This is a read-only archive. Find the latest Linux articles, documentation, and answers at the new Linux.com!

Linux.com

Feature: Fedora/Red Hat

Fedora 9: Leading edge or bleeding edge?

By Bruce Byfield on May 19, 2008 (7:00:00 PM)

Share    Print    Comments   

With Fedora 9, the Fedora project continues its tradition of being the most innovative major distribution, combining new applications from other distributions as well as its own inventions. However, in no other release has Fedora walked the line between leading edge and bleeding edge so precariously. At times, as with its updating of subsystems and its selection of desktop software, Fedora 9 manages to innovate without inconveniencing users. But, in other cases, most notably in the changes to package installation, the project has chosen innovation over usability.

Like earlier releases, Fedora 9 offers a wealth of installation alternatives, and introduces some of its own. The download page offers 32- and 64-bit DVDs and CDs, and live media for both GNOME and KDE desktops. Alternatively, you can create a bootable USB flash drive -- an option that, starting in Fedora 9, includes the ability to store your own data and permanently alter the installation. Other choice include the Unity subproject's supply of custom spins. If none of these choices suits you, you can create your own install image using Revisor.

With Fedora 9, you also have the option of using live-usb-creator from Windows to create a live flash drive. While Fedora leader Paul Frields says that adding a version of Ubuntu's Wubi remains a future possibility, the live-usb-creator seems a simpler alternative, especially as the result lacks most of the speed problems of a live CD. For now, the application is not available in Fedora itself, although the project page suggests that it should be soon.

Most users will probably install via an install or live DVD/CD. The live CD is the fastest choice to download and offers the simplest install program, but experienced users might miss the ability to control the details of the installation.

The standard install disks use Anaconda, which is probably the oldest graphical install for GNU/Linux still in use. Fedora 9's Anaconda offers only minor changes from earlier versions, such as the ability to install on an ext4 filesystem (if you happen to feel adventurous, since the format is still being developed and is only partially supported by tool sets) and the ability to resize partitions. Between the beta and the final versions, the listing of wireless devices in Anaconda seems to have vanished, leaving installers in the uneasy position of not knowing which ones have been detected until they reboot into the new system. That point aside, as in previous versions, Anaconda provides an installation that requires minimal choices for newcomers while providing the customization that experienced users may prefer.

Fedora 9 also looks forward to future releases with PreUpgrade, a wizard to guide you through the process of upgrading an existing system. While PreUpgrade currently points only to Rawhide, the Fedora development repository, it does promise to remove some of the uncertainty about how to change from one release to another.

The system and the desktop

Behind the scenes, Fedora 9 boasts a number of modifications that average users may not observe, but that may still have a major effect on their computing. PulseAudio, which was an installable option in Fedora 8, is now a standard in the configuration dialogs, offering more sophisticated sound than earlier alternatives such as ALSA and OSS. Fedora 9 has also adopted Canonical's Upstart as a replacement for System V's init scripts, resulting -- among other things -- in a somewhat faster boot and shutdown, with the promise of more enhancements to come. Other speed increases come courtesy of Xorg 1.4 and X Server 1.5, which together improve the performance of the X Window System.

After installation, Fedora 9 opens a default desktop with New Age tie-dye wallpaper. The selection of standard software is more cutting edge than in earlier versions of Fedora, perhaps due as much to accidents of timing in various project releases than any deliberate policy choice. At any rate, the release includes not only stable new releases such as GNOME 2.22 and OpenOffice.org 2.4, but also some applications still in development, such as KDE 4.03, Firefox 3 beta 5, the 2.6.25 Linux kernel, and OpenJDK, the free version of Sun's Java, supplemented by the earlier IcedTea workaround. On the whole, the inclusion of releases still in development is remarkably trouble-free. OpenJDK seems ready for prime time for common desktop purposes, while Firefox 3 is stable, if not optimized for speed yet. Those who use wireless devices with Ralink chipsets should be especially glad of the 2.6.25 kernel, which includes built-in support for them.

To this mix, Fedora 9 adds only a few minor enhancements in applications, such as a redesigned Screen Resolution dialog and SE Linux policies for browsers and extensions. Probably the most noticeable changes for everyday computing are in the Network Manager, which now supports multiple active network devices as well as what the release notes summary describe as "ad-hoc support for wireless" -- which appears to mean automatic detection of wireless devices without the need to configure them specifically.

Software installation

The most controversial change in Fedora 9 is the replacement of the Pirut front end for Yum and the Pup updater with PackageKit, an application intended to provide a universal front end for all package systems. Although PackageKit is not intended to allow you to install a mixture of .DEB and .RPM packages on the same system, or convert packages from one format to another, the advantages of a common interface are obvious. PackageKit is also a marked improvement over Pup, in that it divides upgrades into categories such as Security, Bug Fixes, and Enhancements, allowing you to make choices about what to install without having to go to the effort of researching every upgrade.

However, the way that Fedora 9 has implemented the change is less than ideal. For one thing, neither Pirut nor Pup is in the Fedora 9 repository. Even more importantly, while the GNOME PackageKit interface divides packages into groups and displays filtered search results, it does not allow installation by groups or multiple selections. In other words, should you want to add the KDE or Xfce desktop without having to install dozens of packages one at a time with GNOME PackageKit, you need to use the Yum command itself, or install another graphical software installer like Yumex.

According to the PackageKit FAQ for Fedora 9, group installs should be available shortly in PackageKit. But, given the current lack of this functionality, PackageKit's inclusion in the release seems premature. It could have easily waited for the next release.

Conclusion

Aside from the problems with PackageKit -- and, to a lesser extent, the inclusion of KDE 4.0.3 -- Fedora 9 manages to balance innovation with a high degree of usability. Over the last few months, Fedora has been increasingly compared favorably with Ubuntu on both accounts, and, to a large extent, it deserves this praise. If anything, it has probably exceeded Ubuntu in innovation, with at least a dozen major new ideas in every release. It is a rare release, too, in which Fedora's menus and dialog do not show minor tinkering to fine-tune the user experience.

Yet the problems in Fedora 9 emphasize how difficult a balance the Fedora project tries to maintain. The fact that improvements are coming for both KDE and PackageKit, and that, meanwhile, workarounds exist, is beside the point -- these facts are lucky accidents, and nothing that Fedora has done.

Although Fedora's innovations make it one of the more interesting distributions to use and watch these days, the project needs to temper its creativity with more consideration of how changes affect users. Perhaps these relatively minor problems will help the distribution correct its release policies before a major disaster happens in a future release.

Bruce Byfield is a computer journalist who writes regularly for Linux.com.

Share    Print    Comments   

Comments

on Fedora 9: Leading edge or bleeding edge?

Note: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.

Fedora 9: Leading edge or bleeding edge?

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 68.192.12.60] on May 19, 2008 07:44 PM
I tend to only install every other Fedora release for this reason. Like the Star Trek movies, the even ones are better. :)

#

Re: Fedora 9: Leading edge or bleeding edge?

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 84.60.170.56] on May 19, 2008 08:08 PM
This is the first article I have read on the web which tells the truth about this very very weak Fedora 9 release. For the reasons clearly described in the article, Fedora 9 made me switching over to Ubuntu 8.04. Fedora has lost me forever!

#

Re(1): Fedora 9: Leading edge or bleeding edge?

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 193.63.200.212] on May 27, 2008 03:04 PM
I was using Fedora 7, until someone showed me Ubuntu 7.10, I was instantly sold, and almost refuse to go back. Things are just so much quicker to get sorted. As free time is a premium for me, It's ideal.

Nothing against Fedora at all, it's a sound system, but the time I save with Ubuntu is well worth keeping!

#

Re(2): Fedora 9: Leading edge or bleeding edge?

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 218.189.139.3] on May 28, 2008 07:09 AM
Keep using until Mr. Shuttleworth burned all his money and abandoned Ubuntu, after that Ubuntu will be remembered as just another hot flavor of the year.. u remember Gentoo, don't you?

#

Fedora 9: Leading edge or bleeding edge?

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 221.128.202.24] on May 19, 2008 08:11 PM
I have mixed reactions to Fedora 9.
It installed on one of my machines fine, but on other two it screwed up big time during graphical install. Had to do a text based install. Even after that, things were a bit doggy, no NVIDIA drivers and really slow video. Compiling other drivers was also a bit frustrating, had to go looking for some packages that were missing on the DVD. I guess that's what you get for bleeding edge stuff.

#

Fedora 9: Leading edge or bleeding edge?

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 190.77.39.153] on May 19, 2008 08:39 PM
I installed Fedora 9 on my office Desktop, an HP DX2300. The installation went just fine, and at the moment i'm starting to tweak it. Still have problems with compiz-fusion that renders the screen in white when i run compiz-manager, but i could activate it thanks to the people in #compiz-fusion. I tend to think like someone else here who said that the even versions are better, but anyway i still like Fedora a lot more than other distributions. I still can't find a reason to move to another distro.

#

Fedora 9: Leading edge or bleeding edge?

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 85.241.167.233] on May 19, 2008 08:56 PM
As a user of Fedora Core since its inception, up to Fedora 8, I waited for the latest release with good expectations. However, I have to say I am very disappointed with Fedora 9. The graphical install did not work on my brand new machine and my 3-year old Philips TFT monitor. For some stupid reason, the anaconda installer insisted in using a 16:9 (wide) display format on my 4:3 monitor, which it refused to display, leaving me with a black screen. My Sony 4:3 TFT monitor managed to present me with a squashed image, which was barely usable. The real show stopper was, however, the lack of an accelerated 3D video driver (NVIDIA). In my opinion, this current lack of NDIVIA support for the still incomplete X server shipped with Fedora 9 SHOULD have been mentioned in the release notes. It would have saved me time (and a 4GiB download).

#

Re: Fedora 9: Leading edge or bleeding edge?

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 147.32.111.167] on May 19, 2008 10:17 PM
Regarding the Nvidia closed source driver: I wonder that you - as a longtime fedora user - don't know about the livna repositories, which provide all the essential but "unclean" software?

btw I also have nvidia gpu and in the past I was also angry with fedora (and other distros) for not providing theese drivers and forcing users to download them separately. But now I come to see that this policy may finally have an effect on the hardware vendors. I am going to buy a new computer this summer and I have already decided to switch to ATI's gpu because of a promise of open source drivers.

#

Leading edge or bleeding edge? Yes!

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 65.112.244.2] on May 19, 2008 10:00 PM
Bruce, great title. That sums up my experience as I have used Fedora as my main OS at home since it was young. Fedora is heavily innovative, and I have had mixed experiences. The security features are excellent, and Xen sounds promising. There was a time a few years ago when Fedora's OpenOffice.org build was crashing easily for many users, so since then I have been using the upstream OOo. There was another time where the installer would freeze on systems with low memory (256MB is low?), and I am not sure that is resolved. I remember another time around Fedora 3 where a kernel security upgrade (not just an update) broke the use of floppy devices, and they left the bug ticket open until the release was EOL. In retrospect, my big mistake was choosing Fedora for a terminal server at an office. Perhaps at the time it was justified to use Fedora, but now CentOS and others have the necessary features without the fuss of bugs and short life cycles. The last terminal server upgrade (F6 to F8?) was painful, but some of the blame for the terminal server's issues goes to recurring regressions upstream in GNOME's GDM. Overall, some open source software needs to take clues from the good testing done by Linux (the kernel), Mozilla, and others!

I'll be installing F9 at home just because F7 is EOL. :)

---Andrew Z.

#

Re: Leading edge or bleeding edge? Yes!

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 67.173.12.114] on May 21, 2008 07:50 PM
"Xen sounds promising" are you f'ing kidding me? Thats been in Fedora since FC3....

#

EOL is too short

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 65.112.244.2] on May 19, 2008 10:03 PM
One more comment on EOL. Fedora 7 will be EOL next month, but according to Smolt[1], 43% of systems still run Fedora 7. That's an aggressive policy. Besides, I have seen cases (several I mentioned above) where the supported life cycle has poor support for fixing bugs.

[1] http://www.smolts.org/static/stats/stats.html

-- Andrew Z.

#

Fedora 9: Leading edge or bleeding edge?

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 200.69.231.253] on May 19, 2008 10:48 PM
I'm a loyal Fedora user since the days of Core 1, and I have to say that probably this was the worst version for us KDE users. KDE 4.0 is months away from a usable state (calling a version for developers is saying that developers don't need a stable environment to do their job?), and that's not counting the missing applications (like Kate). The rest of the systems shows the usual problems in the very first days of a Fedora release (like non-working NVIDIA drivers), but this gets better after some weeks.

I really hope the guys from kde-redhat (kde-redhat.sourceforge.net) manage to release KDE 3.5.9 packages for Fedora 9. I don't want to wait until KDE 4 becomes usable again (sometimes next year by the looks of it).

#

Re: Fedora 9: Leading edge or bleeding edge?

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 198.91.8.10] on May 19, 2008 11:43 PM

Canonical's Upstart

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 217.226.6.214] on May 19, 2008 11:26 PM
This was meant to say "Ubuntu's Upstart" as in originated in the Ubuntu community or shipped first with Ubuntu, correct? Or was it the company Canonical developing it?

#

Re: Canonical's Upstart

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 124.106.177.185] on May 20, 2008 01:43 AM
http://upstart.ubuntu.com/

Started in Ubuntu, and of course first shipped in Ubuntu. And afaik, Canonical is sponsoring it, just like it sponsors Bazaar (bzr).

#

Fedora 9: Leading edge or bleeding edge?

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 80.223.137.165] on May 19, 2008 11:48 PM
Canonical developing free software...rrriiiiight

#

Re: Fedora 9: Leading edge or bleeding edge?

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 24.126.85.124] on May 20, 2008 03:00 AM
"Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 80.223.137.165] on May 19, 2008 11:48 PM
Canonical developing free software...rrriiiiight"

Yea. Its called Ubuntu, and the whole thing is free as per the mission statement. Canonical sponsors alot of free software projects. I am no big Corporate fanboi, trust me on this one, yet they have earned my respect (and ALOT of other folks) for their work in FOSS. Ubuntu is (and always will be) the vastly superior choice when it comes to a simple, yet innovative FOSS desktop. Certainly a much better choice than Fedora ever would be, as it is nothing more than the pet project of Red Hat where they throw barely tested/still in development crap on the community to fix for them, aka "Fedora 9". I hope Novell learns from this and does not release SUSE 11 in the way Fedora just did. From what I have seen thus far from thier beta's, SUSE 11 is going to be the big winner this year for the best Linux Desktop, although Ubuntu 8.04 will be VERY hard to beat.

#

Re: Fedora 9: Leading edge or bleeding edge?

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 76.175.171.108] on May 20, 2008 04:35 AM
Scott James Remnant works fulltime for Canonical. He also happens to be the brains and lead developer behind Upstart http://upstart.ubuntu.com/

Take a look at his website for some really nifty articles on it: http://www.netsplit.com/

All these urls and I don't even promote my own website... sad

#

Fedora 9 PPC X11 does *not* work on Power Mac G4

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 151.188.247.104] on May 19, 2008 11:49 PM
I just downloaded and tried out Fedora 9 PPC on my Power Mac G4 Gigabit Ethernet. It's got the stock ATI Rage128 card in it. No matter what I've tried, X11 will not come up. I've even tried hacking xorg.conf to try out the vesa driver, and turning off/on the frame-buffer mode.

During the installation, I had to use the character-mode installer (the graphical one wouldn't come up). That's fine; I'm used to that from Slackware, Debian, and Ubuntu Expert Mode. But after the install's done, I expect X11 to at least work out of the box, even if it's something low-res like 800x600. X11 won't even start.

This is very strange, considering that Fedora 8 was perfectly happy with it. Debian Lenny PPC, Ubuntu Dapper PPC, and Yellow Dog Linux (all versions) also like this box just fine. The hardware deviations from stock are as follows:

1GB DRAM (up from 256MB)
Dual-processor 1.3GHz CPU upgrade (up from single 400MHz)
80GB hard disk

In other words, nothing earth-shattering--no new disk controllers, no "special" video boards, etc. Normal stuff.

This should not have gotten out of testing. Maybe the x86 version of Fedora 9 works fine (just haven't gotten to it yet--that's next), but the PPC version won't even produce a GUI. Now I can't even do a proper Fedora PPC review, which is a shame.

--TP

#

Re: Fedora 9 PPC X11 does *not* work on Power Mac G4

Posted by: nuffsaid on June 05, 2008 07:56 PM
I have the same problem. I've tried everything including updating the ati driver via Yum. The xorg.conf looks good, but the module fbdevhw can not read the /dev/fb0 buffer and just goes on to /dev/fb1 through /dev/fb7, which aren't there and the script errors out. I tried making symbolic links from fb1 through fb7 which point to fb0, but apparently the module doesn't like /dev/fb0 and ignores it, leaving the frame buffer unread and no screen. My machine is stock everything. No third party anything. The whole drive with F9 on it is completely dedicated to F9. The machine is dual boot and easily boots into the other drive using MacOS 10.4.11. Ram is 640M. X has never worked on this distro. With no help coming from my other messages left on other forums, I guess I'll wait for the Debian 4.0r DVD's to get here and I'll just write this puppy off.

#

Fedora 9: Leading edge or bleeding edge?

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 66.187.233.202] on May 20, 2008 12:33 AM
"This was meant to say "Ubuntu's Upstart" as in originated in the Ubuntu community or shipped first with Ubuntu, correct? Or was it the company Canonical developing it?"

I have confirmation that it was created by a employee is his own spare time completely and is in fact NOT a Canonical contribution at all.

#

Fedora 9: Leading edge or bleeding edge?

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 75.53.106.74] on May 20, 2008 12:51 AM
Well I have to say that I love it better than Ubuntu 8.04, Install was smooth as silk, I'm not into eyecandy so the video drivers were not an issue. Set up the way I wanted it was a breeze, but I did have to disable network manager. It was just a pain, network was up but it said down, no biggie since I prefer to manually control things.

#

Fedora 9: Leading edge or bleeding edge?

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 85.99.115.245] on May 20, 2008 01:00 AM
I respect the efforts of fedora people on fedora 9. This is a great release with some minor issues. But I have to say that I am very disappointed the kde issue in fedora 9. I am a fedora+kde user for a very long time and I don't understand why kde4 is chosen for default. kde4 is under heavy development and has a lot of problems right now. even kde developers say it is a preview release. some of the kde3 programs is not ported to kde4. for me I will stick with fedora 8 but I think fedora+kde people take user opinions into considerations when preparing a new release. most of the fedora+kde users wouldn't want to migrate kde4 which suffers a lot of functionality.

#

Re: Fedora 9: Leading edge or bleeding edge?

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 80.220.154.4] on May 20, 2008 01:53 AM
Why do all the KDE fans take having KDE 4 in Fedora so hard? I like KDE 4 very much, and have been using it on my laptop. The KDE 3 apps work also fine in the KDE 4 environment, so they can be used until we get their KDE 4 replacements.

If one really doesn't want to touch KDE 4.0, there is still support left for Fedora 8.

Fedora doesn't claim to support any proprietary drivers, so I think they can also ship a version of the X server that is not necessarily supported by some proprietary driver vendors. For those needing Nvidia binary drivers right now, there is Fedora 8.

There are dozens of distros who focus on helping new users into Linux. Why can't one of the bigger ones focus on promoting free software and rapid development? Do all the distros need to be the same?

#

Re: Fedora 9: Leading edge or bleeding edge?

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 137.229.27.174] on May 22, 2008 11:17 PM
Let me speak for a second as a Fedora Board member with respect to the KDE 4 inclusion. I would like to point out that the KDE inclusion was a community decision. The bulk of the work to include and maintain KDE is done by volunteer community contributors through the Fedora KDE Special Interest Group. The decision was not done in a vacuum nor was it done behind closed doors. The available resources are finite and they had to make a choice concerning how to best expend their resources. The public discussion concerning this decision actually dates back into Fedora 7 and Fedora 8, where pieces of kde4 were provided as a development environment to make it easier to do the transition to a full KDE4 desktop. The KDE SIG irc meeting minutes and full transcripts are archived in the Fedora wiki for anyone who wants to look over the historical record as to how the discussion went.

But you don't need to do that sort of historical record diving to understand why this decision was made. KDE4 inclusion went through Fedora's Feature process for inclusion in F9. The rationale for not providing KDE3 is outlined in the Fedora 9 Feature page for KDE4:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureKDE4
Quoting:
"Furthermore, relying on KDE 3 (as more than just a compatibility library) for another release cycle means we'd rely on a permanently frozen KDE 3, based on a completely unmaintained Qt 3 library (EOL was on July 1st [2007])."

QT 3 EOL Reference:
http://trolltech.com/company/newsroom/announcements/press.2007-01-22.4604809587/

I would ask this question of any KDE users who would prefer to continuing using a KDE3 desktop on Fedora. Is it responsible to continue to encourage our KDE desktop userbase to rely on a version of Qt which is no longer maintained by the upstream authors for nearly a year at the time of Fedora 9's release? Is that an acceptable security risk to pass on to our users? These are the hard questions that our volunteer maintainers had to answer. There are seldom perfect solution to hard choices and the right thing is not always the most popular of actions. And I am confident that they did the right thing, even if it means we have lost some KDE users by including KDE4.0,x instead of waiting for KDE4.1. In a perfect world KDE4 would have been available before Qt3 reached the end of life and I would encourage KDE users who want to avoid this situation again to get involved in the upstream KDE project so that they can respond more quickly to Qt developments, so distributors do not have to make the hard choices between sustainability and usability.

For more information please read: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/KDE/KDE4FAQ


-Jef Spaleta
Fedora Project Board member

#

Fedora 9: Leading edge or bleeding edge?

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 66.187.233.202] on May 20, 2008 02:10 AM
"I am a fedora+kde user for a very long time and I don't understand why kde4 is chosen for default. "

Good question. Answered in

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/KDE/KDE4FAQ

#

Fedora 9: Leading edge or bleeding edge? - Upstart

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 208.111.240.151] on May 20, 2008 02:45 AM
From the article: "Fedora 9 has also adopted Canonical's Upstart as a replacement for System V's init scripts"

I've been an RH and then a Fedora user for a long time. I just ran headlong into Upstart - was installing Ubuntu 7.10 on a friends laptop to help them move from ms windows. On the Upstarted 7.10 laptop which boots into a GUI I did a telinit 3 to kill the GUI for a command line environment and nothing happened. OK, I'll just edit /etc/inittab and reboot. Ummm - there is no /etc/inittab. Out of curiosity, lets try telinit 1 - GUI dies - OK so it does know about single user mode.

GIven that I prefer my boxes to boot into a command line environment and, when I am ready for my GUI of choice (Fluxbox), I will type startx and the above experience with upstart I am concerned (or at least curious) about F9's use of upstart.

Not sure what improvement upstart brings to the show but if Fedora 9's upstarted behavior is like Ubuntu's it may be bringing with it confusion. Perhaps someone can expand on Upstart in the context of either Fedora or Ubuntu.

Oldtimer who likes SysV init style of startup (but is willing to listen to new ideas)

#

Re: Fedora 9: Leading edge or bleeding edge? - Upstart

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 202.80.58.210] on May 20, 2008 05:48 PM

Re: Fedora 9: Leading edge or bleeding edge? - Upstart

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 69.180.111.117] on May 22, 2008 04:04 AM
"Oldtimer who likes SysV init style of startup (but is willing to listen to new ideas)"

I think Solaris 10 SMF (Service Management Facility) is better than Upstart. It uses milestones.

just my 2 cents

#

Fedora 9: Leading edge or bleeding edge?

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 67.176.88.192] on May 20, 2008 04:15 PM
Wiped my boot sector after install, during suspend/resume cycle.
Synaptics touchpad touching to tap doesn't work
GDM does not allow tcp connections to X. so no ssh -X.
evince and other programs will not run from CLI because of GDM
GDM runs in debug mode and fills the log file.
Firefox tires to open some web site on start, even if set to blank .
.
.
This is not bleeding edge is pre alpha. I expect crashes in bleeding edge but not missing capability.
That's just pre alpha.

#

Fedora 9: Leading edge or bleeding edge?

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 125.63.96.109] on May 20, 2008 07:05 PM
it's both leading and bleeding so i am waiting for fedora 10. hope it will only be leading (not bleeding).

#

Fedora 9: Leading edge or bleeding edge?

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 192.168.1.1] on May 20, 2008 11:27 PM
By the way: system-config-services 0.99.15 sucks big time!
Just leave it be, like the one in Fedora 8. Simple.

"Less is more."

#

Fedora 9: Leading edge or bleeding edge?

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 207.99.52.161] on May 21, 2008 01:40 AM
It would be helpful if bruce Byfield would explain why the inclusion of KDE 4.03 in the Fedora 9 distro was a "negative". Even if he or others felt it did not have all the functionality and reliability expected, or that KDE 3.5.x should also have been included, such "out of hand" dismissal need clarification.

W. Anderson
wanderson@nac.net

#

Fedora 9: Leading edge or bleeding edge?

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 69.227.171.34] on May 21, 2008 05:59 AM
I've been using Fedora 8 and it's been pretty good, so far. My only pet peeve is I can't get IMAPD working. Not sure if I'll try Fedora 9 - maybe on a different box.

#

Fedora 9: Leading edge or bleeding edge?

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 65.204.211.10] on May 21, 2008 01:59 PM
I installed it on two laptops. The first one a Sharp PC-AL27 I had to do in text mode because the installation would hang. After a text install I set X to Vesa and it works but slow to launch X. The touchpad does not work since Fedora 6. Commenting out a discovery line in the driver fixes it and recompiling the kernel. Ralink wireless worked.
Second laptop is a Dell 830 and the intel wireless would not work until I set the use network manager true. But the editor for network manager crashes if the wireless security is none. The developers say this was fixed but Fedora has not rolled out an upgrade.
I have used RedHat since 5.2 and continued through Fedoro Core 1. I like some of the improvements but I have to agree it takes the next release until some of the changes get really polished.

#

Fedora 9: Leading edge or bleeding edge?

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 62.193.226.74] on May 22, 2008 08:07 PM
I've been using Fedora since 2, and Redhat for a loong time. I have multiple GNU/Linux boxes, and have a pretty good idea what I'm doing (although I don't consider myself a full fledged member of the pocket-protector brigade). I took one of my machines, and did a clean install of F9 on / (reformatted) - left /hom and user directories intact (more on that in a moment). Machine is pretty hardware neutral - nothing obscure about mobo/drives/monitor.

Lets just say I was underwhelmed. First, the install (tried graphical only) didn't give me access to some fairly standard options - for example, with F8, I was given options to tweak firewall and SELinux settings, but not in F9 - I had to work with those after the install was complete, after logging in to root. Pain - one recommendation I can make to get F9 setup is to turn SELinux off once you manage to get into root.

The GDM is crap (IMO) - 'work in progress', but my recommendation is they scrap it entirely, and go back to the old model. At the moment, there is *no* capability to modify aspect of the GDM - you're stuck with it. And its a security mess - no way to prevent user names from showing up - dumb on a public access machine.

An RPM downloaded to the desktop isn't automatically associated with the software installer - easy from the command line, but, wtf?

They must be using some bleeding-edge xorg, because any attempt I made to tweak things, compile nVidia drivers into the kernal, and host of other graphics related issues, crashed and burned (several times letting me only boot into runlevel 3).

Permissions on user directories on /home were completed screwed up after re-establishing accounts. Had to manually chown and chgrp the lot of them.

In all, I'm grateful F8 has another 6-7 months of life. F9 looks rushed out the door, and nowehre near ready for primetime. There have been a lot of complaints on various forums (when they aren't censored out by certain forum moderators, who seem to classify anything negative as 'offensive. Same is true on the Ubuntu forums, for that matter...), suggesting dissatisfaction is pretty widespread.

It seems to me that the Fedora developers get overly concerned (enamored) of a strict 6 month release cycle. I suspect most users would rather have less frequent, but more stable. Yeah, someone out there is probably mumbling 'Debian' under their breath, but that has its own issues. ;-)

So, my general conclusion is - stick with F8, update as long as you can, and wait for 10, when a lot of the issues I mention may have been dealt with.

#

Fedora 9: Leading edge or bleeding edge?

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 88.1.61.68] on May 24, 2008 11:13 AM
I totally agree with the "stick to F8" position. I have my own experience, similar to the ones exposed here, since RedHat times, also with other distros and I think that the best we can do is to show the Fedora team that we are willing to test but not to risk our systems productivity. A few years ago I wouldn't risk to install a Linux product to non experience user, but know I have a few of them and I think that moving them to F9 is throwing them back to Mr. Redmond.

good luck!

#

Fedora 9: Leading edge or bleeding edge?

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 69.143.55.29] on May 25, 2008 01:35 PM
As a RedHat branded Gnu/Linux user since RedHat Mother's Day 1.2.8 kernel thru the lifetime of RH to Shrike and so on thru Fedora and RHEL, also a user of Ubuntu, Mandriva/Mandrake, Yellow Dog, SUSE, as well as DOS/Windows, OSX, and HPUX (figured I should qualify this a bit before getting into my comments ;-)

Anyway, I was looking forward as well, as most of the posters here, to the Fedora 9 release. I installed and tested the alpha and beta releases, and found them extremely buggy and unuseable to an end-user not schooled in development or SA. I was a bit weary after submitting 28 bug reports in one month. However, Fedora Project managed to implemented 25 of those bugs, the other two being minor kernel issues with logging and spurious printk() statements.

Fedora has taken a lot of slack, and is the beating post of the distros since Ubuntu's legacy has snatched up the non-technical and very opinionative user base.

Ubuntu users contribute very little to the community development as a whole. I moderate three various forums on the web, one being an ubuntu forum, and can tell you that when pressed to give a reason as to why people dislike Fedora the response is 9 times out of 10: "Because it is Red Hat's testing ground for RHEL."

This is fine, as most legacy community members will admit, we are used to this banter within the community, however, I can't sit around and watch various newcomers bad mouth distros that without which your precious Ubuntu wouldn't exist. I find it incredibly amusing that Ubuntu, brainchild of Shuttleworth (Canonical Ltd fame and COA fame) had a major flaw with, random number generation for security certs...Ubuntu is no longer Shuttleworth's project than Fedora is Red Hats, which is a shame because we are bifurcating between spins within the community of "End-user ease" and "New functionality." One day, I do not doubt, there will be a commerical end-user distro that utilizes the Gnu/Linux kernel and looks a lot like Windows/Apple OS.

Anyway -- Fedora has and was always a technical distro, for those who use Gnu/Linux not just as a pretty graphical interface between themselves and the hardware. Please before deciding to make sweeping comments.

I rambled here, and apologize, but a final thought via Jerry Springer, "Love and take care of each other." As Gnu/Linux morphs into a bigger entity that even it can keep control of, we all have to adjust.

#

Fedora 9: Leading edge or bleeding edge?

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 85.138.66.5] on May 26, 2008 09:10 AM
Audacity benchmark tell me F9-services-optimized goes around 82: With Fedora 8/ Ubuntu Feisty I couldnt passs 70 and I have to say that F9 doesnt have nv drivers (and as im using a W monitor, xorg need to put RES at 1400 vs 1280 of F8 with nv (so lots more CPU))
Conclusion - Everything works VERY fast. (Firefox, open office, flash, etc)
No problems with my 7years old and only P4 computer. Every times came a new F Distro, my PC works faster. No need to buy a new one.

2 things missing:
login window - CRAP - gnome is doing
nv drivers - no sure theyll be release soon - so you may need glasses O-O

And the real CRAP
synaptic with deborphan is better. So better that I can't compare. Instead of that upstart-copy-with-default-settings I would copy synaptic. So if youre new to F, here goes my advise: every package deleted, the other programs needed stay in HD. So choose what You want with time or youll sys will be like Windows.dll; if you do that youll see Fedora is the best.

#

Fedora 9: Leading edge or bleeding edge?

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 88.1.61.68] on May 26, 2008 10:15 PM
Well, well, well ... I think that closing the eyes and saying that this is a geek world is the wrong way to go. I don't think Fedora is the most complicated technical distro, in fact I found it much easier to work with than others, but what most people is saying hear is "do we really need a 6 months release even if it is not ready".

Anyway, I like Fedora the most and only this time, I am not moving my colleges to F9.

#

This story has been archived. Comments can no longer be posted.



 
Tableless layout Validate XHTML 1.0 Strict Validate CSS Powered by Xaraya