Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 21st Jun 2006 22:24 UTC, submitted by Philipp Esselbach
Fedora Core "The Fedora Project announces the first release of the Fedora Core 6 development cycle, available for the i386, x86_64, and ppc/ppc64 architectures, including Intel based Macintosh computers." This test release includes KDE 3.5.3, GNOME 2.15, a new printing system, and much more. Check the release schedule for, well, release schedule information; downloads are available in .torrent and 'ordinary' .iso. Update: Screenshots.
Order by: Score:
v Can't be taken seriously
by Tom K on Wed 21st Jun 2006 22:39 UTC
RE: Can't be taken seriously
by plenque on Wed 21st Jun 2006 22:50 UTC in reply to "Can't be taken seriously"
plenque Member since:
2005-10-10

How does that comment affect the product?
Fedora is a specific distribution, its README file has nothing to do with Linux.

Edited 2006-06-21 22:50

Reply Score: 1

v RE[2]: Can't be taken seriously
by Tom K on Wed 21st Jun 2006 22:56 UTC in reply to "RE: Can't be taken seriously"
RE[3]: Can't be taken seriously
by Lunitik on Wed 21st Jun 2006 23:04 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Can't be taken seriously"
Lunitik Member since:
2005-08-07

Dude, this is a test release.

Perhaps if this text appears in the final release, I'd understand your view, but it won't.

Not only is this a Fedora pre-release, its the first release of the current Rawhide. Fedora itself is meant as a testing ground for RHEL... so this can be considered Alpha software...

You obvously aren't what its aimed at... maybe you should read up on RHEL Desktop?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Can't be taken seriously
by plenque on Wed 21st Jun 2006 23:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Can't be taken seriously"
plenque Member since:
2005-10-10

It's the same argument given in the other responses, with other words. Other distributions are made for serious people, Fedora is testing ground. Linux is not a distribution, and not all of them include that kind of things.

Take it easy, please.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Can't be taken seriously
by orestes on Wed 21st Jun 2006 22:53 UTC in reply to "Can't be taken seriously"
orestes Member since:
2005-07-06

For Fedora's target audience it really doesn't matter.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Can't be taken seriously
by rickwood on Wed 21st Jun 2006 22:54 UTC in reply to "Can't be taken seriously"
rickwood Member since:
2005-09-26

If you want serious, look at RedHat not Fedora test releases. And who said Linux should be like Microsoft?

Reply Score: 3

RE: Can't be taken seriously
by miscz on Wed 21st Jun 2006 22:55 UTC in reply to "Can't be taken seriously"
miscz Member since:
2005-07-17

Fedora is not aimed at people who take Linux too serious, it's a developement testing ground. RHEL is the serious distro.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Can't be taken seriously
by somebody on Wed 21st Jun 2006 23:06 UTC in reply to "Can't be taken seriously"
somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

Well,... based on your info

Bio: Linux is f***ing garbage.

you don't want/hope it to be taken seriously.

Then again, if this is the best you could found... Fedora must be one hell of OS. Imagine PR version rollout of this "...it's OS where usability and software bugs are so non-present, that trolls are searching for verbal mistakes"

better luck next time, Tom K;)

Edited 2006-06-21 23:09

Reply Score: 4

v RE[2]: Can't be taken seriously
by Tom K on Thu 22nd Jun 2006 00:01 UTC in reply to "RE: Can't be taken seriously"
RE[3]: Can't be taken seriously
by buff on Thu 22nd Jun 2006 00:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Can't be taken seriously"
buff Member since:
2005-11-12

Until using Fedora isn't like watching a cripple wade through molasses

Version 5.0 is actually pretty zippy for me. Perhaps you are basing your opinion on older versions. Version 4.0 had many issues but 5.0 is very clean to install and run.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Can't be taken seriously
by somebody on Thu 22nd Jun 2006 00:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Can't be taken seriously"
somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

Well, with all the bling like xgl installed it is certainly much faster than Vista on my machine (nope, XP is not better either, I've got AMD4400x2, 4GB of RAM so it should be more than sufficient to run Vista).

That would be another bad excuse based on wrong assumption from you today.

Reply Score: 1

Hey everybody,
by jaylaa on Wed 21st Jun 2006 23:07 UTC
jaylaa
Member since:
2006-01-17

please stop feeding the troll. Thanks

Reply Score: 5

If the Fedora Team....
by Don T. Bothers on Wed 21st Jun 2006 23:14 UTC
Don T. Bothers
Member since:
2006-03-15

If the Fedora Team has trouble improving on the last release, let me give them a few pointers

1) A real repository with over 10,000 packages.
2) An unofficial officially supported repository for questionable packages (mp3 support, nvidia, etc.)
3) Better wireless support
4) Better Xen support
5) Integration of OpenVZ
6) Better Update Manager
7) GCJ that securely works with a web browser
8) Full Integration of Fedora Directory Service with a GroupWare project.

:)

Reply Score: 1

RE: If the Fedora Team....
by MonkeyPie on Wed 21st Jun 2006 23:28 UTC in reply to "If the Fedora Team...."
MonkeyPie Member since:
2005-07-06

Let's not forget number 9.

9. Drop YUM in favor of the much faster SMART package management system.

JRM7

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: If the Fedora Team....
by siimo on Thu 22nd Jun 2006 03:43 UTC in reply to "RE: If the Fedora Team...."
siimo Member since:
2006-06-22

Dude,

when was the last time you used YUM?

in FC5 yum is much faster than smart - maybe its cause smart refreshes its cache every time but seriously yum is much faster at least for me there is no comparison.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: If the Fedora Team....
by arctic on Thu 22nd Jun 2006 08:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: If the Fedora Team...."
arctic Member since:
2006-04-19

Sorry, that is not correct. Yum refreshes the cache everytime, not smart. Check this link http://mandrivausers.org/index.php?showtopic=32414&st=0
And you will see that smart needs ONE minute for a task for which yum needs FIVE minutes. ;)

Although smart is definitely faster, I still use yum. I feel a bit more comfy with it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: If the Fedora Team....
by siimo on Thu 22nd Jun 2006 09:24 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: If the Fedora Team...."
siimo Member since:
2006-06-22

I didn't mean web cache i meant local cache and it takes 20 odd seconds to finish that for me with smart even when removing files or doing anything.

I am referring to:
Loading cache...
Updating cache... ######################################## [100%]



Yum runs atleast 10x faster for me :/

Yum takes a long time first time but afterwords it only downloads incremental headers and is much much faster here.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: If the Fedora Team....
by viton on Thu 22nd Jun 2006 14:36 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: If the Fedora Team...."
viton Member since:
2005-08-09

>> Yum runs atleast 10x faster for me
lucky
yum is not working for me at all
Also 2 FC5 gui installation managers doesn't work
because they are waiting yum (AFAIK) for meaningful response and after some waiting (several minutes) just showing me error message "unable to get software list" or smth like that. So i can't add/remove software through the standard tools. Wtf!
I don't have internet connection in linux.
I connecting to internet via vpn. I have tried to install pptp / pptp-client step-by-step but failed to get it to work. Connection is succesfully establishing but dissaperaring after 1 sec.
A lot of people using vpn, why disto maintiners doesn't include it by default?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: If the Fedora Team....
by Maners on Thu 22nd Jun 2006 13:10 UTC in reply to "RE: If the Fedora Team...."
Maners Member since:
2005-07-26

In FC6 Yum gets a C backend for metadata parsing, so you should experience significant improvement in yum's speed. The C-based backed is called yum-metadata-parser

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: If the Fedora Team....
by MonkeyPie on Thu 22nd Jun 2006 16:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: If the Fedora Team...."
MonkeyPie Member since:
2005-07-06

Hmm, I wasn't aware of the yum-metadata-parser. If it speeds up the YUM processing considerably, I will reconsider YUM. But for now, I am sticking with SMART!

Thanks for telling me about that!

JRM7

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: If the Fedora Team....
by johnnytomatoe on Fri 23rd Jun 2006 16:43 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: If the Fedora Team...."
johnnytomatoe Member since:
2006-06-14

I too will continue using SMART for my Fedora linux boxes. I think it is relatively speedy at what it does, though I do still prefer apt systems.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: If the Fedora Team....
by MonkeyPie on Thu 22nd Jun 2006 16:29 UTC in reply to "RE: If the Fedora Team...."
MonkeyPie Member since:
2005-07-06

I just checked for comments but honestly for me, smart has managed to do the same process in less than half the time that YUM took.

Dude, the last time was today. I run Fedora on my i386 desktop and laptop. The desktop is using the default YUM configuration plus repos and the laptop is using smart. And to update the exact same packages takes much longer with YUM (in MY experience) than SMART.

JRM7

Reply Score: 2

Fedora is decent
by buff on Wed 21st Jun 2006 23:38 UTC
buff
Member since:
2005-11-12

I use Fedora 5 and it is very good. I use it for production use, writing, web research, listening to music. The package management system works fine. I rarely run into problems using Yum.

The main problem I ran into with version 5 was unintegrated wifi support. I ended up adding it manually.

Fedora is a testing ground but it is also a reliable desktop linux distribution if you follow their instructions. Beta versions should not be upgraded over final releases. I would only put them on a spare partition and test them out for fun or helping squash bugs. You would have to be insane to use beta versions for production use. Distrowatch now reccomends Fedora 5 since they found it to be "stable and reliable" http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20060612

If you have an older box you might like the combination of FC5 and XFCE4. To install using yum type 'yum groupinstall XFCE'. I have a screenshot showing how the two look together. The file manager is the new Thunar app. from XFCE4 - lightweight and speedy. The desktop widgets are adesklets Python engine. http://markbokil.org/images/fedora5-xfce4.png

Edited 2006-06-21 23:56

Reply Score: 3

RE: Fedora is decent
by netpython on Thu 22nd Jun 2006 16:13 UTC in reply to "Fedora is decent"
netpython Member since:
2005-07-06

I use Fedora 5 and it is very good

I have tried almost all new linux releases and FC5 is the most secure one after a default install with:execshield,propolice,fortify-source and a enforcing targeted SELinux policy (easy to make it enforcing strict too).And above all remarkably still usable.

Reply Score: 2

Fedora Core 6 Test 1 Screenshots
by chrishaney on Thu 22nd Jun 2006 01:33 UTC
chrishaney
Member since:
2005-11-15

posted to http://shots.osdir.com shortly...

Reply Score: 1

I wish RHEL be as fast as Fedora
by hraq on Thu 22nd Jun 2006 02:40 UTC
hraq
Member since:
2005-07-06

RHEL is now almost 2 years older than Fedora. I wish they update RHEL with version 5.
I have tried both but I mess something from both that I will find it in the other.
Fedora is more new and thus applications are more (f-spot eg) and better (like the new GNOME vs RHEL old GNOME, the new konqueror vs the old konqueror,...); whereas in RHEL it is easy to install things that needs kernel source for compiling like nvidia drivers and vmware.
So I left torn between using both but finally I settled on fedora 5 untill rhel 5 arrives.

I wish they add more GUI applications to unleash the CLI powerful tools. and to fix samba problems which exists on both distros where we cannot see linux shares from windows XP machine no matter what you do.

Excellent Job and Well Done!!!

Reply Score: 1

arctic Member since:
2006-04-19

Remember that RHEL has a totally different audience than Fedora. You will never see a RHEL release that will be as bleeding edge as Fedora - for a good reason.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Can't be taken seriously
by Soulbender on Thu 22nd Jun 2006 12:12 UTC
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

I like how often total morons tries to start pointless flamewars just to fuel their fragile egos.
And by 'like' I mean 'hate'.

Edited 2006-06-22 12:14

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Can't be taken seriously
by buff on Thu 22nd Jun 2006 12:58 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Can't be taken seriously"
buff Member since:
2005-11-12

I like how often total morons tries to start pointless flamewars just to fuel their fragile egos.

It is an interesting phenomenon on the web. My guess is the average troll is a very angry person out of touch with their emotions. Usually in men seeing a lot of anger is a sign of deep seated hurt. They find it easy to go after people on the web since you have an indirect, safe way to do it - i.e., they are really whimpy in real life and face to face confrontation would be too much for them.

Reply Score: 1

Comparison
by anonymousbrowser on Fri 23rd Jun 2006 00:28 UTC
anonymousbrowser
Member since:
2006-04-28

OSNews guys, any chance of a comparative review of Ubuntu Dapper, the latest and greatest FC test release and whatever other distro of the moment you decide on?

Reply Score: 1