Fedora Core 6 Preview 138
An anonymous reader writes "Earlier this week Jesse Keating announced the availability of Fedora Core 6 Test 1. New items in FC6T1 include Intel Macintosh support (well, mostly), update notification applet, GNOME 2.15, KDE 3.5.3, and the Fedora Core 6 Extras development repository is already available. With FC6T1's availability, Phoronix has published their own preview of this release. The article is focused on an editorial about changes to come for Fedora Core 6, as well as images from Fedora Core 6 Test 1. The next Fedora Core 6 testing release (Test 2) is due out in July, while the final release is due out this September."
fedora's problem... (Score:4, Insightful)
Still, it is a really lovely distro (I know it sounds like I slagged it off)... but give it a go : D
Re:fedora's problem... (Score:2, Insightful)
Seriously though, something like Ubuntu or Mandrivia might suit you better if stablity is more important to you than bleeding-edge.
Re:fedora's problem... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:fedora's problem... (Score:5, Informative)
Fedora Core is more or less beta testing of software that may eventually end up in Red Hat Enterprise. So by the time a new, say kernel, feature is part of Red Hat Enterprise, then it has been widely tested in Fedora. This means that Fedora is not very stable, but many (most?) Fedora users find this very acceptable.
If you want to have a stable base, then you should use another Linux distro or one of the *BSD.
Re:fedora's problem... (Score:1)
YES, in fact.
At the RedHat summit in Nash last month, the RHEL Roadmap shows a copy of FC6 being split-off later this year and becoming RHEL5 by the end of the year.
(note RHEL4 is a direct decended of FC3, RHEL3 is of FC1 etc).
Re:fedora's problem... (Score:2)
I guess if you're trying to run a server then you shouldn
Re:fedora's problem... (Score:2)
* e.g. my new raid controller only has official support under red hat enterprise - so far running with fedora everything has been ok. As a rule I find that Fedora has the best driver support because it is the testing platform for redhat...
Re:fedora's problem... (Score:2)
Re:fedora's problem... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:fedora's problem... (Score:1)
Re:fedora's problem... (Score:2)
Re:fedora's problem... (Score:1)
Regards,
Steve
very stable (Score:2)
My only real complaint about Fedora is it's use of yum which I don't feel works as well as competitiors such as rug (command-line component of Red Carpet). If they coould bring yum's quality up to snuff I'd be pretty happy with it. It'd be nice if they could calm some of the fighting between offical and unoffical repos too.
Re:fedora's problem... (Score:1)
Re:fedora's problem... (Score:2)
> a slower release cycle, try debian (joking!).
> Seriously though, something like Ubuntu or Mandrivia might suit
> you better if stablity is more important to you than bleeding-edge.
No that is *exactly* why I use debian, I got sick of Ubuntu's frequent releases. I don't want to think about that sort of thing when I use my workstation, there's just no need to keep updating FF, when a given version in sarge is known stable, and it's ju
Re:fedora's problem... (Score:5, Informative)
If you want a Redhattish distro that is NOT bleeding edge, try CentOS 4.3 (which is built from Red Hat Enterprise 4.3) or the other RHEL descendents like WBEL. CentOS is very solid - but it does not tend to have the bleeding edge stuff (and it will remain supported for years).
Re:fedora's problem... (Score:5, Informative)
yum works by checking for updates to your current version.
ie. the contents of your /etc/yum.repos.d/fedora.repo read:
the key term here being $releasever which means it only checks within your current release.The only way to make yum upgrade to a newer core version is to download and install the newer version kernel, reboot into that kernel, then tell yum to update. I have used that approach to go progressively from FC2 to FC3 to FC4.
HTH.
Re:fedora's problem... (Score:2)
Re:fedora's problem... (Score:5, Informative)
Actually updating has zilch to do with the kernel. You can normally do an online update by manually updating (with the rpm command) the fedora-release packagae, and then using yum to update from there.
However this is not the recommended route, and things may be more complex than this (for example requiring you to update yum, rpm and associated packages first). The kernel does not normally need to be updated first, and you run a greater risk of ending up with an unbootable machine if you do so.
There are normally howtos on upgrading using yum available - Seth Vidal typically has notes in his blogs about doing so.
However the recommended and supported upgrade route is to boot from a the new version installation image, and then use anaconda to upgrade - that can do more invasive updates like the udev changes, which are much easier to do with your system being offline.
Re:fedora's problem... (Score:2)
I'm hoping these kinds of upgrades become supported at some point, especially now Fedora is using yum at install time too. Although I've usually avoided doing upgrades, preferring complete ground-up reinstalls sinc
Re:fedora's problem... (Score:2)
The howto I followed is here. [brandonhutchinson.com]
Re:fedora's problem... (Score:4, Informative)
Dont worry tho, yum update shouldnt upgrade you, you'd have to run yum _upgrade_ for that, as far as I know. Live upgrades of that sort are not recommended tho.
Re:fedora's problem... (Score:1)
Re:fedora's problem... (Score:1)
Ubuntu/FC/Suse are all good distros, but are designed to move a bit more quickly than it seems like
fc5 woes (Score:1)
Re:fedora's problem... (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't think that it will automatically upgrade your version number. However, over time you do largely end up with most of the software for the next version because of the huge volume of updates that happen in the current FC version. For example, the update to KDE 3.5.3 was recently posted for FC5.
This has actually been bothering me lately. Right now yum tells me that I've got more than 500 megabyte
Re:fedora's problem... (Score:1)
Installing on a USB hard drive? (Score:2)
Re:Installing on a USB hard drive? (Score:2)
there seems to be advice on how to do it with RH around (you can find it on google pretty easily)... if you dig around a bit more fedora should be pretty easy to find. I think it should just be a question of selecting to instal it to sda instead of hda at the start... have a bit of a read round first but give it a go
Re:Installing on a USB hard drive? (Score:5, Informative)
Insert Fedora core cd #1 and turn on your computer. Boot to the cd.
When the boot screen comes up, type "expert" and hit enter. That will allow you to install to the usb drive. Install as normal, and make sure you install grub to the MBR.
Now, shut down. Boot up with Fedora disk 1 in the cd drive. at the boot screen, type: "linux rescue", and answer the questions about language when they come up. when it asks you if you want it to search for the installation, click "skip this step", and you will be brought to a shell.
mount
mount
chroot
Next, create the initrd, with the usb driver included:
mkinitrd --preload=ehci-hcd --preload=usb-storage --preload=scsi_mod --preload=sd_mod
Now, you have to edit your grub.conf:
nano
put the new initrd file name "initrd.img" in place of whats there. save and exit nano. reboot and it should work
of course your bios needs to be able to boot off usb devices. Hope that helps.
Re:Installing on a USB hard drive? (Score:1)
Any way to install onto an image file? Preferably one on a Winnt filesystem although I would guess that would be way too much to ask for...
The reason is I want to be able to create a Colinux image. I am using my work laptop so unfortunately hosing it to create some space for a native linux partition is out of the question. There are some existing FC images about the place but I would prefer to create my own - plus I would like to make a Centos image as well. I would like to use anaconda to do
Resume (Score:2, Interesting)
iMac works! (Score:2)
patented codec support? (Score:4, Interesting)
Out of the box, Totem can't play *anything*.. completely useless.
At least make it like Ubuntu, where I can add a repository that has all the stuff they can't ship in the box.
Re:patented codec support? (Score:5, Informative)
See http://rpm.livna.org/ [livna.org]
The ridiculous hoop you have to jump through is to simply type:
rpm -ivh http://rpm.livna.org/livna-release-5.rpm [livna.org]
and you've added the Livna repository. All the stuff in Livna now appears in GUI software installer (Applications -> Add and Remove Software) as well as on the command line (using 'yum'). Couldn't be simpler. Livna is an essential repository for a home user of Fedora Core.
Re:patented codec support? (Score:4, Insightful)
1. All software violates patents
2. The patent holder says that FLOSS players are ok.
3. The patents are only valid in the US and Japan
4. The point is moot in 3 years anyway when the patent expires. So, there's no time to popularize ogg if that's what they're attempting.
I'm all for keeping things 100% FLOSS, but as long as a piece of software has source code and is freely licenced then personally I don't care if it violates patents. Its one thing being forced by law not to use MP3 playback, but voluntarily removing it preemptively...isn't that a little like jumping off a cliff to avoid getting pushed off?
Re:patented codec support? (Score:5, Informative)
There are so many software patents nowadays, I'm sure it's impossible to write all but the simplest software without treading on somebody's patent. But to suggest that distro owners should knowingly violate patents is kind of negligent.
I know they're slightly biased, but on the MP3 Licensing [mp3licensing.com] web site, there's an extensive list of patents which have been granted in an equally extensive list of countries.
Again, I'd refer you to the MP3 Licensing web page. If you assume a patent duration of 20 years from filing, the first patents may have begun to expire but there's still quite a number of years to go until all the ones necessary to implement a full-featured decoder will have expired.
Apparently quite a number of the big free distros have legal teams who would disagree with you. From what I've used, neither Fedora nor Ubuntu include MP3 playback support and it's precisely for this reason. It's OK you advocating violating patents but these distros are made by non-profit organisations who have a lot to lose if they come on the wrong end of a patent lawsuit. At least they make the effort to make MP3 support available. If you want MP3 support, either pay for a commercial distro or quit whining and take the 2 minutes to install support for your distro. As you say, one day all these patents will have expired and even the free distros will be able to ship with MP3 support out of the box.
Of course, most Linux distros ship with support for 2 excellent audio formats out of the box: Ogg Vorbis [vorbis.com] and FLAC [sourceforge.net], both of which are better than MP3. Ogg Vorbis is a lossy CODEC which provides better quality than MP3 [rjamorim.com] at a lower bitrate. FLAC is the lossless CODEC and provides CD quality with 30-60% compression. Neither contain any patents that we know of (that in itself is important) and both work great on Windows too.
Re:patented codec support? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:patented codec support? (Score:2)
Vorbis and FLAC may have been built from the ground up in a FOSS setting, but it's still beyond question that the USPTO has granted some kind of spurious patent that they could be, at this very moment, be seen by an incompetant judge as infringing
Re:patented codec support? (Score:1)
So essentially any software patent held in the EU is an expensive but
Re:patented codec support? (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know if Ubuntu have something similar, but I guess they have.
I have seen how this is handled on Windows, I have seen how this is handled on Red Hat Linux, and I have seen how this is handled on Fedora Cor
But it could be a lot easier.... (Score:5, Insightful)
rpm -ivh http://rpm.livna.org/livna-release-5.rpm [livna.org]
Why do I have to type something at the command line to get basic multimedia support? Can't they just make a button during the install that you can press to get 'illegal' software. The button could read:
'I want to play mp3 files and I don't care if it's illegal. I take full responsibility for my actions.'
or:
'Software patents don't apply in my country, give me an mp3 player already!'
Why do they make you use the command line? It doesn't make sense.
Re:But it could be a lot easier.... (Score:4, Insightful)
And if entering one line on a console scares you maybe Linux is not for you. And I'm not being elitist here or anything, but it's just that you will be confrontend with a shell at some time during your Linux usage. The same way that for Windows you will be confronted with driver downloads (Why doesn't Microsoft give me a big button "Install latest nVidia drivers, I know what I'm doing").
Re:But it could be a lot easier.... (Score:2)
It does. It's part of the automatic updates.
Yes, it's not the "Latest" driver. But that's not the issue at hand with MP3s. You can't get them to work at all, you don't need the "Latest" MP3 player. You need an MP3 player.
I've switched to SUSE in the meantime. I was impressed with it being able to correctly identify all the hardware on a PC I recently built for a friend. And I had gotten tired of the weird probl
Re:But it could be a lot easier.... (Score:1)
Uhm, no, it doesn't, what it installs is A driver that happens to work with your nVidia card but you'll be missing out on a bunch of features that the official drivers give you. Doesn't matter if you "just" want your card to work, but that's the same as saying you "just" want to listen to music. But you say you want to listen to MP3s (not supported by Fedora) and I say that I want to use my stereoscopic glasses that came with my card (not supported by the dri
Re:But it could be a lot easier.... (Score:1)
I think this issue comes up so frequently that the installer should also mention that "mp3 support cannot be downloaded because it is likely to violate a patent in your country" and to "seek online help if you are sure th
Re:But it could be a lot easier.... (Score:2)
Re:But it could be a lot easier.... (Score:1)
Like if that wouldn't get them into trouble. Better warn people that the software is only legal in some countries, and provide them a question similar to this: Have you verified that using this additional software is legal in your country of residence? Yes/No.
Re:But it could be a lot easier.... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm sure the Fedora team has thought of putting some 'install illegal codecs' button somewhere in the GUI, but RedHat's lawyers probably say it's a very bad idea. If Livna does it all independently then RedHat can easily claim clean hands and get the case dismissed if Fraunhofer tries to sue them. It might be harder to get the suit dismissed if they do as you suggest, and that means lots of money - a patent holder's lawyer would be able to argue that it is tantamount to Microsoft putting a link on the GUI to the Pirate Bay in Windows.
Re:But it could be a lot easier.... (Score:1)
Ah! I see you are employing the Chewbacca defense!
Re:patented codec support? (Score:1)
Re:patented codec support? (Score:1)
Red Hat's view of Fedora (Score:4, Informative)
I discussed the release frequency and period of support, and they were pretty unsympathetic to the user's point of view. Their requirement is fast turnaround of new releases to ensure a strong test of new technologies / versions of new packages.
This has some upsides, like the multipathing support in RHEL4, Update 3 which means we can finally do away with Veritas on most of our machines. But it can suck for the user.
On one hand... (Score:2)
Re:On one hand... (Score:1)
The other thing that always bugged about Redhat was that I kept breaking the RPM system. I know this could always be blamed on me, but since I started using Gentoo, Portage (The gentoo software repository) has never given me any problems whatsoever.
Re:On one hand... (Score:1)
Re:Red Hat's view of Fedora (Score:1)
I discussed the release frequency and period of support, and they were pretty unsympathetic to the user's point of view. Their requirement is fast turnaround of new releases to ensure a strong test of new technologies / versions of new packages.
This has some upsides, like the multipathing support in RHEL4, Update 3 which means we can finally do away with Veritas on most of our machines. But it can suck for the us
Re:Red Hat's view of Fedora (Score:1)
Depends on wheere in the release cycle you sit. On release, FC5 was less stable than FC4 was at the current update level.
That has pretty much been fixed between then and now, but it remains a fact.
Re:Red Hat's view of Fedora (Score:1)
Evolutionary rather than revolutionary (Score:3, Interesting)
I personally would like to see a general reduction in memory usage in GNOME and various apps; it's been moving in the right direction, I hope it stays that way. I believe there is an effort to remove various deprecated libraries to help here.
Re:Evolutionary rather than revolutionary (Score:1)
I have heard that the memory/cpu requirements for FC5 are less than they were for FC4, don't know if it's true though. FC5 certainly feels snapier than FC4 did.
Fedora + KDE !=Genuine KDE (Score:4, Interesting)
If you are a KDE fan, than you're being shortchanged if you run Fedora or Redhat products.
SuSE used to be a great product, but 10.1 had so many problems I've lost confidence.
Give Mandrake, Gentoo, Kubuntu a try.
Re:Fedora + KDE !=Genuine KDE (Score:2, Informative)
Or you could stick with Fedora and just go to http://kde-redhat.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net], download and install the Yum repo information and upgrade to a proper version of KDE that way...
Re:Fedora + KDE !=Genuine KDE (Score:1)
Live CD? (Score:1)
Accelerated desktop (Score:3, Informative)
The FC development repo (so I assume FC6T1 has it as well) includes AIGLX [fedoraproject.org], a different approach to the accelerated desktop thing. The metacity that comes with Core has support for a few effects (like wobbling windows), but if you want to try the cube and othe compiz goodies, Kristian has an RPM of compiz for AIGLX here [redhat.com]. Just install it and voilá: eye candy goodness.
No wait! It's too soon!!! (Score:3, Interesting)
I downloaded and installed it on another hard drive. Went straight for suspend and it just worked out of the box flawlessly. I think I might have wet my pants... it was some time ago and my memory is hazy on the details, but there was urination at some point immediately surrounding the event... maybe I closed the lid on my laptop, took a piss and came back to find that the laptop was able to resume where it left off. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that was it. Anyway, I decided FC5 wasn't coming fast enough for me.
When FC5 arrived, I was not disappointed in the least. And with only one problem with periodic "yum" updates, FC5 scores an almost perfect record in my opinion.
Now there's FC6 around the corner? Why? I'm REALLY happy with FC5. I don't need FC6. Of course I will upgrade though. FC5 development will slow down and stop eventually. But I doubt I will scramble for FC6 without something really compelling. The improvements from the summary don't indicate anything compelling to me.
As for competing distros? Ubuntu is the name being used most. I still haven't tried it. It's not what I'm used to, and that's reason enough for me... for now. Maybe one day I'll bump into an Ubuntu user with the OS on his laptop and I'll get a demo I can appreciate. But where Fedora Core is concerned, I feel very well supported with RPMs available for everything I can think of. Only on rare occasion do I find myself stealing RPMs built for other distros because it's not available for FC5. And that's mostly due to the "I don't want to get sued" mentality coming from RedHat.
So yeah, that's the only beef I have with Fedora Core -- the "we don't support MP3 because we're scared" thing. Did the patent on GIF run out already? How much time left on MP3?
Upgrade from FC3 (Score:2)
install everything (Score:2)
If not, I'm not interested.
Re:install everything (Score:1)
Regards,
Steve
Re:install everything (Score:1)
and it placed a huge strain on the servers.
Installing from CD/DVD does not put any strain on the servers (apart from updating the system afterwards). The real reason why "install Everything" was removed is that this option caused several conflicting packages to be installed, creating more problems than it solved.
Re:install everything (Score:1)
Regards,
Steve
On behalf of Artie Lange... (Score:5, Funny)
Did they put the "Install Everything" button back in yet? If not, I'm not interested.
Waaah!
New KDE, new Gnome, an updater, and CUPS? Yawn...
Waaaaahh!
I switched to ${ANOTHER_DISTRO} and never looked back.
Waaaaaaaaaahhhh!
If you are a KDE fan, than you're being shortchanged...
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagggghhhh!
I'm REALLY happy with FC5. I don't need FC6.
Waaaah!!! Waaaah!!! Waaaaaaaaaaah!!!
The main problem I find with it is they seem too willing to update too quickly.
Waaaah waaaah waaaah waaaah waaaah!!!!!
Out of the box, Totem can't play *anything*.. completely useless.
Wah wah wah wah wah, wah wah wah, waaaaaaahhh!
Why do I have to type something at the command line to get basic multimedia support? Can't they just make a button...
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGH
[DISCLAIMER: This post is a joke. This post is only a joke. Had this post been intended to deliver actual derision or condescension it would have been supported by bad analogies, the anecdotal 'evidence' of a single user, and/or numerous mentions of other Linux distributions that are not germane to the current discussion. I apologize preemptively if anyone's fragile psyche was offended by this post. Additionally, I don't really have the authority to speak on Artie Lange's behalf.]
Fedora rights? (Score:1)
Re:Does Fedora still matters? (Score:3, Informative)
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Security/Features [fedoraproject.org]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-hardened
Re:Does Fedora still matters? (Score:3, Interesting)
With 1/5th the age of a distro that gets to exchange features back and forth with a commercial, enterprise linux if a few security features is all that you can c
Re:Does Fedora still matters? (Score:4, Insightful)
Bullshit. Ubuntu is based off of Debian, and a very large chunk of the things Ubuntu uses were developed at Red Hat. Both are Gnome based distros, using Ubuntu is not easier than using Fedora, but Fedora comes with a lot of additional things that Ubuntu doesn't have. All of these Ubuntu supporters are simply falling right into Mark Shuttleworth's hands by building brand recognition so that his commercial side of tghe business will thrive. Mark Shuttleworth is a marketing genius.
Regards,
Steve
Re:Does Fedora still matters? (Score:1)
Re:Does Fedora still matters? (Score:1)
Re:Does Fedora still matters? (Score:1)
Help a noob day: (Score:2)
Re:Help a noob day: (Score:5, Insightful)
Knowledge is power.
Re:Does Fedora still matters? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Does Fedora still matters? (Score:2, Interesting)
Getting the same with Ubuntu has yet to be a problem, not to mention that getting all the weird repositories is done graphically, with less hassle th
Re:Does Fedora still matters? (Score:2, Informative)
One of my main reasons for not even looking at Ubuntu for longer than about install+1 hour is that it just looks plain ugly compared to Fedora. How weird.... I mean I really hate the brown/orange thing and the Gnome icons and text seem to look years behind Fedora, more like RedHat before Bluecurve or SUSE's Gnome, it's just unfinished.
I was considering putting Ubuntu Dapper LTS on my new fileserver as I don't want to wait for CentOS 5 (RHEL5) and
Re:Does Fedora still matters? (Score:1)
Have you never heard aboutGnome look [gnome-look.org] orGnome art [gnome.org] , if only there was an easier way to install eyecandy than drag - drop
Google Trends for Fedora and other distributions (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm still using FC5 on my desktop for now, largely because I found it the simplest to 'extend' with non-vendor apps and drivers (such as the proprietary ATI drivers and the intense multimedia support available via the Livna repository to replace the frankly useless sound and video "support" in the vanilla FC5). I am fairly likely to stick with it either until FC7 or until Ubuntu reaches the critical mass where most app and driver vendors explicitly support it as a preferred distro.
Re:Google Trends for Fedora and other distribution (Score:1)
http://www.google.com/trends?q=BSD+%7C+OpenBSD+%7C +FreeBSD+%7C+NetBSD+%7C+DragonflyBSD%2C+fedora+%7C +fc5+%7C+fc4+%7C+fc3%2C+RHEL+%7C+redhat+%7C+red+ha t%2C++suse%2C+debian&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all [google.com]
Cool distros come and go. (Score:2)
Rather than forking off endless similar child distros I'd rather see the distros work together. Why not merge the Debian and Fedora development efforts? Is
Re:Does Fedora still matters? (Score:1)
FORM TROLL!!!!!! (Score:2)
Re:FORM TROLL!!!!!! (Score:2)
Re:errm (Score:1)
Is it possible to upgrade the kernel to FC6 without hurting my setup though?
Re:errm (Score:2)
My "point" I guess is that KDE/Gnome are not really "Fedora" as such. I mean, shit... I can run Gnome 2.16/KDE 3.5 on FreeBSD 4.4 if I really wanted to. Ditto for CUPS.
As to upgrading your Kernel on Fedora - not sure here, I don't run it. Tried core4 out for a couple of days, thought it was hugely over-rated, and went back to Ubuntu/FreeBSD :D
This is one of the MAJOR reasons I prefer the BSDs - the apps
Re:errm (Score:2)
Re:Fedora (Score:1, Flamebait)
man rpm
Re:I have only one question (Score:5, Insightful)
I run FC5 at home and Ubuntu, Debian and Mandrake at work. Read this series of reviews [debian-news.net] of the latest Ubuntu release (6.06), they are not all positive. A significant number say Drake was rushed and not on par with the previous release.
I have tried many distros out there, everyone has their favourite, and in particular Ubuntu is quite good, but there is no clear winner. Most people I read tend to base their impression of Linux on the latest distro they've tried. Usually this shows some improvement over the one they had tried earlier and (incorrectlly) conclude this is due to the distribution being "just better".
In fact the whole of Linux is progressing at a rapid pace. Both Fedora and Ubuntu have quick and frequent release schedules, a large professional and dedicated team, and as a result they are quite solid, but the same is true of many distros out there. I've come to realize that by and large innovations by one distribution quickly permeate all. See the good work of Debian with apt, that of Ubuntu with their automounter and RH's work with sponsoring Gnome and SELinux.
Ubuntu and FC have different, incompatible aims. Ubuntu is not a testing ground for RHEL, they show little interest with SELinux for instance, whereas this is of strategic importance for FC. However strangely perhaps they cover much of the same ground as far as the end-user is concerned.
Saying that one particular distro among the big ones does something "much better" than any other is misinformed. Because of the nature of FOSS, none holds any permanent advantage over the others, as long as they all continue their development efforts.
Re:I have only one question (Score:2)
Some people just don't seem to understand that hoards of developers hacking away on two or three different distros that are trying to fill the same space is crazy, and that all that duplicated effort is wasted.
To fuller illustrate what I
Re:I have only one question (Score:2)
On the other hand Ubuntu has the potential to be the One True Linux distr
Re:I have only one question (Score:1)