloaded from mirrors around the world."
Nice but is it bloatware? (Score:1, Insightful)
OpenSUSE has taken some getting used to--YaST admin/update tool, Beagle instead of the locate tool, some interesting tweaks in the UI, European defaults for certain settings such as Ghostscript paper size that I had to track down and adjust. Furthermore, it seems to be a bi
Re: (Score:1)
Tell me about it!
I have a PII with 64MB of RAM and, so far, the only hing that works well is RH 8! Which, believe it or not, is still pretty good for what I do - testing my code for my business' website. (All I do is HTML and some PHP nothing major.)
I tried Ubuntu 6.1, but it didn't quite w
Re:Nice but is it bloatware? (Score:4, Interesting)
-uso.
Re:Nice but is it bloatware? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I've tried the latest Ubuntu, and it's installing on my laptop (have had it on my desktop for a week now, and am very happy) as I come across this article... I'm going to stick with Ubuntu.
I've used FC for a couple of years now, though, and I have to give it props, they've been excellent, overall. If I hadn't just done all the installing I've done, I'd be willing
Re: Nice but is it bloatware? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ubuntu and Fedora are not, however, such distros.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think they have fallen behind at all. The lack of mp3 support and other non-free software is a policy decision and I think it is a good one. I have tried Ubuntu and the only difference I can tell as an end user is the inclusion of the non-free software and drivers. This is ve
Re: (Score:2)
One nice thing about Fedora7 is the buildtools (Score:5, Informative)
The complete build process is FL/OSS!
The tool for taking all the RPM packages and composing them into an installation tree is pungi [fedoraproject.org]. It's FL/OSS.
The tool for taking source from CVS and turning it into packages is Koji [fedoraproject.org] and it's completely FL/OSS too
The tool for producing updated packages is bodhi [fedoraproject.org] and is FL/OSS
Be happy. The Fedora Project yet again has made major contributions to FL/OSS which can be enjoyed and improved by everyone. It means that Fedora is completely independent of Red Hat (apart from Red Hat's very generous donation of hardware and developers) and that anyone that wants to can easily produce a specialised "spin" of Fedora suited exactly to their own needs. That's one of the main innovations that Fedora is pursuing with the above: instead of being stuck dependent on the choices of a distributor you can benefit from the patched sources, even their packaging, yet diverge when needed. This should be the goal that every distribution follows, and the only thing that is similar in terms of flexibility is Gentoo, but that IMHO fails to provide an easy path for those that are happy with a distributor making the decisions for them.
I'll freely admit to being a Fedora and Red Hat fan, but I hope that the significance of the release of these build tools is not overlooked by people using other distributions.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As if using a UNIX os is supposed to be mom-friendly.
$ csup -gL2 standard-supfile
$ make world
$ make kernel
$ reboot
$ portupgrade -ai
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
WOW Xorg 7.3?! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess I needed to check the 'changes' document which mentions the release schedule, or well, not a schedule but some arbitrary date it could be released.
Looks like Xorg needs to fix and update their documentation!
Re: (Score:2)
"Say, Paul, where'd you install that software?"
"It's in
Not sayin' everyone needs a
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually "which", "whence" and "whereis" may not be very helpful since in the majority of cases these depend on your PATH variable and different people may have different path
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It has been done for years, Mr. lymond01: http://www.pathname.com/fhs/ [pathname.com]
Not quite correct. Still nice. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdotted already! (Score:1, Redundant)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
404 Not Found (Score:1, Redundant)
Go slashdot Editors! Way to earn that paycheck! Keep up the hard work.
Release notes available (as Beats) (Score:1)
EFI? (Score:1, Interesting)
-Peter
Re: (Score:2)
Was it really something I said? Or is the moderator the troll?
-Peter
Re: (Score:2)
It's because you put really into italics, and some Fedora fanboy (of which there are many here) modded you down for saying something disparaging about their beloved distribution.
Fedora is second only to Apple in this regard, but oddly, it seems to only be one FRCH ahead of Windows. I remember a day when defending Windows around here was the thing that got you modded down, not attacking it.
Was already 404ed (Score:2, Informative)
ISO images? not so much (Score:2)
Sorry CD Users (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sorry CD Users (Score:4, Interesting)
No. They are not. I want a set of CDs with all the RPMs on them (just as I had with FC2, 3, 4, 5, and 6). The LiveCDs have a minimal Fedora install. If you want to put it on your computer (and toss out the CD), you need to do a network install. I have 17 computers here. I don't want to wait hours and hours for a network install on each one.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
NFS is also very easy and may be easier to do than FTP. I recall a http option that may be even simpler - RHEL can easily be installed that way. I just use NFS becuase that file server I use for this already does it.
Re: (Score:2)
However since your just going to be going through an additional FS layer, it's probably not worth the time to copy the RPMS off the DVD. The slowdown will be minimal.
Now... If your planning on installing 50 machines concurrently... Ignore everything I said and copy the RPM's to the disk.
Re: (Score:2)
What are these CD things of which you speak? (Score:2)
Network installs are so much less painful.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't that imply one has a network setup that can perform such an install?
I've had a DVD-ROM for years, but I would always download the CD ISO file. I would only burn CD#1 to a CD-RW and load the rest using a hard drive install. Very very fast. It was better back in the days when I could do it with a 3.5 floppy disk. The annoying thing about the testing process for Fedora 7 was that I had to download a DVD image every time and burn it to a DVD-RW (to spare creating a toaster DVD every month, but it toast
Re: (Score:2)
Why not download the DVD ISO and then extract all of the files from that ISO file to a directory on a local ftp or http server on your network? Then use the "network
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the tip, white lamb.
Fedora Security (Score:4, Insightful)
While distributions like Ubuntu are more popular with end-users, I'm concerned that an exploit across such a popular (but security weak) distribution will paint all of Linux with an unfavorable brush.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm concerned about Ubuntu security myself. There is/was a selinux project within Ubuntu, but the last update was a reference to how it wouldn't be included in dapper (no mention of Feisty) and an email I sent to the supposed lead contact on the project received no response, so I guess we can assume that it is
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. If they want to be the poster child for Linux, they sure have to put their act together.
FC5 should have been supported for 2 years! (Score:3, Insightful)
What most people are completely missing in their ad hominem attacks on my earlier thread is that when a lot of people installed FC5, there was an expectation that it would be supported for 2 years through the Fedora Legacy project. On February 9 2007, this project ceased to exist, giving people just 4 months to migrate their servers.
If Microsoft suddenly halved the supported lifespan of products currently in production, they would be crucified by the very people attacking me on this site. But when an open source project does this, it's ok.
You can call the people who installed FC5 idiots all you want, but they're not. They trusted this 'community' that they kept being preached at about. "When a company goes under, you're screwed, but with community supported products, you're never forced to upgrade" - That sound familiar to anyone here? You ever told anyone that? You ever heard that line of bullshit from someone ?
A lot of people figured 2 years was an acceptable lifespan for the product because it fits well with hardware refresh cycles on older equipment. Then half way through their 2 year server lifecycle, they had the rug pulled out from under them. On a date when they thought they had about 11 - 13 months support left, they got told that they have 4 months to do a complete migration.
Calling people who trusted you an idiot for believing you does not convert people to Linux!
I made one mistake in my earlier post - I said that support for FC5 ends today. It turns out that it still has a month to go, so I'll apologise for that. But the Fedora community has let a lot of people down today and given Microsoft a load more useful FUD fuel.
Every time something like this happens, MS have some more examples of how this community will turn on you in a heartbeat. When the Tuttle Centos issue happened, MS were taking the response of the 'community' into sales meetings where Linux was a threat. When a Squirrelmail developer called for an end-user to be fired and belittled her in public for daring to use contact details posted on the Squirrelmail site when she didn't know where else to turn, MS smiled with glee (and a small white cat). And you can bet your bottom dollar that someone at MS will be pointing out this latest gaff to someone in the PR department and they'll be using this behind closed doors in the near future too.
You probably don't care - you probably know better. But somewhere, some PHB who could have been converted to Linux will become an even firmer closed source supporter because of the actions of the Fedora and Fedora legacy projects that come into effect today. And when you're fighting a monopolist, every sale or install that you give up through rudeness, through arrogance and most especially through broken promises and lies is one install too many!
I'll say it again - If Microsoft suddenly halved the supported lifespan of products currently in production, they would be crucified by the very people attacking me on this site. But when an open source project does this, it's ok. Why?
Re: (Score:2)
It is ok for an open source project to do this because the open source project have never given you any guarantees in the first place. No guarantees, it is writ
Re: (Score:2)
You want server level stability - no problem, you have RHEL or Centos.
However, I understand you. It used to be that we had functional releases followed by a series of patch releases. The patch releases would continue for much longer than the next functional release. Fed Legacy seemd to be an attempt in this direction but they ran out of bandwidth and there is always RHEL/Centos where they would rather push you.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Additionally, the big distros are usually some of the main contributors of code to the kernel. Sometimes they have modifications to the kernel that they feel should have been included in the mainline. Sometimes it turns out that
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
It annoys me that you don't know that this is the official method for distributing kernels today.
The same is also true of glibc.
You may choose the distribution you want to run. You could choose one without a pile of patches to the kernel. Several of the features
Re: (Score:2)
Can you say Xen? (Score:5, Informative)
> or is it just an ego trip for the developers at these distros?
Yes, there are lots of good reasons. We can start with Xen. All of the big distros support it but it isn't in the mainline kernel tree. So right there you blow away the ability to run the mainline kernel without breaking things. The list goes on from there. The latest device drivers that haven't yet made it upstream, bug fixes that are working their way upstream, etc. There are lots of other good reasons why a distro kernel gets patches.
SUSE, like RHEL is longterm stable. That means bug fixes and security issues get patched into the same base kernel that originally shipped with that version of the distro because revving the whole kernel would be a nightmare.
That said, Fedora does have a policy of trying to stay close to the upstream kernel, pushing their patches upline wherever possible and not being afraid to revv the whole kernel in the lifetime of a 'stable' release. But when it comes down to big patchsets like Xen that they really want to ship but that neither Xen nor Linus appear interested in seeing merged they don't really have much of a choice. Longterm, just as an interested bystander, I'd suspect Xen to disappear from Fedora once KVM gets stable enough to totally replace it for the non-enterprise workloads Fedora is aimed at.
Re: (Score:2)
Longterm, just as an interested bystander, I'd suspect Xen to disappear from Fedora once KVM gets stable enough to totally replace it for the non-enterprise workloads Fedora is aimed at.
Except that Fedora is what Red Hat uses as a foundation to build RHEL on. Thus, it is very unlikely that Xen would be removed from Fedora. With Fedora, they get a lot of free testing that they use to make RHEL as rock-solid as it is, so it would be unwise to diverge Fedora from enterprise requirements. In addition, Fedora is often used in the enterprise for less-than-critical systems, but still using many of the enterprise capabilities included.
Re: (Score:2)
Fedora use a hacked kernel? (Score:4, Informative)
What I'd like is for Red Hat to build better diffs, develop some alternative scheme for merging in new code, or get as many of their patches rolled into the -mm tree as possible, then use the -mm tree exclusively. It may not be a true vanilla kernel, but at least -mm is openly maintained, heavily used, popular and actively folded into the mainstream.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is there a good reason they seem to think they know better than Linus and all the other devs working hard on the standard kernel
Linus and the other kernel devs have different, but partially overlapping goals. Distributions value stable, well tested kernels with new features as a secondary goal. Kernel devs want new features, increased performance, etc, with stability perhaps a bit less of a priority.
So it's not that Redhat/SuSe/Ubuntu "know better", it's that the distributions work on kernel stability a l
Un-hacked kernels (Slackware) (Score:5, Informative)
Slackware (my favourite distro) uses utterly vanilla kernels. Want a new one? Download it from kernel.org, untar it, build it. No sweat.
I consider building a custom kernel to be an integral part of an installation: all the distro kernel does is bootstrap building the production one. All my systems run kernels that are a precise match to the hardware and my needs, with no superfluous junk. No superfluous security holes, either.
...laura
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Developers decided this (Score:2)
So if you want a stable API / ABI, you're forced to have some very hot staff on the payroll who can backport all fixes and drivers.
Re: (Score:2)
Get it right people: API != ABI.
Get it right coward -> read my original quote:
So if you want a stable API / ABI, you're forced to have some very hot staff on the payroll who can backport all fixes.
I was very careful to mention both and explicitly mentioned ABI.
With regards to API, there have been a significant (in enterprise terms) number of changes to the API in
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No one think they're better then upstream developers, the point is that *this* *is* the recommend way to work, for several reasons:
1. Some patches that are important to customers, may not be in mainline yet due to the long process submit-review-fix-submit process (eg, xen) or even because no one cared of submitting it
2. The kernel is changing very fast these days, while distros usually has a longer release process. Then you
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to update your kernel in distributions like Fedora and Suse, use the update manager. They're very quick to release security updates. If all you want is driver updates, you can build those outside of the kernel source (for example, Intel's e1000 driver).
Look at the article (Score:2)
The article tells the KDE version included.
Both KDE and XFCE [fedoranews.org] have been included in the test version repositories, so they should be in the final release.
I have not used Red Hat since version 4.2, but I think I'll give the live dvd a spin to see what they've changed since then. I'll probably stick with debian and Zenwalk as my main distro's though.
Re: (Score:2)
Then again, SuSE YaST is written in Qt and they favour Gnome, but that's because of a policy shift with the Ximian acquisition and then their acquisition by Novell...
Personally I prefer Gnome on my Fedora box because I don't feel like running Qt and GTK... If you
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
That's because the DSL modem support only works with Speakeasy.
Re:What's the story with Extras? (Score:5, Informative)
http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linu
Re: (Score:2)
Also I don't suppose anyone knows how many CDs you actually need to download to get a workable OS and just get the applications through yum, for FC6 it was just two... that would be good
Re: (Score:2)
There's also the whole "you can spin your own Fedora variant" that's being pushed in this release, which further blurs the line between what's a core p
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sort of - but 'developer centered things' tend to trickle down.
One of the many reasons I've heard was that Extras packages were treated like second-class citizens. If somebody broke something that was in Extras, there was a tendency towards 'Oh, well, it's not in Core'. In a way that's a developer issue, but really it affects everybody.
From a marketing perspe
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.redhatmagazine.com/2007/05/31/remixing
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why, he's just calling a spade a spade.
That Isn't Right (Score:2)
(Yay! Fedora Core 5 is now) no longer updated and a liability on every single server that it is installed on.
Let the MS bashing begin... somehow.
Neat!
No one may be preparing software for your FC5 server but that is very different than what you are implying. If you still have a FC5 server, there is absolutely nothing stopping you from updating the software today with the latest source. What has stopped is someone doing the work for you. There is no legal or physical restrictions stopping a system engineer from grabbing the source for any software component and trying to recompile it where there is a fairly good chance it will compile "as is" without s
Misidentification of liability (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.ioncannon.net/system-administration/99
Re: (Score:2)
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legacy/FAQ [fedoraproject.org]
Using Fedora on production servers isn't wise, unless you plan to upgrade yearly. As others have pointed out, use CentOS 5.0. EL 5.0 will have patches for 7 more years (2014!).
Re: (Score:2)
We'd crucify MS if they dropped support for something one year in.
Re: (Score:2)
must...preview...posts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Rebuilt the array and everything started working a-ok (300MB/s RAID-5 writes to the array etc.).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I started out with RedHat 6.x, and kept with it until about Fedora Core 2, at which point I started looking around at some other distros. I settled on Ubuntu, and while I think Fedora is great for certain people, I think Ubuntu is a better general-purpose distro.
There's one install disc, which contains everything most users need to get started, then users can use the "Add/Remove Programs" app or Synaptic to get whatever else they need from the repos. Fedora on the other hand, has
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)