“Although I hate to do it, it looks like we’re going to have to slip Fedora Core 5 test3 by a week. There is an ABI change in the gcc/glibc stack that requires a rebuild of the entire distribution. Given that, there is no way that we’ll be able to make a freeze date of Monday. So, test3 will now freeze on Monday, 13 February with a release date of Monday, 20 February.”
Does that mean, you won’t be able to run older binaries?
Probably. But Fedora hasn’t been exactly known for its backwards compatibility anyway. Remember that Fedora Core 4 was already shipping with the (at the time) new gcc 4.0, which now, about 9 months later still isn’t used in many other distro’s. Also, as this is a 100% open source distro it doesnt matter anyway, just recompile your packages. If you want backwards compatibility use Windows.
My experience with FC5 so far has been pretty bad, i recently downloaded the fc5t2 iso’s, and installed them. Lots of things didn’t work, including my sound, xorg left nasty artifacts. Also it’s impossible (or at least not easy) to install multimedia support in a test version, since the official repo’s dont have mp3 (patent issues), and 3d party repo’s like livna don’t support test versions. Also it is much harder to keep on with development, on debian it’s just apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade, but here it’s not possible, or at least not easy and reasonably safe.
Also, this news is 10 days old now. Thom, i thought that you were subscribed to alot of os mailinglists?
Edited 2006-02-13 18:33
Say what? It’s not easy to keep on with development? All you need to do is simply run “yum update” and you’re following rawhide. How is that not easy?
> All you need to do is simply run “yum update” and you’re following rawhide. How is that not easy?
Not so easy when they do a full rebuild like they’ve just done and you’ve got close on 2GB of packages to download (and my home ISP quotas bandwidth during peak times…). Still, I boot into FC5T2 between midnight and 1.30am to resume the endless attempts to catchup with the massive rawhide churn in the last week or so
BTW, anyone else noticed that if the FC folks break Rawhide dependencies on a Friday night, they don’t get fixed until Monday morning? And they’ve been doing that pretty well every week since FC5T2 came out!
”
BTW, anyone else noticed that if the FC folks break Rawhide dependencies on a Friday night, they don’t get fixed until Monday morning? And they’ve been doing that pretty well every week since FC5T2 came out!”
Fedora folks have weekends too just like the rest of the users
Also it’s impossible (or at least not easy) to install multimedia support in a test version, since the official repo’s dont have mp3 (patent issues)
Not impossible. you can rebuild that package for FC5T2 from Source RPM.
and 3d party repo’s like livna don’t support test versions.
Freshrpms does. Just make sure to leave that repository disabled as test version of FC5 is in constant change.
Also it is much harder to keep on with development, on debian it’s just apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade, but here it’s not possible, or at least not easy and reasonably safe.
Like one poster pointed out, yum update is the equivalent of apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade. If you want to use development repo, set enable=1 in /etc/yum.repos.dir/development.repo.
If I remember correctly the abi change dealt with the x64 arch.
Afaik the difference is that you might have problems linking to a library that was compiled with the old abi, and such.
If you were watching for example suse’s factory repositories, you notice that sometimes they do this too, it’s pretty normal in development distros, and they will run older binaries too.
As the thread linked to mentioned, the abi change is
for ppc32/64 alpha and sparc. They changed ‘long double’
glibc will be backwards compatible with older binaries.
Yay! No more older binaries/drivers for you!
*point proven*
I don’t know what your point is but compatibility packages are provided, allowing you to run older binaries. They’re named compat-* in Fedora/Red Hat systems.
Yay! No more older binaries/drivers for you!
*point proven*
—Tom K known Apple fan and firm believer in the zero sum theory of computer technology…
Oh? And which point is this? That Fedora is a testbed for newer technologies so Redhat can sell more of their Enterprise Linux to corporations? Hate to be the one to tell you this, but everyone already knows. To make things even worse–it seems to work well for Redhat, or at least well enough that their competitors have begun following suit–which is in itself a huge compliment and a pat on the back for Redhat.
The breaking of (closed) binary drivers is a tiny bit worrying but then again as the owner of two laptops with ATI cards (one of which is now my brother’s) I think we’ve seen how well binary drivers work if the company decides to stop supporting your efforts. Right now I buy nVidia because that company’s current policy is to produce the best drivers possible for all platforms, but realistically speaking the minute there is a completely open spec’d video card available with recent technology I’m moving on to it so I can be certain that my hardware will be fully supported in a long term manner. All Redhat is doing is reaffirming Linus’ stand against binary drivers vs opened specs which can be completely supported.
So what was this point you were alluding to?
–bornagainpenguin
The point was that hardware and software companies can’t be bothered to write software for Linux if not only kernel updates break it sometimes, but the entire ABI changes.
Then again, Redhat does score half a win by providing compatibility libraries for old stuff.
“The point was that hardware and software companies can’t be bothered to write software for Linux if not only kernel updates break it sometimes, but the entire ABI changes. ”
No, you’re incorrect. If there’s a market for software on a platform companies will provide it, even if it means having to support more than one version. That’s why more and more companies port their software to GNU/Linux everyday. This is backed up by research done by companies like Red Hat with ISVs.
In this news piece in particular the ABI change is in the gcc/glibc stack. This is not a problem exclusive to “Linux”, as other systems use the GNU Compiler Collection too; Mac OS X for example.
Edited 2006-02-14 00:34
If there’s a market — and the benefits outweigh the costs. You forgot that second part.
Can you show me a list of companies and accompanying software that is being proted to GNU/Linux “every day”? You seem to know, so is there like a running daily list or something?
Breaking compatibility with old binaries is very much a Linux-only problem, as far as modern OSes are concerned. I can run 90% of Windows 95 software in XP. I can run 75% of OS X 10.2/10.1 software on OS X 10.4, and I can run 75%+ of the software for FreeBSD 3.X+ on FreeBSD 5 or 6.
Without compatibility libraries, I can run 0% of old Linux software on a modern distro.
How’s that for backwards compatibility? (By the way, I’m talking about binaries in *all* cases here)
Can you show me a list of companies and accompanying software that is being proted to GNU/Linux “every day”? You seem to know, so is there like a running daily list or something?
No, there is no running daily list, but it happens. In case you did not know, lots of companies which do it want to stay below the radar because of fear of MS, so your list is not going to happen now.
Just shows MS is a true break to innovation and to companies.
Breaking compatibility with old binaries is very much a Linux-only problem, as far as modern OSes are concerned
No it’s not. You and the other trolls and MS shills that replied the same to this thread are just too stupid to inform yourselves. It’s a known fact that no gcc ABI change will break any of your old apps on Linux. It’s a known fact that Fedora development version is a testbed (despite what others would like you to believe).
Reading further and informing yourself was too hard. If you did, you would have learned that the change affects only architectures that other OSes you talk about do not support, and that it was only to support some new features they added (related to security, stability and performance).
See ? That’s the difference of attitude in the community : some people will ask what it is exactly about. People like you, MS shills and trolls and astroturfers, will just bitch about sth they don’t understand right away. Sad really, you are the people we try to shut off, that gives Linux a bad rap.
I can run 90% of Windows 95 software in XP. I can run 75% of OS X 10.2/10.1 software on OS X 10.4, and I can run 75%+ of the software for FreeBSD 3.X+ on FreeBSD 5 or 6
And I can run 100 % of the software I used in 1999 on Linux right now. Yes, 100 %. Even that very old xv that was out before Linux was born, or that fidelio client, or mp3kult, …
Without compatibility libraries, I can run 0% of old Linux software on a modern distro
You’re too confused to understand that a development version of Fedora Core is not Linux.
FYI, what they call compatibility libraries on Linux are mostly old libraries version, and they are there solely for proprietary closed source apps. If you don’t want to install them, don’t come here saying things like how then your proprietary closed source app won’t run, you just look stupid.
How’s that for backwards compatibility? (By the way, I’m talking about binaries in *all* cases here)
Being a troll, your case sure enough is not representative of current state of Linux backwards compatibility. The only true area of compatibility problems on Linux are due to binary only drivers. You can make everything else work without problem.
Don’t worry, 128 bit long double for s390, sparc, ppc(32,64) won’t affect you the least bit.
The fact that Fedora recompile all their distro will bring the improvement to all their included FOSS apps and libs. Your beloved app on Linux you love to troll about (though I still don’t know what it is) will work on the next Fedora, but it will not include the improvements, and so will be the shittiest app on your FC5 (it surely already is on FC4). And sure enough, being a troll, you will blame FC for it, and not the vendor.
The lack of ABI compatibility one of the reasons that Debian often flames Ubuntu. It is very common in Linux distros as Linux doesn’t have to worry about backwards compatibility as much as MS does. Most always being backwards compatible is one of MS’s biggest crutches. As a result, it is harder for them to innovate without hacking in support for older generations of software. Some of this might change in Vista though, I don’t know.
I have my parents set up using Fedora Core 4 and they absolutely love it vs the previous incarnation of Windows XP (too much spyware). Even if a few weeks late, they will be upgraded to Fedora Core 5 as soon as it is released. Keep up the good work Redhat
Of just what’s wrong with Linux today. If I have an application built for let’s say Windows 2000 or AIX5.1 or Solaris 8 I can be reasonably sure that it will work on my chosen operating system for at least a couple years, during which upgrades/security fixes for the OS will be provided while keeping compatibility.
On Linux the gcc team or Linus decide to change something and your left wondering why nothing works anymore. And people wonder why Linux doesn’t succeed on the desktop or why there aren’t more commercial applications.
Same thing happened to the Homebank application of the bank I work for. Windows and Mac versions keep happily running, meanwhile the Linux version needs dirty hacks to work ( http://web.ulyssis.org/~bbbart/inghowto/ )
Guess which one of the three is quietly being phased out ?
Edited 2006-02-13 20:08
No one is forcing you to upgrade. Fedora was created as a testbed for new technology. If your looking for stability, FC is not for you. There are several major distro’s that offer long support cycles. Examples that come to mind: RHEL, SuSE or a couple of good free ones: debian stable or CentOS. Some of these have support cycles up to 5 years, which would almost be on par with windows. You can have stability and binary compatibility with linux, just don’t be silly and try to expect it from Fedora.
No one is forcing you to upgrade. Fedora was created as a testbed for new technology. If your looking for stability, FC is not for you. There are several major distro’s that offer long support cycles. Examples that come to mind: RHEL, SuSE or a couple of good free ones: debian stable or CentOS. Some of these have support cycles up to 5 years, which would almost be on par with windows. You can have stability and binary compatibility with linux, just don’t be silly and try to expect it from Fedora.
There’s no mention of Fedora being a ‘test’ version of RedHat on the webpage anymore. It has been reoriented to be the community-driven version of RedHat for some time now :
“Why should I use Fedora?
Because Fedora is the best collection of stable and innovative software available in the open source world.”
All Linux versions have problems providing decent backwards compatibility. People should be working on this instead of giving the cop-out answer “love it or leave it.” Backwards compatibility from one version to the next and interoperability between distro’s are the biggest problems holding back Linux if they want to break into markets like the desktop.
I should have invented a Linux using grandmother and gotten modded up to +5 instead of trying to discuss real issues and getting modded down.
> All Linux versions have problems providing decent backwards compatibility. People should be working on this instead of giving the cop-out answer “love it or leave it.”
Install RHEL or CentOS and you are guaranteed at least 5 years of binary compatibility. Install SLES and you are guaranteed at least 7 years.
That’s not saying “love it or leave it”. It’s saying that you have a choice of just how adventuresome you want to be. Select wisely, and let your distro maintainers do the work of assuring compatibility.
I use CentOS for both server and desktop, for both myself and an increasing number of my clients these days and am quite satisfied.
BTW, all my grandparents are dead, so I guess my post just has to rest on its merits. 😉
Install RHEL or CentOS and you are guaranteed at least 5 years of binary compatibility. Install SLES and you are guaranteed at least 7 years.
I’ve been meaning to try CentOS perhaps this is a good time since it looks like I’m going to have to wait for Fedora, which is always easiestfo r me to try out because they release a magine with DVD with each new version.
Oh and my condolences 🙂
I’m a long time RHL fan, and have been a Fedora fan since before they came up with the name Fedora.
It was with a certain amount of trepidation that I moved my desktop to the relatively “boring” CentOS. Gnome 2.8?! How ancient!
But you know what? I haven’t missed a thing from my “cutting edge” FC4 desktop.
I think you will like CentOS. Make sure and subscribe to the support list. The signal to noise ratio is excellent. Also, make sure and configure yum to use the excellent “Dag” repository by putting this in a file called dag.repo in the /etc/yum.repos.d directory:
[dag]
name=Dag RPM Repository for Red Hat Enterprise Linux
baseurl=http://apt.sw.be/redhat/el$releasever/en/$basearch/dag
gpgcheck=1
enabled=1
Enjoy!
P.S. Actually, I did get an email a while back from my Grandmother on my father’s side. It was quite a surprise, as you can well imagine. She seems to be doing well. And according to the mail header, wherever she is, she’s using Thunderbird. 😉
Edited 2006-02-14 01:09
Of just what’s wrong with Linux today. If I have an application built for let’s say Windows 2000 or AIX5.1 or Solaris 8 I can be reasonably sure that it will work on my chosen operating system for at least a couple years, during which upgrades/security fixes for the OS will be provided while keeping compatibility
Same for Linux. Welcome new astroturfer.
On Linux the gcc team or Linus decide to change something and your left wondering why nothing works anymore
Wrong !
If Linus changes something, you just revert back to the old kernel, and then have time to investigate what changed. The gcc team can change all they want, as long as you did not remove the old gcc version, your app will run just fine despite any change they made in the old version. A GCC change will only affect your compilation time.
And people wonder why Linux doesn’t succeed on the desktop or why there aren’t more commercial applications
No, only astroturfers without a clue like you wonder.
Same thing happened to the Homebank application of the bank I work for. Windows and Mac versions keep happily running, meanwhile the Linux version needs dirty hacks to work ( http://web.ulyssis.org/~bbbart/inghowto/ )
You have the guts to put a link to an library/app that :
– was not updated in more than 2 years
– does not provide any package installer
– is badly developed
And then you look surprised because your 2 year old library/app won’t run out of the box on the latest Linux distro !
The dirty hacks you talk about, is just providing very old library versions so this app and its libraries can work.
Guess which one of the three is quietly being phased out ?
“Is being phased out” ? But it was not updated in more than 2 years !!!
Linux made huge leaps since then, wxPython (and wxGTK) and PNG library too (with security updates).
A simple package (including the missing old libs) could be made especially for this thing to work without problem on any Linux distro.
Imagine if the auto industry or any other industry didn’t pay attention to backwards compatibility?
In your Ford model 2020 there is no brake pedal, instead it’s a push button.
I guess every one in the open source community thinks that source code can always be compiled if an old binary doesn’t work. Sometimes compiling source code isn’t just a case of configure; make; make install
Edited 2006-02-13 20:17
Who’s forcing you to upgrade? These arguments against breaking backwards-compatibility would hold some water if the software they’re complaining about wasn’t FREE. Don’t like it? Stay with the old version.
If you want your software that worked on Redhat 7.0 to work, then use Redhat 7.0. Redhat/Fedora even provides backwards-compatiblity layers for you. What are you complaining about?
Who’s forcing you to upgrade? These arguments against breaking backwards-compatibility would hold some water if the software they’re complaining about wasn’t FREE.
One reason why I don’t mind paying for software – if they break something, I have a right to bitch
You’d be happy to know there are a few commercial GNU/Linux systems where you can pay (for Free software), and you get to complain when something breaks. That’s not the case of Fedora Core.
I’d agree binary compatability is a problem on Linux.
I sometimes find it quicker to download the Windows version of a program and run it in Wine than to find the Linux version for my distro, or compile from source.
If you take a single small windows app like QuickPar, you could install it on ten different modern Linux distros and it will work with Wine every time. The same binary would work in every version of Fedora from 3 onwards.
Of course, wine is not perfect, and needs to be rebuilt along with the rest of the distro when the ABI changes. It does seem embarrassingly easy to install software sometimes with it though.
aint this old News by about a week or so? an osnews is just reporting this? slow eh
Edited 2006-02-13 22:55
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2006-February/msg0…
The ABI change only concerns PPC, Sparc, Alpha and S390. The “long double” floating-point type will no longer be identical with the 64-bit “double” but become a (slow, software-emulated) 128-bit type. So even on those machines most binaries will continue to work unchanged, since very few will have used “long double” if it was the same as “double” anyway.
There’s no change on x86, x86_64 and Itanium, “double” will continue to mean Intel’s proprietary 80-bit format.
I am responding to some comments that Fedora is just for Redhat to test new features. This is a somewhat narrow perspective. I have been using Fedora since version 3 and have used it for home office purposes. I appreciate that each new version has bleeding edge applications. I am helping Redhat out in testing? possibly. More importantly I am getting a FREE OS that I can use to do my business with and it works well. Just because a new version comes out doens’t mean you have to jump on it right away. I download the test versions to a spare partition and test it out before upgrading.