Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

+ - Fedora 21 Release Review: An Impressive Developer Workstation->

Submitted by sfcrazy
sfcrazy (1542989) writes "Fedora is undoubtedly a distro more focused towards developers and you will find all the tools that you need. Since Fedora has separated Cloud and Server editions, it makes life easier for everyone. It is possible to choose the appropriate version without having to worry about a system bloated with unnecessary software or having to install a boatload of software to get things moving ahead.

Fedora is certainly a perfect distro for those greenhorn sysadmins who aspire to work on RHEL in the future."

Link to Original Source

+ - Update on Fedora.next (starting with "Why?")->

Submitted by mattdm
mattdm (1931) writes "In February, I gave a talk at DevConf in the Czech Republic about Fedora.next — background on where it came from, what problems it’s trying to solve, what we are actually doing, and why we think those things address the problems. Video is online, but there was a lot demand for a text version. So, I'm writing a series of articles based on the talk (with updates). The first part, which covers the background, is up now on Fedora Magazine."
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:Start with a LTS distro (Score 2) 92

by Karrde712 (#44566661) Attached to: Fedora Core May Be Reborn

They can't do an LTS. Why would need RHEL if you can get Fedora LTS for free?

For the same reason that people buy RHEL even though CentOS exists? RHEL exists and is successful because of the support it offers. For users who don't want full support, CentOS fills that gap. So in effect, CentOS *is* the LTS version of Fedora. It just happens to be an LTS version that has a ten-year life-cycle and benefits from whatever fixes are driven by Red Hat Enterprise Linux customers.

That said, if we focus our efforts on the Fedora Server as a primary target (instead of an afterthought), I can very easily see Fedora being used as a real server for medium-term needs (such as deploying some software that has requirements that are too new for RHEL/CentOS).

Stephen Gallagher (Fedora Engineering Steering Committee)

Comment: Re:Really? Give it a break. (Score 3, Informative) 92

by Karrde712 (#44566623) Attached to: Fedora Core May Be Reborn

I run Fedora 19 with KDE on my home machines. Basically I set aside about 5 to 6 hours every six months to upgrade and when I say upgrade I mean a complete re-installation of the latest Fedora from DVD. Even though I actually backup my data (over 1TB) progressively I have never had to recover my data since I use LVM to manage my disks and all I have to do is make sure the system volumes including swap and of course the /boot partition are sized properly. Actually the only time I did have to recover my data when I converted the file-system from ext3 to ext4 and IMHO the performance improvement was worth it.

I strongly recommend that you try upgrading with 'fedup' next time around. It's far-and-away better than our historical upgrade processes and works in-place. I've personally gone from F17->F18->F19 using it with no ill effects.

I have actually found Fedora from 10 onward have been remarkably stable although I will admit when KDE 4.0 came out (I think that was with Fedora 15) I actually switched to Gnome util they fixed the stability issues, however that was not a Fedora issue.

Would I recommend Fedora for the Enterprise? Hell no! since you want any enterprise solution to be supported and in large corporations this usually means a Microsoft OS (this is changing but slowly) for the desktop and a mix of Linux (in my experience Redhat), Microsoft and Unix for the server room.

That's going to depend on your definition of Enterprise. Would I recommend Fedora today as your long-term FreeIPA or other core infrastructure server? No, probably not. On the other hand, would I recommend it for DevOps and rapidly deployed-used-and-killed VM instances for newer technologies such as Ruby on Rails or Node.js? Absolutely. Fedora's rapid development cycle is much more in line with those DevOps behaviors. It's actually a myth that "Fedora isn't for production". I know a great many DevOps deployments using Fedora successfully.

That all said, the major piece that was missing from this incredibly (and clearly intentionally) misleading summary is that the purpose of splitting off Fedora into three targets is to provide better support for those who want to use Fedora in production (the cloud image), those who want to develop their layered software so that it will run on the next version of RHEL/CentOS (the server) and people who want a comprehensive desktop for getting stuff done (the workstation/client).

Stephen Gallagher (Fedora Engineering Steering Committee)

Comment: Re:Really? Give it a break. (Score 2) 92

by Karrde712 (#44566517) Attached to: Fedora Core May Be Reborn

Man, I am so sick of this 're-birth' crap from Fedora. I liked Fedora 'core' back 7+ years ago before we had to be this uber bleeding edge -slash- agile uber aggressive build cycle that fucks everything up and obsoletes distribution usage to about 6 months.

When it was 'just' an upstream snapshot look to what RedHat Enterprise was going to be in the future, I was totally cool with that, and it melded nicely in a lot of environments. But that spin-off has become such a damn mess now with developer heavy ideas that, in some case, go against every foundation of a traditional UNIX-like operating system design, I could really give who shits what the do now.

Making a 'one-size-fits-all' OS is, pain and simple: a horrible idea. I don't want a damn highly integrated OS that I can use for everything. You'll never get that right, and some 'next-in-line' guy they give 5 minutes of talk time at the next conference will say the same thing.

When you take shit, and try and re-invent it with only shit, I'm sure everyone knows the result you get.

It's not surprising that you are confused here, since the original poster went out of his/her way to omit all of the substance of the proposal and instead focus on screaming "Fedora Core!". Of the three targets that were proposed, one of them (Fedora Server) is intended to be *exactly* what you just asked for. A clearly-defined server OS that is essentially snap-shots on the road to Red Hat Enterprise Linux/CentOS stability. Then, there are two other targets: cloud images suitable for use in an IaaS or PaaS infrastructure and the Client Workstation which will be targeted at creators and IT specialists.

The whole point of this proposal is that many of us in the Fedora Project agree with you: One-size-fits-no-one isn't a lasting solution.

Furthermore, the original poster misrepresented two compatible-but-not-identical proposals that came up at Flock. The splitting of the target audiences into separate, isolated deliverables was actually my proposal (Stephen Gallagher), not Matthew's (though he and most of the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee support it). The intent here is to have specific goals for sections of the Project and work towards meeting them. This is a large shift from Fedora's historical behavior which was to ship whatever the upstream projects shipped. With this proposal (backed by a design that is still in progress), we're going to make changes where they need to be made to produce a more cohesive whole.

In the end, we're working hard to ensure that Fedora is relevant in a changing age of cloud infrastructures and DevOps deployments, without ignoring our downstream RHEL and CentOS consumers as well. Certain other Linux OSes have decided to go the route of consumer electronics, but we as Fedora still believe that free software should be the infrastructure that powers those consumer products. And Fedora is a means to that end.

Stephen Gallagher (Fedora Engineering Steering Committee)

+ - Fedora Project Considering Switch to Layered Design->

Submitted by Karrde712
Karrde712 (125745) writes "Fedora Cloud Architect Matthew Miller announced today[1] a proposal on a plan to redesign the way that the Fedora Project builds its GNU/Linux distribution. Fedora has often been described as a "bag of bits", with thousands of packages and only minimal integration. Miller's proposal for "Fedora.Next" describes reorganizing the packages and upstream projects that comprise Fedora into a series of "rings", each level of which would have its own set of release and packaging requirements. The lowest levels of the distribution may be renamed to "Fedora Core".

Discussion on the list has questioned whether this is meant to be a return to the old "Fedora Core" and "Fedora Extras" model of Fedora's early life, to which Miller responded: 'I'm aware of this concern — I was there too, you know. As I was talking about the idea with people, it kept being hard to not accidentally say "core". Finally, as I was talking to Seth Vidal, he said, in his characteristic way, "Look, here's the thing. You should just call it Fedora Core. If you don't, people are going to be grumbling in the back corner and saying that it's really Core, and the conversation becomes about a conspiracy about the name. Just call it Fedora Core, and then have the conversation about the important point, which is how it's different."'

Much discussion is ongoing on the Fedora Devel mailing list. If any Slashdot readers have good advice to add to the discussion, it would be most useful to respond to the ongoing thread there.

[1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-July/186323.html"

Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:Installer a little better than F18's (Score 2) 83

by Karrde712 (#43535123) Attached to: Fedora 19 Alpha Released

That's actually only partially true. Fedora 18 didn't include MATE as an option while doing a DVD install, but if you changed the package location in Anaconda to "closest mirror", you would suddenly get a much larger set of available desktops, including Cinnamon, MATE and others. The reason for this should be obvious: there's only so much space on a DVD, so we tend to keep the set of packages on it limited to the most popular set. Which at the time of Fedora 18's release did *not* include Cinnamon or MATE.

We're definitely accepting criticism for how we can clean up the interface and make important options more visible. That's very nearly the whole point of the Alpha release. Please file bugs at http://bugzilla.redhat.com/ against the "anaconda" component of the Fedora project.

Linux

+ - Linus Torvalds awarded the Millenial Technology Prize->

Submitted by Karrde712
Karrde712 (125745) writes "In a first for the Millenial Technology Prize, both Laureates were awarded the prize. Linus Torvalds was recognized for the creation of the Linux kernel and its continuing impact on enhancing scientific progress throughout the world. Dr. Shinya Yamanaka was recognized for his work in the development of induced pluripotent stem cells for medical research."
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:I miss GOTO...there I said it (Score 3, Informative) 353

by Karrde712 (#38748576) Attached to: Visual Studio Gets Achievements, Badges, Leaderboards

GOTO is certainly very useful in some circumstances. For example, a common pattern in the samba and SSSD sources is this (taking advantage of the talloc() hierarchical memory allocator):

tmp_ctx = talloc_new(parent_ctx).
*allocate memory on tmp_ctx *
do stuff or fail and goto done.
*allocate more memory on tmp_ctx *
do stuff or fail and goto done.

done:
                talloc_free(tmp_ctx);
                return result;

It's really handy to be able to just jump directly to the done: tag on any error and know that any memory you allocated is cleaned up appropriately.

It's hard to think of you as the end result of millions of years of evolution.

Working...