Palemoon was already on my shortlist. Thanks.
Hopefully their Linux support improved...

I've been using Mozilla and Firefox for the past 15+ years (Mozilla application suite, switched to Firefox when it was released).
In the past couple of years the main reason I kept on using Firefox was Tab-grouping.
With that gone I'll most likely switch to Chrome and never look back.

Either way, Firefox served me well. It'll be a shame to see it go.

I'm willing to bet good money that number of systemd services I've written as as high as yours and I love it.
By switching from sysv to systemd my company dropped 1000's of bash, python and C code that was used to start, keep and manage network services and replaced them with 10 line unit files and 5 line bash support scripts.

Your turn.

- Gilboa

My story is quite similar:
Started using Linux on my backup box (Debian and then RH) in ~95/96. Never took it seriously.
In mid 2000, my main OS was Windows 2K and XP (beta) and I began to lose faith in the MS-way. At the same time, RH 6.2 was released and for the first time, it really looked like a real OS and I suddenly found myself spending less time using my main Windows 2K/XP box and more time using my backup RH 6.2 box.

When RH 7 was released, I deleted the XP beta partition, moved Windows 2K to backup box and installed RH 7.0 on my main box and never looked back.

15 years later, all my coworkers and I use KDE (5.4 ,Fedora 22) as the main DE.

- Gilboa

I've got a fairly large network based on Fedora. Starting from VMs, netbook, notebooks, desktops up to high end 4S Xeon servers.
Some of them have been running Fedora since F12... (Upgraded every six months).

All I can say that F21 to F22 was non-issue (even the upgrade to Plasma 2 / KDE5 didn't really upset my users...)

Gilboa

Be that as it may, you said: " I gave up on Linux when Ubuntu ruined everything with their Unity rubbish" and somehow connected it to TDE being "yet another desktop environment" when in-fact, TDE is as far as it gets from Unity.
Had you said KDE 3.X drove me to OSX, your point might have been valid.

- Gilboa

Or simply pressed "send" without thinking?
TDE is not "another desktop environment". TDE a maintained fork of KDE 3.5, with the expressed intent of maintaining the look-and-feel and functionality of KDE 3.5.
If anything, you should be congratulating them instead of condemning them as they are doing the exact opposite of what Unity is doing. Maintaining a working DE while adding subtle changes.

Oh, and for the record, Speak for yourself. My startup has ~10 employees running Fedora and thus far (6 years) it has been working great. At least in my case, Linux (KDE 4) *is ready* for the desktop.

Just for the sake of the argument, on how many say, 2S and 4S servers have you tested systemd before judging it broken?
Oh, what please post the combined load your high end servers handle.

My 20+ laptops, desktops, workstations and servers (some 4S servers) plus 40++ VMs running Fedora 21 w/ systemd beats your two-random-distributions that failed to boot, hands down.

No idea what will be included in blivit in the long run, but at least AFAIK, parted lacks the following:
- lvm [1] [2].
- cryptofs [3]
- Complex software RAID setups (usually w/ lvm) [1].
- Network based storage management (iSCSI, etc).

- Gilboa
[1] https://www.gnu.org/software/p...
[2] AFAIK gparted *does* support LVM, but it requires the LVM to be inactive while being used. Which more or less makes it useless when trying to management the storage on a production server...
[3] https://bugzilla.gnome.org/sho...

God knows why anyone moderated your comment as insightful.

1. Fedora / RedHat is targeting, wait for it, Fedora / RedHat. End of story.
As someone that maintains a fairly large DPI (kernel/user-land) software and a management software that uses PyGI, I can from attest from personal experience that both PyGI and PyGTK under both Fedora and RHEL are top-notch with zero dependencies issues.
2. PyGI is *far* easier to use than Qt/C++. We wrote the original management code in Qt, but switched to PyGI as it increased that rate of the development by 3/1. We may switch back to Qt due to performance issues and lackluster mutli-threading support (Known python limitation) and problematic Windows support. (Both of which are non-issues when it comes to *Linux* storage management)
3. I can agree that if you want to scan incoming packets at 150Gbps using software only, or write output at 1GB/s, you'd most likely need C++ or even C/asm combination. But what-exactly prevents python from calling a couple of syscalls to executing /sbin/cryptsetup / /sbin/lvm or /sbin/mkfs.ext4? What exactly makes Qt/C++ better at calling external binaries (such as the one mentioned above)?

- Gilboa

... Have your bothered to read the release message instead of rushing to press the "save" button you'd notice the following [1]:

"Why not use GParted you ask? The reason we came up with blivet-gui is that none of the existing storage management tools supports all storage technologies supported in modern Linux distributions. Anaconda does support them all so it's only logical to take Anaconda's storage backend, combine it with a nice, intuitive and in general user-friendly frontend and build a standalone application for storage management."

So, I assume that Fedora should also throw out their Anaconda installer, and somehow write a new installer based on parted (the library behind gparted), just so they "won't reinvent the wheel"?
Beyond that, what makes you so sure its even remotely possible to add iSCSI, BTRFS, LVM and Cryptofs support to gparted? As you are so quick to judge that Fedora is reinvent the wheel due to non-technical reasons, I assume you already know from personal experience that there are no design issues in adding the "missing features" to parted.

[1] https://lists.fedoraproject.or...

Happens to me far too often on my Windows VM's, LibreOffice windows and even on the Chromebook that I use to type this message on (on normal Linux machines I have Firefox w/ VI plugin).

/* OT side note */
Actually, GCC's performance under windows *greatly* depends on the type of code being executed.
E.g. We (my company) uses GCC under both Linux and Windows, even though we support VC 2K5/8.
At least in our case, GCC (mingw-64) was ~10-20% faster than VC 2K5 and has far, far, far, broader features list (E.g. Very partial macro support, no in-line assembly, 'managed' version of CRT functions, etc)
Plus, can build the Windows binaries on our Linux build systems (a major plus) using Fedora's extensive MinGW support.

Per subject at hand, if you raise the warning level to the maximum (-Wall) and remove a couple of noise factors (-Wno-multichar), at least in my view, GCC tends to be far more informative than VC 2K5 - which in turn, tends to throw a lot of unused variable and deprecated use of CRT function warning, but nothing really major.

- Gilboa

I'll give you the benefit of doubt that you're not simply trolling.

In the last two years I've experience two SSD bricks on my main Xeon workstation (2 x X5680, 36GB RAM, 6+1 x 320GB enterprise SATA in software RAID6, running Fedora 19 x86_64).
On the other hand, the 5 (!) year old 320GB enterprise SATA drivers are working like new (hence I've yet to replace them).
Now, back when I had the SSD's I used them as a fast cache, but for the life of me I couldn't feel the difference. (Can same the same about the occasional breaking).
Sure, firefox would launch *marginally* faster, but:
1. I boot once every major kernel release (or major security issue).
2. With anywhere between 10-20GB of free RAM (depending on the number of active VMs) most of the software I used is cached.
3. Even when compiling a large project, CPU is usually the limiting factor (even w/ 48 jobs).

So, would I feel the difference on a single disk laptop? Sure!.
Do I feel the urge to add a third SSD to my workstation? Do I trust them enough with my work? Doubt it.
Guess I'll have to see how the Linux kernel's bcache works and how well it handles bricked SSD's.

- Gilboa