Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Initial Reactions to Fedora Core 5 164

Ki writes to tell us that he has put up a short review of Fedora Core 5 which covers the install and general first impressions to the new release. The author highlights several quirks in the installation and a few problems getting down to business, but overall the Fedora team seems to have made some very good progress.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Initial Reactions to Fedora Core 5

Comments Filter:
  • by Elequin ( 137149 ) on Tuesday March 21, 2006 @02:26PM (#14965631)
    That's what CentOS is for.

    http://www.centos.org/ [centos.org]
  • by chill ( 34294 ) on Tuesday March 21, 2006 @02:29PM (#14965669) Journal
    Holy crap! They're up to 5 already? Slow down guys. Nobody wants to upgrade systems they use for actual work that often. There's something to be said for stability.

    The initial idea was Fedora was the testing ground for Red Hat Enterprise and that for actual work, you'd use RHEL and not Fedora. By its very design Fedora is supposed to be a fast-moving, cutting edge distro.

      -Charles
  • Re:Can someone... (Score:3, Informative)

    by rg3 ( 858575 ) on Tuesday March 21, 2006 @02:30PM (#14965685) Homepage
    I think your best option is to read the comments at www.distrowatch.com and test them by yourself. The differences cover the package management tools, specific distribution tools, slightly different filesystem hierarchy and boot scripts, and finally the set of packages available for that distribution among others.
  • Re:Can someone... (Score:5, Informative)

    by lightyear4 ( 852813 ) on Tuesday March 21, 2006 @02:31PM (#14965707)
    Can someone tell me what the actuall differences are between the major linux distro's? Really, how could Mandriva, Ubuntu, and Fedora Core be all that different from each other? Wouldn't the developers just take the best parts out of the other distro's?

    They could indeed borrow things from other distos, and they do. It's the entire point of collaborative software. However, each distrobution has its own particular style and way of doing things; ultimately, it comes down to user preference in most cases. For example, Slackware is your rock solid, never-fail distribution for servers and tinkerers; Ubuntu is your user friendly, easy-to-use distribution with great support for mom and pop; SuSE and RHEL are for corporate machines requiring easy administration and solid integration with existing technologies; Gentoo and LFS are for those intereeted in learning about the core of the system (and for masochists with lots of time).

    It all boils down to preference and application. Successful approaches are shared for the good of all.

  • Re:Good grief! (Score:3, Informative)

    by 0rbit4l ( 669001 ) on Tuesday March 21, 2006 @02:43PM (#14965822)
    This is par for the course regarding Fedora. I've had the misfortune of having to install it on testbed machines at work, and it is the ultimate example of beta software. That's fine, I guess, for people who like to play with a beta OS, and RedHat made no bones about the fact that this is what they were doing with Fedora. That's all well and good - I just have no desire whatsoever to use a rickety, unstable system whose tools (like, say, "ifconfig" on FC4) segfault on me.
  • Beware! (Score:4, Informative)

    by c_spencer100 ( 714310 ) on Tuesday March 21, 2006 @02:54PM (#14965947)
    There are a few things you need to consider before giving Fedora a try.

    1. No NTFS support: If dual boot, you will not be able to read your Windows partitions.
    2. No MP3 support (it's been like that for a while.)
    3. No support for propietary drivers: I've been told that this is more of a bug than an intended feature, but I haven't heard any certainty to support either side.
    4. No ReiserFS

    It's also missing the Tango Icons, Anjuta, and a few more apps. They aren't necessarily deal breakers, but with a 5 cd download, you'd expect them to be there. Lack of MP3 support is by design, although a lot of people really aren't aware of it. Items 1,3,4 can all be resolved by compiling your own kernel, but not everyone enjoys doing that, - and with a newly released distro, you probably shouldn't have to. I can understand no NTFS and MP3 support for patent issues, but why no ReiserFS?

    Here is a link to one of the reviews [beranger.zoom.ro] that I came across. You should probably check the Forbidden Items List [fedoraproject.org] as well.
  • Re:Can someone... (Score:3, Informative)

    by hey! ( 33014 ) on Tuesday March 21, 2006 @02:57PM (#14965979) Homepage Journal
    Really, how could Mandriva, Ubuntu, and Fedora Core be all that different from each other?

    The answer is that these days, most large distros aren't dramatically different so far as I can see. There are slight differences in taste, with respect to choices of default sofware and configuration options, but not so far that you can't configure one to be equivalent to the other. They differ in preferred desktop (Gnome vs. KDE), preferred file system (ext3 vs. Reiser), but these hardly matter. They have different default UI themes. Ubuntu comes preconfigured to rely heavily on sudo for administrative work, if you believe in that sort of thing. All these distros have enough mindshare and resources behind them that practically anything you want is very likely to be available on all of them.

    Fedora is, of course, a "bleeding edge" distro, which means you'll run into a few more problems, but nothing that people who want that sort of thing can't handle. Mandriva concentrates on working for most users who just want to have their OS working "out of the box". It's nicely polished, with well thought out defaults and a good selection of reasonably up to date software that works pretty well togeter. It's very impressive. Suse is pretty much the same, but it might be a better choice for corporate use, if you anticipate wanting to use Novell products to manage your Windows and Unix systems. Ubuntu is an innovative debian based distro; it has Debian's ideological purity without its dowdy conservatism. On the other hand, I've found its possible on Ubuntu to configure/upgrade yourself into a bit of a mess, for example you can amuse yourself getting captive-NTFS to work after a kernel upgrade, but people who ask questions like yours don't feel the need to have the latest kernel.
  • by timster ( 32400 ) on Tuesday March 21, 2006 @03:11PM (#14966126)
    everyone with a clue knew that about Redhat around version six...

    Correction: version 5, which shipped with a very broken beta libc.
  • Re:Good grief! (Score:3, Informative)

    by crush ( 19364 ) on Tuesday March 21, 2006 @03:16PM (#14966174)
    What seems like a clueful reviewer struggled to get it to work with Nvidia graphics (you know, that obscure hardware maker that only a handful of Linux users need to worry about).
    Certainly more clueful than you appear to be (if you're on the level). Nvidia is always going to be a pain in the ass for anyone that runs a FOSS OS. As it happened this particular glitch was due to a glitch with the default kernel and non-gpl drivers. Use closed hardware, then be prepared to do the work to support it, because Nvidia/ATI/whoever won't and the distro makers can't. This problem is a direct result of that relationship and the take home lesson is DON'T BUY HARDWARE THAT ONLY HAS PROPRIETARY DRIVERS (yes, there is an open "nv" driver which supports 2D but that isn't good enough for most people.)
  • by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Tuesday March 21, 2006 @03:23PM (#14966231) Homepage Journal
    Yeah, but once they fixed 5, it was pretty good. 6, on the other hand, never got fixed...
  • by Beuno ( 740018 ) <argentina&gmail,com> on Tuesday March 21, 2006 @04:31PM (#14966851) Homepage
    # sudo passwd
    set your root password
    now you can login as root...
  • Re:Beware! (Score:3, Informative)

    by thule ( 9041 ) on Tuesday March 21, 2006 @04:58PM (#14967051) Homepage
    4. No ReiserFS

    Oh really? /lib/modules/2.6.15-1.2054_FC5/kernel/fs/reiserfs/ reiserfs.ko

    It looks like it's there to me. You can easily install FC to reiserfs by putting reiserfs (or XFS) at the boot prompt.

    Isn't NTFS support a little shaky still? I know reading works pretty good, but writting is still incomplete.
  • Re:Beware! (Score:3, Informative)

    by codergeek42 ( 792304 ) <peter@thecodergeek.com> on Tuesday March 21, 2006 @08:49PM (#14968655) Homepage Journal
    (1), (2), and (3) are all solved by a simple Google, which leads you to the unofficial Fedora FAQ[1], which has simple instructions that one can easily copy/paste into a terminal (which, by the way, they explain how to start and use somewhat).

    (4) is due to the fact that Red Hat is on the forefront of Ext3 development, and will not support ReiserFS due to the fact that, quite frankly, it sucks. It lacks proper SELinux support[2], it fragments easily, it and been unmaintained upstream for a long time.[3]

    [1] http://www.fedorafaq.org/ [fedorafaq.org]
    [2] Its Extended Attribute support, required for POSIX ACLs and SELinux contexts markings, is nothing more than a working kludge, using a hidden ".reiserfs_priv" directory entry and subsequent inodes therein for these things.
    [3] I can't find the link at the moment, but Hans Reiser has mentioned on the LKML that ReiserFSv3 is "obsolete" and people should use the still-not-production-quality ReiserFSv4.
  • Re:yum sucks (Score:4, Informative)

    by labratuk ( 204918 ) on Tuesday March 21, 2006 @11:28PM (#14969368)
    Is it really so hard to do that?

    Yes. Proper package management is one of the most complex things in modern software if done wrong. Never compound it all by making a package cocktail.

    Besides, it's not the package format that makes compatibility. That's trivial. It's the underlying tree of software, where everything is put and how that is difficult. By advocating a single, compatible 'format', what you're actually advocating is a single distribution. Which would be stupid and unworkable for reasons I won't go into here.

    So there you go kids - never stray from your vendor's repository unless you really really need to. And then only if you know what you're doing.
  • Re:Beware! (Score:3, Informative)

    by Alioth ( 221270 ) <no@spam> on Wednesday March 22, 2006 @07:48AM (#14970585) Journal
    Adding support for all of those things is just a single command away - add the Livna repository (which contains various media packages, NTFS modules and nvidia/ati RPMs which get upgraded along with kernel upgrades). The current binary driver issue is a bug (and will be fixed shortly).

Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle. -- Steinbach

Working...