What's Fedora Up To? Ask the Project Leader 295
Fedora Project Leader Max Spevack offered himself up for this interview because, he said, "I look at stories like [your] posting Ubuntu to Bring About Red Hat's Demise and many of the comments about Red Hat and Fedora seem very rooted in the world of several years ago, when the RHEL/Fedora split took place." This is a chance to clear the air, and get an up-to-date look at what Fedora is up to these days. So ask away; we'll send 10 of the highest-moderated questions to Max and (hopefully) publish his answers later this week.
Drivers Vs Linux (Score:5, Interesting)
What's changed? (Score:5, Interesting)
Daniel
Worst Aspect of Fedora? (Score:5, Interesting)
Vista a Problem? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm hoping that Linux distros are not pressured into adding unneeded bells and whistles in a desperate attempt to compete with Vista. Are you invulnerable from this mentality?
Linux presence (Score:5, Interesting)
What is Fedora's Comparative Advantage? (Score:5, Interesting)
Have you tried Ubuntu? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Why such a divide? (Score:2, Interesting)
NTFS support in Fedora/RedHat. (Score:5, Interesting)
Users do need this option (unlike RedHat's customers, which are organizations as far as I know), and for evidence, Linux-NTFS is one of the projects with the most downloads on sourceforge.
I would like to add that NTFS is part of the mainline kernel. Compiling it as a module will cause it to not take any memory resources other than the few kilobytes on disk that any un-used hardware module is taking, unless of course the user has a mounted NTFS partition.
RedHat's reason for disabling NTFS support was that RedHat is a US-based organization and that they fear patenting problems from MS. No law action was ever taken, and no actual patent was referenced. As far as I know, NTFS is not even patented or patentable. Fedora is not RedHat as you say, so this old reasoning is not exactly valid for Fedora. The IBM/SCO saga also cleared the issue about patents in the mainline kernel.
Unless Fedora will change this simple flag in the kernel config file, I assume it is still controlled (and not only sponsered as some would say) by RedHat.
Distro Improvement (Score:2, Interesting)
Home recording/music production (Score:2, Interesting)
Or, really, any plans for any other speciallising options?
Fedora (Score:5, Interesting)
Directory Server (Score:5, Interesting)
.rpms and the LSB (Score:5, Interesting)
A slightly different take. (Score:3, Interesting)
filesystem support (Score:2, Interesting)
Dependency hell (Score:5, Interesting)
That's clearly wrong. I only want to install a PostScript previewer. Doing so should not require a filemanager (which I don't need or want), and certainly not a CD burner. But these are added as dependencies due to the clumsy packaging that seems to be increasingly prevalent in Fedora. Perhaps (and I remain unconvinced) there's some aspect of evince that can make use of nautilus being present. But if so, I haven't seen it. I could well believe that nautilus could make use of evince, but not really the other way around. But assume for the sake of argument that it can use nautilus. That still isn't a reason to have it depend on it. Dependencies should be packages that are required in order for another to run, not packages that will merely enable additional functionality. In this case -- the prime function of evince is to view documents, which isn't significantly enhanced by having a file browser present.
Fedora is still my distribution of choice, but it's becoming increasingly hard to use for those of us that prefer to run with a minimal system due to the way that the dependencies have been getting out of hand. Are there any plans to fix this, or is any work already underway to do so? I understand that some consideration has been given to providing "soft dependencies" within RPM (like dpkg's suggested dependencies), which would help. Is there a timeframe for this? Is anything else being done?
I quite understand the focus on getting the system to be usable for the average unskilled user. But the impression I'm getting is that it's being done at the expense of letting those of us that know what we're doing do what we want. Does Fedora have a position on the type of users it's aiming for, or is it still trying to be a general purpose OS?
WIFI (Score:3, Interesting)
What's the diffference? (Score:5, Interesting)
Live CD? (Score:1, Interesting)
Second question: I have a bunch of RH stock... sell or hold?
Mac OS X a Problem? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Worst Aspect of Fedora? (Score:2, Interesting)
mass end user appeal (Score:4, Interesting)
1) A pre-built image file on C:\ that will be the linux hard drive.
2) A
3) When run, this kernel boots off the image on NTFS.
I know this can be done with existing technology (or at least the hard parts are already working). The NTFS driver can write to an existing file if the size does not change. Linux kernel can init on an already powered up machine and reset the hardware. I know Red Hat does a lot of kernel work and other developement, so I know you guys capable of doing this very quickly.
This gives the vast majority of users a way to download linux like any other program, run it without rebooting into some scary 'repartition' software, and still get the full benefit and experience of linux. In fact, immediately after downloading they just click the program and say "Yes" to "Shutdown Windows and start Linux?" and 20 seconds later they are in a Fedora core system. If they like it, they can install a normal Fedora directly onto the system. If they don't like it, just delete the image file.
My question is, will you at least consider doing this? Something like this would be huge for linux adoption and therefore Red Hat mindshare.
Most Valuable Feature (Score:1, Interesting)
I'm keen to try the latest 3-D desktop, and it would be great if mythtv were included in Fedora. But the number one most valuable feature is still working hardware.
For example, Lexmark publishes their Linux Driver Development Kit, but no actual Linux drivers. Fedora doesn't have a driver for my Lexmark printer. That's not necessarily the fault of the Fedora team. But there are issues here that could be addressed by all linux distros.
What can be done to make it easier and more attractive for hardware manufacturers to provide native linux drivers? (I.e., why is it so hard for the manufacturers to do this themselves? What can be done to make it easier?) Also, what can be done so that a working Gentoo or Ubuntu driver means a working Fedora driver, and vise-versa?
And finally, how much effort is consumed banging away on every oddball piece of hardware out there to get them supported, versus the effort spent to squeeze in the latest new gee-wiz app?
An argument for a stable Fedora (Score:3, Interesting)
Compare to RedHat's stack. Rawhide maps to unstable, only less stable. More accurate would be the Fedora Test releases compare to Unstable. Fedora roughly maps to Testing and RHEL to Stable except it is only available bundled with a service contract. It is probably safe to say few developers develop on rawhide, from what I see on the mailing lists at least, most appear to use Fedora and add some packages from Rawhide/Dag/livna/etc. For the corporate world RHEL is worth every penny, as the RedHat financial statements attest. But you guys don't have anything to offer in the vast space between the deveopers and the major site installs.
When you dropped RHL I grabbed the RHEL source and started White Box, since joined by at least three more rebuild projects. However a new user understands none of that, only seeing Red Hat's offerings, which has nothing for them. They see Fedora Core, which has an expiration date not much longer than milk. Installing a new OS is traumatic enough, the thought of being forced to do it twice a year is right out, especially if they actually do it once and fight the war to get a working system. (drivers, media support, etc) And if they do invest the time to learn linux the Fedora way, unless they work at a site that is a candidate for RHEL there isn't any place to use that knowledge in the real world. Hint: Most of the Linux machines in production use aren't candidates for RHEL. Try selling management on a RHEL support contract that costs more ANNUALLY than an NT license for a file/print server. Critical web server, yes. Oracle server, no problem. But most places start smaller.
Compare to Ubuntu. Most users DO know Ubuntu is Debian based. But unlike Debian, Ubuntu compromised Free Software principles enough to make it fairly easy to get a working machine. So a new user can get going fairly easy and they aren't told they MUST upgrade annually, semi-annually preferred. And once they learn, Ubuntu LTS can be used for real work and it is only a small hop to Debian for a server or Sid to participate in development.
Fedora for Non-Desktops (Score:2, Interesting)
What are your plans for the future? Where does Fedora plan to live and how can people go from Fedora into CentOS or RHEL like you will be able to with Ubuntu?
Also are there any Fedora initiatives for Mobile Devices? Any kind of WinCE alternative planned? You would be the best to do it as you are also involved in the OLPC project.
Thanks
playing nice with closed source (Score:3, Interesting)
evince is not just a "PostScript previewer". (Score:2, Interesting)
If you want only a PDF or PS viewer, then try something like Ghostscript/GSView, or xpdf. Even the display program of ImageMagick might be suitable for your needs. Unlike evince (and much other GNOME software), those programs follow the UNIX tradition of doing one task, and doing that one task well.
Driver issues (Score:3, Interesting)
So the questions: What is Fedora doing to improve the quality of the kernels and drivers? What is the purpose of all the tweaking? Some folks use stock kernels with Fedora, why all the messing around?
RHEL vs RH9 vs FC3-5 (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Dependency hell (Score:2, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Simplified Installation (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Simple Buy Supported Hardware (Score:3, Interesting)
1) Finding out if hardware works with linux is not so simple, many (in the UK) don't have any indication they will work on anything but windows, so you have to search the net to see if its supported, and it might not be officially (Insert Wifi card model here).
2) Some hardware that is supported is so badly supported it might as well not be. ATI cards are like this, I hear Nvidea are easier to setup but are still suck-tackular.
3) Not everyone builds there own computer, joe average goes to PC World and buys the nice black with with lots of mega-giga-hurtz. He doesn't know whats in it. Granted thats more towards the desktop market and not so much for servers.
4) And why, by choosing linux, should I cut myself off from whatever percent of hardware out there just to use Linux? I agree with Linux's ideals, compared to Microsofts, but Microsofts solution works for me (Well, re-install every 6 months, but my hardware works:P). Only Linuc use I have is a server on an old computer, thankfully everything worked out of the box with DSL.
Re:I'd consider this a Real Problem... (Score:3, Interesting)
On that note, are you considering employing/persuading developers to develop clean-room reimplementations of closed source drivers, ala OpenBSD? If not, why not?
Encrypted Root? (Score:2, Interesting)
The new AMD (Score:2, Interesting)