Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 20th May 2008 07:46 UTC, submitted by Rahul
Fedora Core A week ago, the Fedora Project released Fedora 9 into the world. Fedora 9 comes with GNOME 2.22, KDE 4.0.3, Xfce 4.2.2, PackageKit, Firefox 3.0 beta 5, a 2.6.25-based Linux kernel, and much more. As always, the intertubes have been flooded with reviews, so we figured we would summarise a few of them.
Order by: Score:
USB
by primelight@live.com on Tue 20th May 2008 10:59 UTC
primelight@live.com
Member since:
2008-03-19

Just got a chance to try the USB thumb install and it works fantastically well.

Only if the thumb drives were of better quality... none of the ones I've had (10-12 or so) have lasted long when heavily used.

Reply Score: 1

RE: USB
by Arawn on Tue 20th May 2008 13:29 UTC in reply to "USB"
Arawn Member since:
2005-07-13

USB thumb drives are nice because of their size, but the best media for this repeated use is a external hard drive. It would be nice that 1.8" HDDs where as cheap and readily available as 2.5" ones.

Better yet, USB-connected micro HDDs (aka MicroDrives).

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: USB
by ggeldenhuys on Tue 20th May 2008 22:03 UTC in reply to "RE: USB"
ggeldenhuys Member since:
2006-11-13

Better yet, USB-connected micro HDDs (aka MicroDrives).


I'd say, dump the whole USB idea and rather opt for Firewire microdrives. That way, we will have awesome speed! Firewire is a much better protocol than USB for fast data transfer.

Reply Score: 2

RE: USB
by gpierce on Tue 20th May 2008 13:50 UTC in reply to "USB"
gpierce Member since:
2005-07-07

This is great! It actually works! I just booted off a USB drive! Awesome!

Reply Score: 2

Solid release
by orestes on Tue 20th May 2008 11:21 UTC
orestes
Member since:
2005-07-06

Probably the best they've ever done. My only complaint thus far isn't really with Fedora so much as Nvidia not being on the ball with the drivers for the new X

Reply Score: 2

RE: Solid release
by merkoth on Tue 20th May 2008 11:54 UTC in reply to "Solid release"
merkoth Member since:
2006-09-22

Why should nVIdia support software which isn't released yet?

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Solid release
by buff on Tue 20th May 2008 12:06 UTC in reply to "RE: Solid release"
buff Member since:
2005-11-12

Nicely said. Most organizations don't produce software for unreleased betas. That is the only thing I miss with Fedora 9. I think it would have been better to release Fedora 9 with a final version of X that way Nvidia drivers would more likely be ready for it. Other than that, after disabling SELinux everything works great.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Solid release
by VistaUser on Tue 20th May 2008 12:19 UTC in reply to "RE: Solid release"
VistaUser Member since:
2008-03-08

That is a strawman.

Why would proprietary driver vendors support a release that is not being used? Fedora is a leading edge distro and there will always be some proprietary drivers that do not keep up with libraries within Fedora. This time it is nVidia. Last time it was AMD - even though X Server 1.4 had been released two months prior.

They have no financial incentive to support an unused product.

Now that Fedora is using X server 1.5 and it is stable if not final, nVidia will eventually support it.

What matters is that Fedora supports free software only and the drivers within the distribution work. Fedora should not have to wait for proprietary vendors to get their act together.

fwiw, X server 1.5 was originally planned to be released in March. When it looked like it was gonna miss that deadline, members of the Fedora community (Specifically Adam Jackson) stepped up to drive the xorg development cycle. It is those same individuals who decided that it was stable enough for production use in Fedora 9. The hard work of these individuals should be much applauded.

If proprietary drivers are too important to leave out for an individual, Fedora does not need to be downloaded and installed on day 1. Wait a few weeks and there will eventually be solutions. Or somehow support the free driver efforts.

In the case of nVidia products, "nouveau" should eventually be an acceptable alternative for most situations (maybe even eventually gaming. Probably a long way off for that). Give it a try.

/End rant

Reply Score: 9

RE[3]: Solid release
by needo on Tue 20th May 2008 14:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Solid release"
needo Member since:
2008-05-20

What matters is that Fedora supports free software only and the drivers within the distribution work. Fedora should not have to wait for proprietary vendors to get their act together.


Nvidia is not to blame here. Nvidia is not distro specific. Xorg missed there release date. At that point Fedora unfortunately pushed ahead and released a pre-release version of Xorg for use. In this case they were a little too bleeding edge because like it or not users depend on the nvidia binary drivers to operate there machines. Fedora unfortunately caused a portion of there userbase to not be able to use Fedora 9 until Xorg 1.5 is released with this decision.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Solid release
by VistaUser on Tue 20th May 2008 17:11 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Solid release"
VistaUser Member since:
2008-03-08

It does not matter who's fault it is, or even if it was the right choice (which it probably was - with the downside of "bad marketing" done by those who want nVidia proprietary drivers on day 1).

For most people this is a non-issue. For those who are being held back, give it a few weeks and nVidia will catch up. You do not need to upgrade on day 1. That is sometimes the price of using closed source software.

The Fedora community made the right choice for Fedora.

If nVidia drivers are so important that they are needed on day 1, try pressuring them into releasing specs (like AMD) or code (like Intel).

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Solid release
by needo on Tue 20th May 2008 20:32 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Solid release"
needo Member since:
2008-05-20

The Fedora community made the right choice for Fedora.


In your opinion. Please do not pass off your opinion as fact.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Solid release
by VistaUser on Wed 21st May 2008 00:06 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Solid release"
VistaUser Member since:
2008-03-08

Yes it is my opinion. It is also the opinion of the person Driving the next release of Xserver 1.5

"...It's the least buggy X server branch with the features we want.

I admit, it's not a release, and that's entirely process failure on my part.Having lots of masters to obey is not easy, and in this case my time got chewed up by other business obligations. Thanks RHEL, you're awesome. So the thing I chose to sacrifice was the (actually fairly labor-intensive) process of badging the tarball as a release. It still got bug fixes. It's ABI-stable..."


In other words the pre-release would have been a release if he had more time. It is a release in anything but name and driver have had notice of ABI stability for... at least 2 months.

So, yes it is my opinion. But I like to think it is informed after looking at both sides of the debate.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Solid release
by hughesjr on Wed 21st May 2008 15:19 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Solid release"
hughesjr Member since:
2006-10-29

well ... there was only 3 choices.

rebase the entire release on the older xorg (and redo the entire test process) OR release the tested version, OR delay the release.

if you understand the effort to rebase, you would see that it is not really an option. After rebasing, you would need to rebuild many other packages and you would need to start the whole alpha, beta, rc test processes again for the entire distro. Since this process is a 3 or more month process, that is not going to happen.

The fact of the matter is, if you use binary proprietary drivers you will have these problems ... SURELY you don't think that linux development should be driven by proprietary graphics drivers.

Besides, the drivers that are released WORK for most nvidia cards, you just do not have accelerated 3D. That is going to effect SOME users where it is really a requirement, but not a large percentage.

The way the development process works, you basically make some assumptions 3 months (or so) ahead .. and a rebase of a major element (like X, GNOME, KDE) is going to render much (probably most) of the test process worthless ... since releases are happening every 6 months, basically a rebase is going to result in skipping the whole release (a delay of 3 or more months means you might as well just release at the NEXT 6 month time ... especially if something like RHEL depends on the release). At least that is my take.

Also realize that fedora 9 (and 6 and 3) are the main basis for RHEL ... so all the RHEL 6 that has taken place right now will be based on fedora 9 too. Makes this release fairly critical and the versions of the major components also very important.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Solid release
by orestes on Tue 20th May 2008 12:25 UTC in reply to "RE: Solid release"
orestes Member since:
2005-07-06

Why shouldn't they at least have alphas in the wings for people willing to test them? It's no mystery what's coming down the pipes, there's little excuse not to run with it.

And as I said, it's not really a criticism of Fedora, but it is an issue

Edited 2008-05-20 12:26 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Solid release
by VistaUser on Tue 20th May 2008 12:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Solid release"
VistaUser Member since:
2008-03-08

True.

According to Phoronix, there is a new nVidia driver due any day now (actually it is overdue). No idea if it supports X Server 1.5. Or kernel 2.6.25.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Solid release
by merkoth on Tue 20th May 2008 14:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Solid release"
merkoth Member since:
2006-09-22

AFAIK, the latest 173.X.X.X beta does work with X 1.5, you just have to --ignoreABI and avoid commands like glxgears and nvidia-settings.

And I completely understand the fact that, if no body ships X 1.5 it will never get support, but I'm afraid I can't use my desktop at 800x600 without 3d support.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Solid release
by ggeldenhuys on Tue 20th May 2008 22:08 UTC in reply to "RE: Solid release"
ggeldenhuys Member since:
2006-11-13

Why should nVIdia support software which isn't released yet?


They do for MS Windows! So why not for Linux based products. Many companies like ATI and nVidia start creating drivers while the next Windows version is still in development stages. That way, when the product goes live, the drivers are there!

Why does everybody treat Linux base software as second rate software compared to Windows???

Edited 2008-05-20 22:12 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Solid release
by SDotsOnMyFeet on Tue 20th May 2008 22:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Solid release"
SDotsOnMyFeet Member since:
2008-05-20

Surely this is obvious? The massive difference in user-base sizes is obviously what determines where the bulk of any companies resources are going to be allocated, so yes, when it comes to user-base and thus $, many companies, especially one such as NVidia which focuses heavily on the 3D gaming market which is historically stronger on Windows, would consider Linux second rate.

Reply Score: 1

liveusb-creator
by l3v1 on Tue 20th May 2008 12:23 UTC
l3v1
Member since:
2005-07-06

I'd say liveusb-creator would need to list it being non-destructive on the first line of the first page, not at the bottom of some howto page.

I think I'll try it on my portable hdd, too bad it only can use fedora images.

Reply Score: 2

nvidia
by Bitterman on Tue 20th May 2008 12:49 UTC
Bitterman
Member since:
2005-07-06

I never have problems with my onboard intel graphics on my laptop or desktop. I didn't go with nvidia or ati for this reason.
Do you guys actually do linux gaming is that why everyone has nvidia? I dont see a compelling reason to use cards like that unless you game.

Since linux is my main OS i plan the hardware around it.

Reply Score: 6

RE: nvidia
by backdoc on Tue 20th May 2008 13:26 UTC in reply to "nvidia"
backdoc Member since:
2006-01-14

Probably, just habit. I've never really thought about it. I've pretty much always had nvidia cards. I've had decent luck with them on Linux, too. And, I've always considered them Linux friendly. But, I don't play games. So, if you're saying that you have better luck with Intel cards, I will keep that in mind for my next purchase. But, I tend to gravitate towards AMD boards. So, an Intel onboard card is unlikely.

But, I am like you. I will only buy hardware that is supported by Linux -- end of story.

Reply Score: 2

RE: nvidia
by merkoth on Tue 20th May 2008 14:18 UTC in reply to "nvidia"
merkoth Member since:
2006-09-22

Since linux is my main OS i plan the hardware around it.


Same here, that's why I chose nvidia in the first place. Since I tend to like AMD over intel, it was easier to find an nForce-based mobo (mine sports a gf 6150). It's never been a trouble for me, apart from having to install the propietary driver by hand. Until Fedora 9, that is ;)

And I don't game on PC, that's why consoles were made for, but I usually do some OpenGL development.

Reply Score: 2

RE: nvidia
by needo on Tue 20th May 2008 14:23 UTC in reply to "nvidia"
needo Member since:
2008-05-20

My wife and I both game on Linux desktops as well as performance is a lot better in my opinion when using the nvidia drivers.

Reply Score: 2

RE: nvidia
by Undomiel on Tue 20th May 2008 18:49 UTC in reply to "nvidia"
Undomiel Member since:
2007-11-23

Unfortunately for me the integrated intel video was what caused the problem when I tried Fedora 9 the other night. Running glxgears would cause everything to lock and even randomly things would lock up. According to my research it was related to faulty intel drivers in that particular release and the solution was to go back to the stable X.org release from Fedora 8.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: nvidia
by netpython on Tue 20th May 2008 19:03 UTC in reply to "RE: nvidia"
netpython Member since:
2005-07-06

I fortunately don't need 3D. But i love the bleeding edge Fedora project.

Reply Score: 3

Mark Williamson
Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't know whether Fedora itself will be or should be a competitor to Ubuntu. As far as I can see it's really intended to be a bit geeky and bleeding edge, rather than strictly consumer-friendly. It's really very awesome as a showcase of Open Source innovation though.

It's interesting to think what this means for the desktop...

First, the integration of more and more advanced and friendly technology means that Fedora itself is getting better and better. Second, interestingly, it means that RHEL6 ought to seriously rock: since RHEL is effectively a (heavily modified) downstream derivative of the technologies in Fedora, the next release can be expected to have a whole load of these new cool features in it.

An interesting concept, even if Fedora remains bleeding-ede focused, would be another "downstream distro" that pulls in and stabilises stuff from the Fedora's bleeding edge. Unlike RHEL / CentOS, this would be focused on providing a consumer-friendly distribution based on the same technology.

Anyhow, it doesn't really matter if any of these things come true. The point is that even if it's not as widely usable / popular as Ubuntu, the stuff Fedora is doing is good for Linux and open source in general and should be making its way in a large part onto our desktops in future. Awesome.

Reply Score: 4

VistaUser Member since:
2008-03-08

I would say that Fedora IS a competitor to Ubuntu for at least some people.

It may not be suitable for those who don't want to upgrade every 6/12 months, but here Ubuntu is in the same boat. Ubunu LTS is for them. Or Centos, Debian or another distro with a longer support cycle.

Ubuntu seems to get a lot of comments about being easier for new users, but IMO one of the few things easier in Ubuntu is restricted drivers. The rest are more or less the same/similar. For some this is a major point. For others not so much. The only proprietary software on my Fedora 9 install is Adobe's Flash Player.

Except for that, the easiness of Ubuntu is a red herring. Most of that is Gnome technology which is generally shared by most distro's.

Ofcourse Fedora does not have the same level of good marketing as Ubuntu. But then again Most free software lack good marketing.

Edited 2008-05-20 17:13 UTC

Reply Score: 2

apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

You see, but that is the case NOW. That wasn't always the case. Ubuntu was easier to use than most distros and the other distros took note and have taken ideas from Ubuntu, that Ubuntu took from them and massaged into something useful to users. Ubuntu may not contribute a lot of code back upstream, but a lot of concepts are contributed back to the community. They didn't invent the live cd installer, but they made it essential, now all other distros do the same. They didn't invent the single cd install, but they do it well, other distros have taken the same approach and have released single cd version of their distro. Ubuntu didn't invent the repository structure they have now, but other distros such as RedHat have taken a cure form debian and Ubuntu and are now following suit. Fedora is a great project but its is not something I would recommend to users. Its too unstable and bleeding edge and there are major regression between versions. Ubuntu is a nice balance between edgy software releases and stable applications. They may not contribute in the traditional sense but they do contribute. For people to say other wise is being disingenuous, and ratehr insulting to a whole community of unpaid developers who have fostered and nurtured many OSS project through the vast the community of Ubuntu.

Reply Score: 3

Rahul Member since:
2005-07-06

Fedora has a single repository where everybody contributes which is very much unlike Ubuntu which splits supported/non-supported/non-free etc into different repositories and different from Debian (no non-free repository) too. Not sure what you were referring to there.

The success of distributions is the ability to cross polinate technology and concepts however others distributions have taken so much of the technology from Fedora that is not very well known but a recent list would include:

* NetworkManager
* PulseAudio
* SELinux tools
* IcedTea
* Virt-manager, libvirt etc
* system-config-printer

This is in addition to HAL, D-Bus etc. A more comprehensive list would be

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RedHatContributions

Reply Score: 7

Mark Williamson Member since:
2005-07-06

I would say that Fedora IS a competitor to Ubuntu for at least some people.


That's true, actually. Before I started using Ubuntu, I played with Fedora. In general, I'd found that Ubuntu's hardware support has been that little bit better on the systems I wanted to use it on. The situation may well be rather different now, due to stuff going into the mainline kernel. Also, I should note that the support available anywhere for some of that hardware was pretty poor so it didn't all work that well, even under Ubuntu. Not Ubuntu's fault, or Fedora's so much as my fault for buying a dodgy laptop ;)


It may not be suitable for those who don't want to upgrade every 6/12 months, but here Ubuntu is in the same boat. Ubunu LTS is for them. Or Centos, Debian or another distro with a longer support cycle.

Ubuntu seems to get a lot of comments about being easier for new users, but IMO one of the few things easier in Ubuntu is restricted drivers. The rest are more or less the same/similar. For some this is a major point. For others not so much. The only proprietary software on my Fedora 9 install is Adobe's Flash Player.


I think Fedora is closing the usability gap, if it hasn't done so already. I suspect it might have been true originally that Ubuntu was more user friendly in various ways but Fedora seems to include a lot of usability innovation these days.


Except for that, the easiness of Ubuntu is a red herring. Most of that is Gnome technology which is generally shared by most distro's.

Ofcourse Fedora does not have the same level of good marketing as Ubuntu. But then again Most free software lack good marketing.


Well, perhaps it would be fair to suggest that Ubuntu is has better support for more hardware platforms for now, which is indirectly a usability issue since lack of hardware support tends to involve users messing around on the console to make things work. This may be less of an issue nowadays. Ubuntu is also a little more conservative in what they ship, which I suspect is better in general for consumer-oriented use due to less teething troubles.

I think Fedora is a hugely cool project and it's a great example of Open Source innovating at super high speed.

I guess what I was proposing amounted to something like Fedora LTS but not exactly that. I think a hybrid approach of a stable core (like CentOS) with occasional well tested service packs to keep things up to date could make a nice target. It would give external packagers a more stable platform to hit, too.

I expect that the optimal range of solutions, whatever they are, will evolve over time though.

Reply Score: 4

Mark Williamson Member since:
2005-07-06

Actually, another thing which made me switch from Fedora to Ubuntu was the introduction of Kubuntu and the hope of distribution that treated KDE as a first class citizen. At the time I made the switch, Fedora didn't have the KDE SIG or a KDE spin. I also had trouble adding MP3 support to earlier versions of Fedora's KDE...

Since then I've been using Kubuntu and I've been rather happy for it. I've been disappointed that Canonical haven't put more resources into it though, many of their new friendly tools seem to target GNOME first or exclusively. I don't intend to criticize the Kubuntu developers since they've made a fine distribution and they contribute to KDE development. They're also very good at getting new versions of KDE packaged up really quickly for Ubuntu so that I can try them out ;-) However, I think they're somewhat under resourced compared to the GNOME side of things. It's Canonical's business where they put their resources, of course. I just prefer using KDE ;-)

Fedora seems to be moving forward in terms of supporting KDE well. With all the other developments also occurring in Fedora land I might be tempted to switch back. Not because Ubuntu / Kubuntu is bad but because I might like to benefit from some more bleeding edge features as long as the KDE experience is at least as good.

Reply Score: 3

Rahul Member since:
2005-07-06

Red Hat has currently atleast two people working on KDE in the Fedora side along with three or four very active volunteers. They along with others have been running the KDE Special Interest Group in Fedora.

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

There is a KDE spin that gives a experience very close to the upstream project. You can grab the live cd at

http://get.fedoraproject.org

A overview of the KDE 4 experience in Fedora 9 is available at

http://www.redhatmagazine.com/2008/05/14/fedora-9-and-the-road-to-k...

Fedora offers both Windows and Linux tools for creating bootable USB sticks (persistent, non-destructive). This is completely the first time any operating has provided this level of functionality. Lifehacker ran a review on it at

http://lifehacker.com/391067/fedora-9-puts-your-desktop-on-a-usb-dr...

Take a look at other functionality in Fedora 9 too

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/9/ReleaseSummary

Reply Score: 3

Alaways complaints...
by fithisux on Tue 20th May 2008 19:21 UTC
fithisux
Member since:
2006-01-22

If you have an nvidia card use F8 until a new driver is released. My Volari V3 and chrome 9 work fine (though no 3D). By the way nv driver is acceptable and open source on my FX5200. Why use proprietary drivers? However 3D is an issue because I see more and more Linux games and I would like to play them. Intel graphics seem a viable solution and soon ATI and VIA will be viable too. I wish XGI stayed in business and produced morecards with open source 3d drivers. Matrox G550 PCIe is also open source friendly though it is expensive. SIS must start loving open source.

Reply Score: 2