Username or EmailPassword
One extra linky:
Known issues (PLEASE READ!) - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_F12_bugs Edited 2009-11-17 16:47 UTC
...and a fairly content one at that, there doesn't seem to be any compelling reason to upgrade.
That's the first time I've felt this way since I started dabbling in Linux 6 years ago. I'm actually content. That's been a long time coming but, from my own personal perspective, is a good sign that the Linux desktop has come of age.
I think I'll just hang back and enjoy the view from here!
(I was never close to being content with Windows although I stopped using it years ago)
Fedora does have a short support cycle for older distributions (two releases + 1 month?). Thus you'll need to upgrade pretty soon.
Unfortunately that's the status of Linux desktop right now. However if you're a little bit adventurous there is much to gain.
I think he was probably thinking of Ubuntu and their 6 month upgrade for non LTS releases.
How many distributions provide anything beyond security/major bugfixes for old releases, such as driver/kernel feature backports and new software versions when merited?
RHEL/CentOS and SLE definitely do, and Ubuntu LTS seems to as well. For example, RHEL 5 uses a (heavily patched) 2.6.18 kernel, yet has new & improved drivers, ext4, KVM, etc. RHEL 4 has a package for Firefox 3, even though it won't build using the included library versions in RHEL 4.
I've been using Fedora since the beginning (and Red Hat Linux before that), and I fully agree, Fedora seems to have the shortest maximum life-cycle of any major Linux distribution. To be fair, that is by design and well-documented. I like running the latest and greatest, so I upgraded to the latest Rawhide this morning. Nothing apparently broken yet, other than the nouveau driver (which is just broken on my hardware and has been since at least Fedora 11). I also have working copies of both Fedora 12 and Fedora 11 on my hard drive, just in case. Not the way I'd run an enterprise, but it works for me.
Yes, that is what diskspace (and rysnc, tgz, whatever) is for. :-)
I wonder if it's possible to intercept with a proxy those IE only web apps and change the offending CSS and JS...
I don't feel under sufficient threat to be forced to upgrade even if the updates stop. Then I'll just have (what I consider) a stable OS.
Saying that I bet I install something newer just out of interest before the end of 2010 anyway.
The problem with using Fedora, non-LTS Ubuntu, and maybe OpenSUSE is that there is always a compelling reason to upgrade: continued support. You've got maybe seven months to go on Fedora 11.
A Fedora version is unsupported approximately 13 months after release. After that, no more updates. How well are Fedora/non-LTS Ubuntu releases supported in the period between the new version being released and the end of support? Do they get anything besides security/major bug fixes? Do they get kernel upgrades / backports? How well do upgrades work when skipping between versions?
Since Linux drivers are often only provided for the latest or recent mainline kernel version(s), one may have to upgrade, rebuild parts of the system, or backport drivers if they change hardware / need improved drivers. And after a few years, new software might not work with old dependencies. (For example, Firefox 3 won't build out-of-the-box using the libraries included with RHEL 4.)
I personally use CentOS to avoid these problems - Red Hat provide updates for years, and backports drivers and fixes.
I doubt RedHat supports CentOS unless you pay them too.
My guess is they usually only support RHEL.
I doubt RedHat supports CentOS unless you pay them too. My guess is they usually only support RHEL.
Well, it seems in this discussion 'support' is shorthand for 'patch and security support'. I don't think anyone was implying RH is supporting CentOS in the trouble-ticket sense. In any case, CentOS 5 will be 'security supported' until March 2014, which is a longest available right now (I think).
While I do agree that RHEL 6 is long over-due. (Especially if you use it as a workstation), in RedHat's defense, a lot of resources were invested in making 5.3 and 5.4 more competitive with recent distributions - anything from new(er) Firefox, evolution to backported network stack changes, updated drivers and KVM support.
Hopefully RHEL is right around the corner. (And with it, more blood into the EPEL project)
Non-LTS releases don't get new drivers AFAIK and I am not sure that even LTS releases do get a lot of backports. Red Hat and Novell certainly do a lot more in that regard.
Any Ubuntu kernels devs around that can correct me?
No reason to upgrade? Why miss the fun of borking your wireless and destroying your xorg.conf settings? Even better Flash will work *worse* once you upgrade.
"That's the first time I've felt this way since I started dabbling in Linux 6 years ago. I'm actually content. That's been a long time coming but, from my own personal perspective, is a good sign that the Linux desktop has come of age."
You took the words right out of my mouth!
In my experience the latest Fedora releases (10, 11) have been very buggy. But Fedora devs|users have always been eager to help, when I asked for troubleshooting tips.
I just hope 12 is going to be different.
Stathis Edited 2009-11-17 16:57 UTC
"Faster" depends on your RAM/CPU/Network.
On a very slow line with a fast CPU and a lot of RAM it might be faster. On an old computer with a fat line it will be slower because regenerating the RPM from the delta-RPM is an intensive task.
Everybody with more than 2mbit should disable the presto-plugin for yum IMO.
kragil: you're basically right, but rather exaggerating. We use xz at a low compression level for the deltas, and the CPU intensity isn't as high as you imply. It's actually faster than downloading even on my very weedy Vaio P.
Well, on every machine I ran Fedora (which I don't anymore) the heavy usage of the disk when applying updates really got on my nerves.
TBH I think Suses Delta-RPM (which Fedora now after a few years adopted) is a second-rate solution. Googles Courier patches are much nicer. I hope .deb based distros will skip this regenerating of packages idea and go right to a good solution. ( .. maybe ChromeOS will .. nobody (outside Google) knows .. )
when were you testing? for quite a while during the f12 rawhide cycle, deltas were using high xz compression, which was rather CPU-intensive. it was changed to use a lower compression level rather later in the cycle. you may have already given up by then.
edit: I see by your later reply you were basing your experience on f11. yes, things are different in f12, please do not judge based on f11 experience. Edited 2009-11-17 18:23 UTC
OK, so the delta can now be applied right away? I thought you needed to generate the original RPM for security checks? Or is that now done completely in RAM? Convince me that it is now a sane solution and I might try it again.
Debian updates work very well as they are now, there is no reason to mess with aptitude at all.
Debian's superb package management is one of the reasons that I moved to it years ago, as at the time, Fedora's was a mess. They've been trying to fix it forever,a nd this is just another attempt.
"They've been trying to fix it forever,a nd this is just another attempt."
What do you mean by 'this'?
I really don't get the big hoohaa over package management. Took me about two days to switch from urpmi to yum. Figured out what the equivalent commands were and it was fine. I don't sit there with a stopwatch figuring out which is faster, they both get the job done. *shrug*
Please don't presume to answer for the person I was actually talking to. He was talking about package management, not update policies.
It has nothing to do with speed of updates, so much as the entire rpm system. At the time I switched, Apt had much better dependency tracking, and the Debian repositories kick ass, the system just worked better.
What exactly do you mean by 'better dependency tracking'?
I mean exactly what I said, apt tracks dependencies better.
I had to even register to this site,
to give U the offical "rpm-expert"-prize.
I.e. every time there is a story about RH/Fedora,
in OSnews, there is some "expert" to talk about rpm and dependency management.
...when rpm has nothing to do with it.
-> yum yum.. Debian this and apt that...
Since the last time I used Debian was with floppies maybe in 1998??, I don't now write any expert comments about Debian, better leave it to somebody who manages 50+ Debian servers...
I don't find alien hard to use. I'm not sure how it could be that hard to use.
Oh, I'm not arguing that at all, just puttin' in my 2 cents worth.
I will agree to your every word. yum is hell and so is RPM. I also moved from Fedora/Redhat to debian due to the same reason. People who wants to know the difference between yum and apt-get or synaptic please read the link below:
Don't spread FUD. When was the last time you tried Fedora? The benchmarks you link to doesn't even measure the same things. If you want to benchmark yum, refer to
http://skvidal.wordpress.com/2009/06/18/yum-benchmarks/ Edited 2009-11-18 09:25 UTC
I give you one thing that bothers me about apt. "Reading database..." takes forever.
This is not a troll, this is what my experience with Fedora has been. If that is what defines trolling nowadays, so be it.
No, but I did try Fedora 11, and Fedora 9, and I saw no real improvement over what Debian gives me, or what I had to deal with when I did use Fedora.
Not true. Even on a fairly high bandwidth connection, yum-presto is definitely faster for me at work.
Then you probably have fast machines. On Netbooks or old computers presto sucks big fat donkey dong and I am _not_ exaggerating. Downloading with a fast line is basically effortless. Regenerating the RPMs isn't and it basically just froze my netbook (EeePC 901)
Nope. Using Fedora 12 on a regular laptop as well as a netbook. EEEPC, in fact.
OK, maybe your Netbook as a fast SSD or F12 presto improved over F11 tenfold. Trust me F11 presto sucked on my netbook and somehow I think it didn't change all that much or did it?
I would rather wait a few minutes for updates being applied than have to download over 100MB of patches for something like Open office.
It would also be cool if this type of update works for upgrading between major versions of the distributions. For example if you have installed all the current updates for Fedora 11 you could delta upgrade to Fedora 12 (And non delta packages used when delta is not possible).
It all really depends on the speed of your machine, but as far as I'm concerned presto had been a big help. I no longer cringe at 300-400Mb of updates.
What's up with that? Otherwise it seems like an incremental update... which it is. DOH! But nice to see Fedora still pounding them out.
the 'miscellaneous problems' entries on the common bugs page are catch-alls copy/pasted straight over from the f11 page; basically they're just standard bits of advice for configuration tweaking for people who do run into X issues. there are _always_ some X issues in any distro release, just too much hardware to support it all perfectly. In general F12 should have rather better graphics experiences for most users than F11.
Ah. O.K. Thanks.
Yet again, Fedora developers has done awesome work. It's pleasant to see how Fedora drives Linux forward. There's no Fedora related/branded technologies but technologies for every single Linux distro (+ other open source OS as well).
Really impressive work, thanks.
I've always liked Fedora's artwork more that Ubuntu's.
Let's see, I have to make a 10GB download this time? This is one of the things that made me withdraw from Fedora - every release a huge download. RPM is slower than DEB, and generally the root account cannot be sudoed out of the box. No thanks... I'd rather go with a 700MB Ubuntu image... and .DEBs keep it up much better. As far as bugginess goes, I belive both Ubuntu and Fedora are quite buggy anyways. Edited 2009-11-17 20:21 UTC
um...no. You can download a 650MB live CD, if you like.
The first DVD is all you need, especially if you upgrading from F11. The DVD is actually smaller now.
I look forward to installing it this weekend, I hope to upgrade my Fedora 11 install to F12
hey, it's my distro of choice and has been since the first release of Fedora came about in November 2003,
I've used every release since the betas of Yarrow and to me they've all been Great releases, I see no reason for that distinguished reputation to be tarnished now, and once again I congratulate the team on a great job of keeping Fedora alive and kicking and producing another great release. I'm sure of it.
niall Edited 2009-11-17 22:27 UTC
I use Fedora on my work laptop (a Lenovo T61p) and my four workstations for FMRI and DTI heavy lifting at work and four test machines for server applications I write for DICOM streaming, which production servers run mostly on CENTOS (fasing out RHE 5). The Fedora machines all have 2 partitions for the OS, the old for fallback and the new one. I upgrade by installing a standard DVD (mostly an half hour installing) and I have written a couple scripts that generate a list of additional installed rpms on a well working previous install (Fedora 11) and then automatic upgrade the new OS with the listed rpms. . I do this for one 64bit and one 32bit install, clone the partitions and install the rest of the machines with them.
Upgrading cost me 4 hours for 10 computers top. Edited 2009-11-17 21:21 UTC
I was running Fedora 10 and upgraded to 11. But i wanted to try ext4 and installed Fedora 12 from scratch this afternoon.
Well, time to install is reduced to about 15 mins on an Athlon X2 5200+, 2GB DDR2 and 160GB SATA2 HDD, which is about 10 to 15 mins less than previous versions, very nice!
Also, startup times has been decreased to about 30s to desktop, and shutup to about 5 secs, very nice also.
Hardware detection is rather good, with the exception of not being able to activate desktop effects on a nvidia integrated graphics. I will try to add rpmfusion repository and install drivers tomorrow.
Last thing to polish the installation is adding some multimedia codecs, which i hope i can install from rpmfusion, too.
Last thing will be flash player, a subject on which i must investigate because last time i tried i had to try a 64 beta of version 10 on my x86_64 kernel of Fedora.
I have noticed that updating Fedora is rather faster than it used to :yum in older versions of Fedora were painful compared to delta rpms and yum included in last version.
Adding up, i'd give it a 9 out of 10, very good/excellent.
I'm afraid desktop effects may have to wait awhile with this release. Due to something that NVidia did with the drivers where it kills usability with KDE users the Fedora 12 team decided to leave them out.
At least, that's what it says on their common F12 bugs page.
If you're okay with the open source driver, then by all means have a blast. It's a really great release otherwise.
edit: spelling Edited 2009-11-18 09:48 UTC
Common bugs page talks about an issue with the proprietary Nvidia driver. Details at
Fedora will not ever ship any proprietary kernel drivers. However it is available in the updates-testing repository in RPM Fusion repository if you want to use it. Details at
There's always GNOME. On the other hand, GNOME isn't everyone's cup of tea. I'm using compiz with the nvidia driver, and desktop effects seem to be working just fine.
right, because wobbly windows and spinning cubes are so helpful in getting shit done.
So you don't like special effects? So what?
Go back to your green-screen VT100 terminal.
A 6 month release cycle is hard to keep up with. This is what it what it should be: a yearly new release and a safe application backport and bugfix six months after that. At least the backport bugfix release would be far more stable, in theory, than the releases.
I used to like RedHat desktop, which ceased in version 9. They did set standards. But Ubuntu came with great ideas and an ugly theme and stormed every Linux distro out there. Fedora now runs behind Ubuntu's trail.
I actually like the deltarpm concept... I am tired of upgrading whole packages... but after so many dellusions... don't know... Fedora packag management is inferior to Debian's.
I remember Eric S Raymond writing a very bold and harsh letter against this issue - it was the whole package management thing. "Fedora, you had every chance, and you BLEW it..." he wrote. Edited 2009-11-19 16:31 UTC
At least until you are sure all your working tools are running well.
I had used RH7,RH9, FC2,FC3,FC4,FC5,FC6,FC8,FC11 and now just migrated an istallation from FC11 to FC12.
Still using FC5, FC6, FC8 in some machines. All that I needed there are running. So, apart of a bug fix or security hole, there is no reason to upgrade the OS.
The version upgrade from FC11 to FC12 was surpringly smooth. I normally do clean installs to avoid time wasting to solve problems that cost more than reinstalling whole system.
Also tried Suse/Debian/Ubuntu/Mandriva/Slackware/Knoppix/Vector/Centos, but Fedora was the one that fit my "modus operandi" better. It's not a case of being better than others, it's only a tool that is for me.