Fedora 19 Released 202
hypnosec writes "The Fedora Project has officially announced the release of Fedora 19 'Schrödinger's Cat' today. New features for the open source distribution include the developer's assistant, which accelerates development efforts by providing templates, samples and toolchains for a different languages; OpenShift Origin, which allows easy building of Platform-as-a-Service infrastructure; node.js; Ruby 2.0.0; MariaDB; Checkpoint & Restore, which allows users to checkpoint and restore processes; and OpenLMI, which makes remote management of machines simpler. The distribution also packs GNOME 3.8, KDE Plasma Workspace 4.10 and MATE Desktop 1.6."
'Schrödinger's Cat' ? (Score:4, Funny)
Damn. Now I'll never know if my system is up or down w/o opening the case.
Re: (Score:3)
They say it was released, but I won't believe it until I see it. And incidentally, does the OS release kill the cat just as well as a particle?
Re: (Score:3)
And incidentally, does the OS release kill the cat just as well as a particle?
You're safe as long as you don't run: rpm install "hydrocyanic-acid"
Re: (Score:2)
Yes...
Re: (Score:2)
Who is still safe after that command, the operator, the cat or the system ?
It comes with Gnome 3. The cat lives, safe in the box. Everyone outside the box dies.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, my own cat made it through the release validation process unscathed, but the Project takes no responsibility for the health of anyone else's cats...
Re:'Schrödinger's Cat' ? (Score:4, Funny)
And incidentally, does the OS release kill the cat just as well as a particle?
Well, correlation ain't causation, but I haven't seen any pussy since I started using it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Just don't look. It will be up and down at the same time.
Didn't think of that, but it's going to be a bitch for my availability stats. ... sigh. ]
[ Now I'll have to get a degree in quantum mechanics to re-write "uptime"
Re: (Score:2)
You sound rather uncertain about that.
Schrödinger's Cat (Score:2, Funny)
I'm not going to click the link; I don't want to risk killing it.
I'm better off not knowing.
Testing the character parsing of every web site... (Score:2)
>> Schrödinger's Cat
Thus testing the character parsing and storage of half the blog sites left on the Internet. (With an apostrophe and an umlaut.)
Re: (Score:2)
More importantly, testing the character parsing and handling of both the installer and multiple other parts of the distribution. Whether it was a good idea to pick a challenging name is probably dependent on the observer.
Re: (Score:3)
And whether you really really want it to always display correctly on the login screen on VTs...sigh.
Re: (Score:3)
I think it was a good decision to continue using that name when bugs started to appear, like this bug Fedora 19 bugs cannot be reported because the server side cannot handle the release name "Schrödinger's Cat" [redhat.com]
Re: (Score:2)
What's ironic is that it broke because of the "Ã" which is a legal character in the release string, but not because of "'" which isn't - the definition states that quotes must be escaped. And they still haven't fixed that - the text string doesn't say "SchrÃdinger\'s Cat", as it should.
Re: (Score:3)
And even more ironic is that slashdot still can't handle UTF-8...
Spending countless man--hours on rounded corners and bandwidth-eating Ajax is apparently more important than fixing the broken text input.
Moving to Fedora 19 Xfce (Score:5, Interesting)
I've said it before, and I'll said it again: Fedora's GNOME has really lost me. I've been a longtime Fedora user, and I still like the distro, but I'm giving GNOME a pass in Fedora 19 and going back to Xfce.
Fedora 19 includes GNOME 3.8 as the graphical desktop, and I've previously noted that GNOME 3 has poor usability. [blogspot.com] The GNOME developers have continued this poor usability trend in GNOME 3, which fails to meet two of the four themes of successful usability: Consistency and Menus. Where are the menus? There is no "File" menu that allows me to do operations on files. There is no "Help" menu that I can use when I get stuck. The updated file manager (Nautilus) doesn't have a menu, but other programs in GNOME 3 do (Gedit has menus, and is part of GNOME). Also: when you maximize a Nautilus window, either to the full screen or to half of the screen, the title bar disappears. I don't understand why. The programs do not act consistently.
I will give a positive comment that the updated GNOME file manager now makes it easier to connect to a remote server. This used to be an obvious action under the "File" menu, but in GNOME 3 it is an action directly inside the navigation area. So that's a step in the right direction.
The updated GNOME desktop environment seems to avoid familiar "desktop" conventions, tending towards a "tablet-like" interface. This further removes the obviousness of the new desktop, and it's familiarity.
So it's not really that "Fedora has lost me," but the GNOME desktop. I consider Xfce to have much better usability than GNOME. While I haven't done a formal usability study of Xfce, my heuristic usability evaluation is that Xfce meets all four of the key themes: Familiarity, Consistency, Menus, and Obviousness. The menus are there, and everything is consistent. The default Xfce uses a theme that is familiar to most users, and actions are obvious. Sure, a few areas still need some polish (like the Applications menu, and some icons) but Xfce already seems better than GNOME.
Additionally, if you are technically capable, you can dramatically modify the appearance of Xfce to make it look and act according to your preferences. At home, I've modified my Xfce desktop to something similar to Google's Chromebook (see example [blogspot.com] and instructions [blogspot.com]). It works really well and I find it is even easier to use than the default Xfce desktop.
Re: (Score:2)
Based on your post, it sounds like Xfce doesn't fit your needs either. Otherwise, why try and make it look and act like a Chromebook?
Re: (Score:2)
This release has the foot (they still use a foot, right?) bringing up a screenful of tiled shit that behaves like a touchscreen.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, File menus frequently don't let you do operations on files either. *Firefox* has a 'File' menu. Which has "Work Offline" and "Quit" on it. How are those actions on Files, exactly?
The reason for the inconsistencies you identify is very simple and I know for a fact it has been explained to you *multiple* times before, so I conclude that you are acting in bad faith by posting as if you had no idea about it, but for the sake of the rest of the audience, I'll explain it again: the GNOME applications are in
Re: (Score:3)
No, but I can only comment on the state of things today.
Re:Moving to Fedora 19 Xfce (Score:4, Informative)
"I don't understand why. The programs do not act consistently."
(emphasis mine)
You implied very clearly that you did not know why this was the case, and that it was some kind of intentional thing. You *do* know why it's the case, because it has previously been explained to you, and you know that it is not the intended state of affairs but merely an artifact of a long-term transition in design, yet you continue to criticize it as if it were the former rather than the latter.
Re:Moving to Fedora 19 Xfce (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
That's an interesting UI decision. I would argue it fails the Obviousness criteria.
Here's an example: I use a laptop, with a 22" desktop flat-panel monitor as my second display. For me, it works well to run Chro
Re: (Score:2)
I think there are a few upstream bugs about the problem of using the global menu with apps on secondary displays, it's recognized not to be a great experience at present.
Re: (Score:2)
While you and I may think gnome 3 sucks dogs balls some of the people using it are noting how happy their dog is :)
The common desktop idea didn't catch on because some people are more productive with what others think is weird (eg. xmonad) or just like something that others view with revulsion on sight (Win8 Metro).
Personally I like MATE better, but don't use it since it does weird stuff with VLC (can't see the drop down menus). I'd heard enlighten
Re: (Score:2)
GNOME 3 (Score:2)
I think that's really more of a GNOME 3 complaint than a Fedora complaint. I've just spun up a Debian Wheezy install on my main system, since I'm fleeing Ubuntu (stuck with 10.04 LTS until the desktop updates stopped coming). I've been trying to like GNOME 3, but I'm about ready to shitcan it. I'm using the "classic" mode at the moment (I found that I flat-out hated the new, not-so-improved interface), but even in classic mode there's still a whole lot of dumbing-down that I find simply infuriating.
Example:
Re: (Score:2)
Gnome 3.x is quite good these days, except one needs to install the extension to get sane ALT-TAB behavior.
These days I prefer Gnome 3.x over anything else.
Ditto, I also install the 'Click Fix' extension that allows you to start a new window by clicking on it in the activity bar instead the default behaviour of bringing the last used window into focus. I also had to fire up tweak tool (or was it dconf-editor?) to enable logging off. It's amazing how much drama some people have managed to conjure up over Gnome 3. Those who don't like it don't have to use it.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact you are using a desktop environment written by someone else instead of writing your own is a statement that you think someone else knows more than you do on how you should use your computer.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm not a GNOME dev, just someone who can think straight.
The largest possible set of configuration options for a desktop environment is only possibly accessible by writing one yourself. Imagine a desktop environment with a checkbox for absolutely every possible choice about how a DE could work. What you have just imagined is not KDE (though it's close!), but a very unwieldy programming language.
If you really want 'ultimate choice' you need an option to render the entire desktop upside down, or in invert
Re: (Score:2)
Now you know why enlightenment 17 took so long!
Re: (Score:2)
Ha ha, I recognize this comment was intended as a lighthearted joke. But the fact is E17 currently offers fantastic usability, and customization. It starts with sane defaults and a very usable and efficient desktop with good workflow. But if you want to get under the hood and start tinkering, the options are there for you. Even stuff like "full screen everything" is possible (and easy to configure) without it being forced down your throat like a sh*t sandwich, like gnome3.
I've been using it on BodhiLinu
Re: (Score:2)
And while I know you work on Fedora and aren't personally responsible for all RHEL / Fedora issues, you need to understand that some of us are your RHEL / RHEV
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not claiming that GNOME 3 is perfect, or RHEL, or RHEV, or anything else to do with RH. Hell, I've never run RHEV. Or, for that matter, RHEL.
What I'm trying to do is point out that a debate people like to load up as if it's Extremely Philosophically Important really isn't. This idea that a desktop environment must somehow give the user 'complete control' of how they use their desktop is an utter fallacy. No desktop environment possibly can.
It is entirely legitimate to argue that GNOME sometimes draws th
Re: (Score:2)
The hubris you display in your post is at least part of the same problem as Gnome users experience.
If I didn't treat my users with humility and respect, I'd be out of a job. I'm surprised that Red Hat accepts it.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, I thought this was Slashdot, not a goddamn corporate conference.
I've got one person accusing me of being a PR flack, and one person accusing me of not 'treat[ing] my users with humility and respect'. You can't win around here, apparently.
Re: (Score:2)
It is completely unfair and you are right to object. You aren't a PR person and you are perfectly entitled to tell the truth.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the people whining about Gnome aren't the people who drop many thousands on enterprise Linux distributions. RedHat doesn't make a desktop product anymore, they aren't RedHat's customers.
Re: (Score:2)
Once again, for the hard of thinking, I am not a GNOME developer. I have precisely zero commits of any kind at all to GNOME.
Re: (Score:2)
All it shows is someone else knows how to program better. Not how to use it better as you seem to think.
All it really shows is that someone devoted a lot of time towards developing a UI, as opposed to what I devote my time to.
Since "program better" to me includes producing a usable product, I'd definitely argue that they know how to "program better".
Re: (Score:2)
What does that have to do with anything? Red Hat pays several people who work on KDE. I don't work on GNOME, I work on Fedora.
Fedora for Macbook Pro Retina (Score:2)
Can I hit you with something to take back to the Fedora team. Right now there is no Live Linux distribution that is set to run well on Retina. There really is no Linux that is targeting Apple since Yellow Dog dropped out after the switch away from PPC chips. Apple currently sells about 85-90% of all computers over $1k, that is they own the enthusiast market. In particular they have a nice chunk of the system admins.
From a marketing perspective I think it makes a lot of sense to make the experience on r
Re: (Score:2)
I'm getting paid exactly nothing to post on Slashdot. Exactly nothing. I really should be doing something more productive with my time, but I'm an idiot.
Your Welcome (Score:2)
Re:Your Welcome (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
usage stats (Score:2)
The endless Gnome 3 vs 2 discussions are all very well (I ditched Fedora because of it), but in the end let the voters decide:
Apparently in 2010 Fedora was the 2nd most used distro (from http://www.pcworld.com/article/2021273/another-year-another-totally-different-top-10-linux-distros.html [pcworld.com]).
In 2011 it was 3rd. In 2012 it was 4th.
And looking at the latest Distrowatch page hit rankings (which is what that article was using):
http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=popularity [distrowatch.com],
it now is 5th.
Re: (Score:2)
The endless Gnome 3 vs 2 discussions are all very well (I ditched Fedora because of it), but in the end let the voters decide:
Out of interest, why ditch a distro because you don't like some of the defaults? Switching desktop environment is pretty trivial, there are plenty of others packaged for Fedora.
And looking at the latest Distrowatch page hit rankings (which is what that article was using):
http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=popularity [distrowatch.com],
it now is 5th.
Dunno about anyone else, but I use certain pieces of software because they happen to do a good job for what I'm using them for, not because they are popular. I don't really see any merit in ranking distros by popularity. Also, Fedora is primarilly a bleeding-edge testing distro, so I wouldn't necessarilly expect it to be as popula
Re:And it's still not as good as Ubuntu or Debian. (Score:4, Insightful)
Give me debdelta and we can talk. Everyone say apt is faster that yum, but until deb based distributions give me the equivalent of deltarpm as an stable feature, yum will always be faster for me on my awful internet connection that apt
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It isn't integrated into apt but debdelta exists and is used daily:
http://packages.debian.org/sid/debdelta
Re: (Score:3)
It speeds up network connections? Where can I get this magical software?!
Re:And it's still not as good as Ubuntu or Debian. (Score:4, Insightful)
They're both fine. What's more surprising to me is that both of them have completely missed the functionality that puppet, cfengine, et. al. provide.
It used to be that distros would adopt and integrate such functionality. So many of the Fedora 'spins' could simply be expressed as a puppet script. Having a well-supported "make me a mailserver" etc. would be great too.
Re: (Score:2)
To be honest, you need more than just a puppet recipe to make a mail server. There is several how to because everybody has a different view on what to use. Dovecot, cyrus, ldap/mysql/simple user, postfix/exim/sendmail, what spam filtering, how, etc, etc. People are asking what module they should use to do this or that, and everybody is replicating module because the current one do not work like they want. So the issue is not solved, it just moved elsewhere.
The live spin are made using kickstart. So someone
Re: (Score:2)
There is several how to because everybody has a different view on what to use
There doesn't need to be a single solution for any of these, but having all the setup be manual doesn't help most users. That's why we went with deb/rpm in the first place.
As far as the choices - all of my clients just tell me "make me a mailserver". They don't choose the specs, they tell me the requirements and I choose the specs. Frankly most people don't care why underlies their tools, for better or worse. Of the hundreds o
Re:And it's still not as good as Ubuntu or Debian. (Score:4, Informative)
Funnily enough, on Fedora:
yum groupinstall mail-server
Puppet is really for *site-specific* configuration stuff, in my way of looking at things.
And no, Fedora spins could not simply be expressed as puppet scripts, unfortunately. We are considering various proposals for updating how Fedora images are generated (the current system for building live images is pretty hideous behind the scenes), some of which incorporate the use of something like puppet, but something like puppet in itself is not sufficient infrastructure for generating operating system images, it requires rather more bits.
What's missing? (Score:2)
I'm just wondering what is perceived as missing., as producing images from releases has been pretty trivial for me. I use xCAT to deploy them, but I presume cobbler is comparably equipped in this regard. Driver injection and all when I'm producing images for environments requiring out of tree drivers, but that's a pretty rare circumstance while tracking modern distros...
Re: (Score:2)
A live image needs to actually be live bootable, for a start, i.e. it needs a bootloader. We need to compress the live image to make it a tolerable size, and it needs to be built in such a way that the live installer can deploy it.
Honestly I haven't tried using puppet or anything similar to build a live image, I'm not the best guy to give you the answers. I just know what smarter cookies have told me. But you might want to talk to Kevin Fenzi about it, look him up, he'd probably be a good guy to answer ques
Re: (Score:2)
Can we mod him up because he used the adverb, "funnily".
Re: (Score:3)
Spacewalk (which is the 'upstream' version of RH's Satellite, btw) and puppet aren't exactly intended to do the same things, AFAIK. Google has some useful results, inc. http://www.brightprocess.com/?p=306 [brightprocess.com] and http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2009-November/085138.html [centos.org] . I'm no expert on the field (I'm much more down at the duct tape end) but it looks like people actually tend to use both together.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
No, it isn't true. Package formats are simple things, indeed. It's really just a tarball with some metadata.
What is still arguably true is that Debian has a wider range of packages than just about any other distro, and Debian also has extremely stringent policies about ensuring upgrade paths and avoiding dependency problems and the like. If you run one of the more stable incarnations of Debian and don't cheat by using external repositories or grabbing packages before they make it through the testing process
Re:And it's still not as good as Ubuntu or Debian. (Score:4, Interesting)
It would not make sense for a distro like Fedora to be as stringent with packaging policies as stable Debian is,
Have you packaged something for fedora before? It's packaging policies are quite stringent.
Here's [fedoraproject.org] a portion of it
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. I work on Fedora. For Red Hat. I've done seven package builds in the last week - https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/userinfo?userID=954 [fedoraproject.org] . I'm still official maintainer for a few. I contributed to several rounds of discussion on revising the packaging guidelines. And I'm the team lead for the RH team which works on the automated testing system which is ultimately intended to *enforce* some of the packaging guidelines. Credentials enough for you?
Re:And it's still not as good as Ubuntu or Debian. (Score:4, Informative)
Personally, I've found yum to be much much slower than apt under normal/default usage.
However, rpm has been MUCH MUCH easier to use than dpkg and it runs quite well. I LOVE the syntax of rpm. I also love apt and its syntax for what it does. If those two could get married, I'd be very happy.
Another one that's pretty darn awesome is emerge. I feel like they got it right almost all around, except that it wasn't made with binary packages in mind, so that part isn't as elegant (IMO).
Re:And it's still not as good as Ubuntu or Debian. (Score:4, Informative)
The 'real' difference between apt and yum is not as large as it seems, because apt 'cheats' - it has a cron job to download metadata in the background. yum refreshes its metadata only when you run a yum command, so if you don't run them very often, every time you do, you have to wait through a metadata refresh. That's usually what people are complaining about when they complain about yum being slow.
Having said that, even after accounting for that factor, yum's performance could stand improvement, and in fact we're working on that. The package manager currently called 'DNF' is really 'the next major version of yum' being developed in a sort of stealth mode. yum itself is in maintenance-only mode, and all new work is being done on DNF. Once it's mature enough, it will become The New Yum in a future Fedora release. If you're impatient, you can install dnf on Fedora 18 or Fedora 19 and use it instead of yum, with most of the same syntax. It has not yet reached feature parity with yum - including some significant features like 'yum history' - but what it does, it does noticeably faster than yum does it.
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing I could imagine not being as good in Fedora compared to Debian is the repositories themselves. Debian has a hell of a lot of packages, it's hard to compete with. Unless you consider "non-free" stuff that Debian doesn't include by default. But the package management system and package format? Come on, seriously, by now they both work fine. The main thing that matters is what package management tools you like best, and that is nothing more than a personal preference.
Re: (Score:2)
Oracle doesn't have a copy of Fedora, so I don't really see how the question is relevant to this thread.
Re:Oracle's copy (Score:5, Informative)
Sigh... How many times will this need to be explained? All MySQL code was always Copyright MySQL AB. External contributions to the project required copyright assignment to MySQL AB (just like contributions to GNU projects require copyright assignment to FSF). Sun Microsystems bought the copyright to MySQL, and Oracle bought Sun. The copyright holder can release their IP under any license they want. They cannot revoke the GPL (or other copyleft) license on anything already released under that license. You don't lose your rights to anything MySQL AB and/or Sun Microsystems already released under GPL. But you have no right to demand that the copyright owner release future versions under any particular license.
Re: (Score:2)
So as long as Oracle doesn't buy GNU we're fine, right?
Re: (Score:3)
As much as I dislike RMS, I don't think he's a sellout. I very much doubt the FSF would ever sell the GNU copyrights to an organisation that doesn't have similar ideals.
Re: (Score:2)
MySQL Inc owned the copyright to the MySQL database, every line of code. Their business model was to give away a GPL version and sell a commercial version.
Sun bought MySQL when Oracle began to move towards Linux and break somewhat with Solaris / Sun as their primary system.
Oracle bought Sun and thus owns copyright to the MySQL code.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're doing basic stuff, F18 is working for you, and you don't see any shiny features in the newer version of whatever desktop you use that you really want, there's no pressing reason to upgrade, but you would probably be fine if you did upgrade. For my work, F19 works fine, so did F18, so would any other distro, really.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to second this. I've been running the KDE edition of F19 for a while now on my secondary work machine (Phenom II x4, 8GB RAM, Geforce 9800GT) without issue. While I don't do everything on there I do on my main machine, I haven't experienced a single crash or hint of instability. (Main machine is a FX-8130, 16GB RAM, Radeon HD 5770. I also have Steam and VMWare workstation installed on here. Almost all of the issues I have stability wise are related to the ATI graphics card (though systemd and
Re: (Score:3)
I do love being told I don't know anything by ACs.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm something between a "user" and "power user" and have been running Fedora as a basic desktop since F12. Haven't had too much trouble with it... in fact as time goes on I have to make fewer tweaks because things get fixed.
For example on the F17 to F18 upgrade my sound stopped working... because they fixed how HDMI sound works so I didn't have to set my HDMI output number a la (1,3) manually. A simple deletion of one line I had added to get it to work previously made it work automagically.
For media and t
Re: (Score:2)
"Fedora is for testing the next tech going into Red Hat's next version of RHEL. It always has been no matter what Red Hat acolytes say."
if this were true, Fedora would not have something like 5x as many packages as RHEL does.
Re: (Score:2)
"if this were true, Fedora would not have something like 5x as many packages as RHEL does."
See?
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?cid=17443218&sid=214388 [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it would. That's part of the test. Gauging relative interest in packages is part of the whole situation. Sure, enthusiasts get to come along for the ride and the developers get to try out things they would otherwise be forbidden from trying that they *want* to do, but the core mission of Fedora is, effectively, a proving ground.
It's the nature of the beast. Ubuntu is the same way, there is an ulterior motive at play. It's the simple truth of commercial linux. The question is to what degree the ult
Re: (Score:2)
It's *partly* that, but not *entirely* that. That ought to be pretty obvious to anyone involved in both projects.
There's clearly a relationship between Fedora and RHEL, but Fedora has its own identity as well.
Re: (Score:2)
No, lots of people do. Just the ones who don't are loud and annoying.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm perfectly relaxed, thanks. I made two simple assertions which are amply backed by evidence in this very discussion: that more people than just the sub-thread OP (and myself) like GNOME 3, and that people who don't tend to be loud and annoying. Ample evidence for both of those, found right here. I'm feeling just fine about that post, thanks.
I am very involved in the production of Fedora. I am not involved in the production of GNOME, beyond testing it and reporting bugs - but then, I do that for KDE, MATE
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and again, this is Slashdot. "Combative" is the price of admission around here.
Re: (Score:2)
This is /. . Last time I checked we talk to engineers and they are combative. When you want to talk to PR people go to a trade show. I think Adam has the right to say what he thinks and if that means believing the critics are morons, and calling them morons so be it.
He doesn't represent anything more than his own opinion. Anyone who judges a product's customer facing personality based on the personality of the engineering team lacks the experience to lead RFI/RFP processes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I really miss window title search, and show only one application from my compiz/kde experiences. This is after a lot of extensions which I think is a pretty atrocious replacement for simple configurabilty, but it isn't hopeless... the 'activities view' concept seems good and, most critically the alt-tab makes larger window counts actually manageable.
Re: (Score:2)
Am I the only person in the world that thinks Gnome 3 is actually pretty cool? Once I stopped bellyaching about being forced to do things a different way I actually started getting things done faster and with less mucking about. It still beats out the 'Metro' interface if you ask me and it seems like they are getting ready for touch which seems reasonable at this point in the road.
No, I've liked Gnome 3 from day 1 - I had hated the "windows-alike" DEs like Gnome 2 and had been using Enlightenment 17 (development release) for years, but when Gnome 3 came along it seemed like about the best DE I'd used so I switched. There are, of course, niggles and WTFs (things like not being able to disable the screen blanker - I mean, really, would it have been way too confusing for users if there was a "never" option in the screen timeout dropdown?), but you get niggles with all DEs.
What I don't
Re: (Score:2)
I think Gnome 3 is really cool as well. I think the Gnome developers did the right in the direction they went. I think the Gnome political structures did a truly terrible job in alienating Canonical and creating a fork as well as not doing something like Mate and keeping Gnome 2 a viable option during the rough initial years for Gnome 3.
Mostly though /. has become ultra conservative, they don't like any sorts of changes whether it be Gnome3, Metro, IPV6.... 12 years of IT stagnation have created a genera
Re: (Score:2)
Fonts on Linux these days look better than Windows 7 (in my opinion) and on par or better than OSX. If you want to tweak to your hearts content (or just set an aesthetically pleasing default) then use Infinality [infinality.net].
Re: (Score:2)
Add rpm-fusion and livna and you have everything you may want on the codec front.
I agree that Fedora could make this easier, but it isn't too onerous as it stands, install two rpms and things get in order.
Re: (Score:2)
None of the above, since they don't track Fedora before RedHat does?
Re: (Score:2)
FUCKING SPLIT THE PARIGAM, FUCKING OBVIOUS ISN'T IT?
I'm sorry, but it must be so obvious that I don't see it.
What is a PARIGAM and how do I split it? Is it like an atom?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it's more like an infinitive? Ooh, this is a fun game!
I'll make sure to file a bug tomorrow suggesting that we FUCKING SPLIT THE PARIGAM
Re: (Score:2)
GP does have a point about separating the paradigm, which I agree with, though he did so not as coherently as he could have.
Though as many have said, if one doesn't like the tablet-ization of Gnome 3, it's not like there aren't lots of other options.
Re: (Score:2)
Do the "New Generation" of programmers, Have no fucking clue?
These idiots that have taken for granted the existing stable conventions, One's they cut their teeth on.
And now thinking they know better - By going down this Tablet interface path - With everyone along with it?
Who's going down a "tablet interface path"? I'm assuming you're talking about Gnome 3, and whilst it looks *vaguely* "tablety" I don't think I'd want to use it without a keyboard and mouse (and FWIW I find it works very well on both my desktop and laptop - I've not tried it on a tablet so I can't comment there but on my normal workstations it seems to work better for me than any other DE I've used).
2. Desktops - Stable. (We really wan't DESKTOP's in their traditional sense. We don't want hybrid touch screen desktops or tablet interfaces.
Desktops are where hard and complicated work is done. Multi Screen - ie. Multi reference info while you work etc.)
My multi-screen desktop seems to work just fine with Fedora running Gnome 3. I'm not sure what your point is
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know how others upgrade Fedora, but "emerge -e system; emerge -e world" worked for me. Afterwards, it was quite a bit more usable.
Re: (Score:2)
And installing gentoo is an obvious way to upgrade Fedora.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.
Re: (Score:2)
"Why not 3.10"
Well, for a start, 3.10 stable came out several days after we finalized the F19 release images.
But Fedora kernels are rebased, these days: F18 and F19 will both get kernel 3.10 fairly soon.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh what I wished Red Hat did that to RHEL. They provide a distribution that should last for ten years, but keep the kernel at the same version. Yeah right 2.6.18, that will last forever.
Well it depends rather on what you mean by "last for years". The point of LTS releases like RHEL is that you install it and you get:
1. Bugfixes
2. Security patches
3. Very little breakage from any updates
What you explicitly don't get is new features every few months, because as soon as you go down the "upgrade for features" path, point (3) goes right out of the window. LTS releases are about installing a system and having it do the same old job day in day out for years, they aren't about installing a system