Submitted by “Fedora Core 6 was released on the 24th, not the 24th of December, but the 24th of October. I can’t remember who said that on the Fedora IRC channel, but for him a new Fedora release was a bit like Christmas.” More here.
Fedora Core 6 Review
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
If they had done absolutely nothing else, the fact that they put extras as an option during install is enough to sell me on this release. After they moved XFCE over to extras a few releases back, the Fedora devs left a whole bunch of us out in the cold, but this puts it right back where it belongs.
Speaking of “Extras”, when I clicked on the checkbox on my DVD installation, it crashed the installer. IMHO, that is pretty pathetic testing. I have never had a problem on my machine with a Linux installation since I first purchased it over 5 years ago. And yes, I made sure SHA1 matched and that there was nothing wrong with my DVD.
So where’s your bug report number? Don’t have one do ya? Shut the f–k up and quit trolling.
Extras was explicitly tested to work on all architectures
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/FC6TreeTesting
A reviewer even confirmed that it worked. Several users did too
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=573&num=1
Maybe you ran into the heavy traffic problem which made many mirrors slow or non working for the first few days after the release
You only require two CD’s for the default set of packages or you can use the 6 MB boot image to do a network installation.
It is possible to use custom / third repositories or Livna if you want proprietary packages
http://rpm.livna.org/rlowiki/UseLivnaInAnaconda
“””Extras was explicitly tested to work on all architectures”””
You always seem to be going on about how this or that in FC is well tested, using cool methodologies that none of those other distros use. And yet, whenever I try to use FC for something, I end up with a show stopper bug that demonstrates that the testing, if there was any, was ineffectual.
This time it is that USB storage devices are not recognized if they are plugged in at boot time. Hotplug works. Cold plug consistently does not. (!)
Known problem. Bug report 2 months old. (At least this one got responded to after a month, though there has been no activity for the last 2 weeks.)
Oops.
And a bad deal if that usb storage device is a samba share that people depend upon.
Every so often I hear enough from people who are involved in FC talking about how great their testing framework is, and who vow that they are out to prove that FC is not just RedHat’s beta, that I forget why I switched my clients from Fedora to CentOS in the first place, and try to use FC for something.
And I am always reminded of why I stopped using it before, and why this recent quote from Brian Stevens, RedHat’s CTO, is so relevant:
“””We’re convinced that there is a better way to develop software, so what we did is we blew up the notion of an Alpha and we use Fedora as an alpha. The engineers are goaled on not just producing enterprise quality software, but driving it through upstream in terms of the community.”””
Source:
http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3628476
Edited 2006-10-28 02:15
The CTO quote was a unfortunate choice of words in relationship to RHEL usually taken out of context. So you get a reply here in
http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3639616
Anyway I have added the static ip+ extras repo configuration checks to the default QA matrix now.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/TreeTestingTemplate
Would you point to the USB storage bug report?
Edited 2006-10-28 03:22
“””Would you point to the USB storage bug report?”””
Of course:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204396
After reading your link:
What I see there is that RedHat, the one paying the salaries, sees Fedora as their alpha. (It’s hard to imagine “we use Fedora as an alpha” being taken “out of context”, as you put it.
Spevack, the Fedora project lead, says it’s not. (Surprise!)
My experience is that it’s about beta quality… perpetually. Well, to be fair, only for about 9 months. After that, it’s just unsupported.
Edited 2006-10-28 03:51
Max Spevack is a Red Hat guy leading the Fedora Project.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MaxSpevack
So its not a question of Red Hat vs non Red Hat. Basically from the perspective of RHEL development, there is no alpha currently since all work happens in a public fashion in the development tree of Fedora. That would be evident if you see we blew up the notion of an Alpha .
When you get right down to it, what really matters is the performance in the field. I have users that are still on FC4. (On machines on firewalled networks only, since FC4 no longer has any support whatsoever: http://lwn.net/Articles/204722/ )
I have moved most of my clients to CentOS. (Most are on 4.4.) But I’m currently evaluating FC6. So I have a pretty good comparison view of the two distros.
Putting all that together with what I’ve read of the positions of RH and the Fedora guys, I would say that RH is willing to fund an alpha. (Think: “Eats your Brane!
The developers want to be able to call it production quality, so they go an extra mile. (Kudos!)
And the end result is about beta quality.
My gripe is not so much with the beta quality, as it is with people trying to claim that it is production quality when it isn’t.
This really goes beyond just the number of bugs upon release. It extends to how those bugs are treated. How many bugs on bugzilla ever get a response? How many are resolved? How many end up “fixed in rawhide”?
Plus, as the above lwn.net link shows, Fedory Legacy… isn’t relevant. There is no tangible support for Fedora Releases after they are “handed off” to Fedora Legacy.
Fedora has its strengths. But it would be better if everyone would just let Fedora be Fedora and not try to claim that it is something that it is not.
Edited 2006-10-28 04:54
If you have users still using FC4, they would have to step up and contribute. Fedora Legacy is volunteer based.
Of course many bugs would closed as fixed in the development tree. Do you think any distribution pushes all its fixes into a stable branch as an update. That is precisely what would destabilise it.
Fedora is now a robust system with a relatively shorter lifecycle and that means that it is not for everyone. There is no qualms about that. Use something else that fits your need. There is no need to track something only to bash it.
Do you want to know how many people use it production? Just ask sourceforge.net wikipedia Disney etc etc. You are one who is spreading FUD here.
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2006-October/msg03138.ht…
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2006-October/msg00…
Edited 2006-10-28 05:39
“””If you have users still using FC4, they would have to step up and contribute. Fedora Legacy is volunteer based.”””
It seems there are no volunteers left. No updates for any of their claimed supported releases since July.
“””Of course many bugs would closed as fixed in the development tree. Do you think any distribution pushes all its fixes into a stable branch as an update.”””
If it’s broken, it’s broken. You can’t really hurt it any more. I know very well that there are fixes that RHEL (and consequently, CentOS) do not push into the release until the next quarterly update.
They do it out of concern for stability. They also keep the same package versions for 18-24 months.
With Fedora, we’re talking about a distro that has no problem with pushing out upgrages to the next version of the package (as nightly updates) because it’s the most expedient way to fix security problems… which they almost *have* to address during the 9-10 month period in which they claim to support the release.
“””Fedora is now a robust system with a relatively shorter lifecycle and that means that it is not for everyone.”””
That’s putting it politely. Fedora is relatively *not* robust with a not so relatively short life-cycle.
What production applications do you support under Fedora and how many of your clients depend upon it?
I simply wish that well meaning persons would stop trying to claim FC is production quality when it isn’t.
And don’t you think that your playing the FUD card was a bit cheap?
Edited 2006-10-28 06:20
“It seems there are no volunteers left. No updates for any of their claimed supported releases since July.”
Ya. So if you have users why dont you contribute something. Thats open source for you. Put up or shut up.
I have a 1200 plus systems running on FC5 in a large university. It has a few custom packages but it is basically FC5. So you are indeed throwing FUD. I also see that you didnt read any of the threads I pointed out where there are dozens and dozens of happy production level users. No go use a distribution you want to and stop attacking Fedora which many of us like and use.
“I simply wish that well meaning persons would stop trying to claim FC is production quality when it isn’t.”
That so nice of you but you can keep your personal opinions to yourself.
“And don’t you think that your playing the FUD card was a bit cheap? ”
Your behavior repeatedly on all Fedora related news is what is cheap. For someone who claims to not use Fedora you seem so desperate to spread bad opinions. If you so much dont like it, leave it.
Edited 2006-10-28 06:44
“””Your behavior repeatedly on all Fedora related news is what is cheap. For someone who claims to not use Fedora you seem so desperate to spread bad opinions. If you so much dont like it, leave it.”””
Nah… I Just believe in calling a spade a spade.
Could you put me in contact with someone else involved with your 1200+ FC5 network?
Just for verification purposes.
Thanks.
“Nah… I Just believe in calling a spade a spade. ”
You dont like it. You want to insist on calling it something. Use what you like instead of whining about what you dont. There are many many people who use it for production.
“Just for verification purposes”
http://www.zdnet.com.au/blogs/disasterrecovery/soa/Massive_desktop_…
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_servers
http://www.softwarelivre.org.br/article.php?sid=7643&mode=thread&or…
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2005/03/14/fedora_makes_rapid_pro…
I am sure you can get contact information on all of these to verify all you want
Edited 2006-10-28 07:22
“””Use what you like”””
I do. Every couple of releases I give FC a try on a new project. And when I see where that decision is leading… again… I switch the project to a more stable distro (sually CentOS with some updated or added packages), as I have done with this project that ran into the still unresolved usb storage cold plug problem.
And yes, I do criticise Fedora when I run into these bugs that should never have made it into a release which some loudly proclaim to be production ready.
”
I do. Every couple of releases I give FC a try on a new project.”
Obviously you dont like it. So stick to what you like. Where have you participated in testing in Fedora? Where have you filed a single bug report on your own? Any single posting in fedora-test list? What have you done except whine about Fedora in all the news threads?
No. Cold plugging a USB disk is NOT a release critical problem. It has a very simple workound pulling it and pulling out back in. CentOS is not a very good comparison at all. Every fast moving distribution runs into similar issues or even very major ones.
OpenSUSE packaging fiasco in 10.1. Ubuntu LTS Xorg update screwup etc etc. So according to your criteria’s every fast moving distribution is alpha or beta.
Edited 2006-10-28 14:58
“””No. Cold plugging a USB disk is NOT a release critical problem.”””
It is when it is a samba share on a “production” server. (And yes, there are very good reasons for this configuration.) If you were thinking “production” instead of “Oh, aren’t wobbly windows COOL?” then it would be quite apparent that a nonfunctional usb storage cold plug is very much a release-critical problem.
And how can you say the CentOS is not a good comparison when it is simply the same code base with some actual testing and polishing work done on it to make it fit for use?
The rest of your questions about why I’m not doing the Fedora developers’ work for them (and for which they are getting paid) are just the usual straw man that invariably gets thrown into the discussion as a distaction from the original issue, which is that it does no one any good to claim that FC is production quality when it is not.
People see that misinformation, try to use FC for important work, and end up with a bad impression of Linux in general.
That is why I feel it is important to speak up on the matter and will continue to do so. For now, however, I think I’ve made my point.
“It is when it is a samba share on a “production” server”
Thats not a usual configuration and other fast released distributions had worser problems in releases too. Find some other reason to consider this release critical. It is less of a problem compared to the OpenSUSE packaging or Ubuntu Xorg screwups. So are you going to calling them betas too?
”
The rest of your questions about why I’m not doing the Fedora developers’ work for them”
Its a FREE community distribution and there are many volunteer developers. If you use a community distribution you are expected to contribute and participate in the process instead of whining or quit using the distribution and stop spreading fear. Again, put up or shut up. This is open source.
”
And how can you say the CentOS is not a good comparison when it is simply the same code base with some actual testing and polishing work done on it to make it fit for use? ”
CentOS is a rebuild of a enterprise level distribution which has backports every fix made by Red Hat. Fedora is comparable to other community distributions with a 6 month release cycle like OpenSUSE or Ubuntu both of which had major problems in many occasions.
”
That is why I feel it is important to speak up on the matter and will continue to do so. For now, however, I think I’ve made my point.”
As I already pointed out there are dozens and dozens of major deployments of Fedora. There is no need for unnecessary trolling.
Edited 2006-10-28 15:49
“””Thats not a usual configuration”””
…
“””Find some other reason to consider this release critical.”””
Having a USB drive plugged in when the server is turned on and wanting to share that drive (reliably) over the network is “not a usual configuration”?
The quoted lines from your post speak volumes about the Fedora philosphy as it relates to the requirements for a production quality distro.
You might as well have just said “NOTABUG, WONTFIX, WORKFORME”.
Edited 2006-10-28 23:16
”
Having a USB drive plugged in when the server is turned on and wanting to share that drive (reliably) over the network is “not a usual configuration”?
”
Especially when USB disks in general work just fine and specific models have problems, then yes. It is NOT release critical at all.
”
The quoted lines from your post speak volumes about the Fedora philosphy as it relates to the requirements for a production quality distro. ”
Obviously it doesnt. I am not a developer
kernel.org uses Fedora FYI.
I tried to install Fedora 6 in a Virtual PC 2004 SP1 session. When it starts the graphical installer, the graphics are all screwed up.
Tried to start installer with linux resolution=1024×768, same thing. I expected more than that from Fedora, but I’m not really surprised.
Have you tried the text mode instead and submit a bug report about graphical issue on Virtual PC?
Edited 2006-10-28 07:38
1)
I’m not interested in running in text mode. I wanted to install this because I thought it would be the fastest way to evaluate certain GUI based applications.
2)
No, I have not submitted any bug report yet, because right now I’m only interested in getting something up and running fast. If it was on new or exotic hardware that I was trying to install, I’d understand if the installer don’t work well, but that’s not the case here.
When I have time, I will file a proper bug report.
Do I need to download all the 5 cds to install it or only 3 are needed?
Edited 2006-10-27 23:49
If you go with the default install you inly need 2. But then again you can do a netinstall with a 7MB boot iso and only use one disc.
I like Fedora 6 a lot since it feels like a smarter Ubuntu. What I mean by this is that it is very flexible and great for running servers or doing development work but it is not so easy to use on the multimedia side for newbies. I have gotten accustomed to pulling up yum afterwards and installing Flash, RealPlayer, MP3 support. This distribution is more for advanced users though that don’t have a problem installing some items manually after installation. Fedora 6 with XFCE4 is lightning fast on the desktop and GTK windows open faster on it. Part of me is beginning to wonder though if this philosophy of keeping out proprietary options from the default installation is what is putting Fedora behind Ubuntu. When it comes down to it most people just want an OS that works right out of the box.
Edited 2006-10-28 00:32
Part of me is beginning to wonder though if this philosophy of keeping out proprietary options from the default installation is what is putting Fedora behind Ubuntu. When it comes down to it most people just want an OS that works right out of the box.
It is not really an issue anymore because Zod’s Anaconda allows user to install their favorite third party repositories so their can grab their favorite closed source format. It will be a matter of time that method will be quickly adopted by other developers.
FC6 seems to be just fine. I’m a Ubuntu user, but I check the other distros just to see what they’re doing. I was impressed that I could upgrade from FC5->FC6 with little effort and get COmpiz/XGL support out of the box. Works great on my Intel mobo with integrated Intel graphics.
Well, since you asked so nicely, here you go:
Bugzilla Bug 212018: anaconda crashes when selecting Extras or configuring iSCSI
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212018
I would have filed it myself, but it seems like they already have a dozen other people who also have posted the bug. Just scroll down the screen to see them.
Edited 2006-10-28 01:08
So it crashes while using iSCSI and a static IP. Thats not a very regular combination. Maybe you can try using the updated image in that case.
Edited 2006-10-28 01:11
You did not read the filing correct. It says when select Extras or iSCSI. Selecting Static IP with Extras is very common. I know because I ran into the bug. And thanks everyone for “modding me down.”
Edited 2006-10-28 01:13
I have had that bug too.Quite annoying.
I tried to install Fedora 6 in a Virtual PC 2004 SP1 session. When it starts the graphical installer, the graphics are all screwed up.
Tried to start installer with linux resolution=1024×768, same thing. I expected more than that from Fedora, but I’m not really surprised.
“Fedora Core 6 was released on the 24th, not the 24th of December, but the 24th of October. I can’t remember who said that on the Fedora IRC channel, but for him a new Fedora release was a bit like Christmas.”
Nerd joke warning:
They should have released it on October 30 then… Everone knows that 30 oct == 24 dec.
edit:
Tried with same results in Virtual PC 2007 beta1
Edited 2006-10-28 06:47
… You are calling the installer broken just because it doesn’t work quite right under a closed source Microsoft VM?
Most likely the virtualized VGA supplied by VPC support in X.org 7.1 (used by Anaconda) is broken.
Try filing a Bugzilla entry and in the mean type, switch to text installation. (boot: linux text)
– Gilboa
I found out what the problem is.
The problem is that X.Org doesn’t query the ROM for what modes are actually supported by the virtual S3 Trio 64.
You can blame MS for not implementing 24-bit support in the virtual graphics card if you like, but fact remains that while other operating systems DO query for what is actually supported, systems using X.Org or XFree86 DON’T do this.
This has apparently been a known problem for at least 1.5 years, and yet the X developers don’t seem to give a shit that their assumptions about what modes the card can handle are incorrect, and Linux distributions don’t seem to give a shit about it either.
This has apparently been a known problem for at least 1.5 years, and yet the X developers don’t seem to give a shit that their assumptions about what modes the card can handle are incorrect, and Linux distributions don’t seem to give a shit about it either.
I’ll ignore for a second the obvious troll mode to which you have entered (and the offensive language which has no place in here), and ask you this:
A. Did you report this bug to bugs.freedesktop.org? If so, what was the outcome?
B. Did you report this bug to bugzilla.redhat.com? If you did, what was the outcome?
– Gilboa
Strike my previous answer.
I did some reading about the subject and this is -indeed- (and only) Microsoft’s fault.
The Trio 64 chip is a fully 24bit GPU and as such, the Anaconda may (or should) assume that it’s fully capable of running in 24bits.
Cursing the X.org developers due to their reluctance to modify a fully working (and stable) driver just so they’ll fix a bug within Microsoft’s own virtualized implementation of the GPU is one of the worst displays of hypocrisy I ever seen in this site.
Before calling X.org and Fedora ‘shit’, have you even tried to reporting the problem to Microsoft? Or was it just easier to point the finger at X.org and at Fedora?
As I said, in the mean time, switch to text based installation. (linux text)
– Gilboa
I disagree with your opinion that Anaconda or X should make such assumptions, and I also disagree that it is a bug in VPC.
Like I said in a previous post, you can blame either MS or X.org for it, but fact remains that systems that don’t make assumptions handle the virtual S3 without problems.
FYI, it was from Microsoft that I found out what caused the problem to begin with.
…. Sigh.
You do understand that neither Anaconda nor X-org have any way of knowing if the GPU is virtualized or not. (Nor should they)
-You- are asking X.org (or Anaconda) to assume that each S3 Trio GPU is broken, just because Microsoft was too -lazy- to fix their own bug.
As I said before, if you had a -real- Trio GPU and Anaconda malfunctioned, your rant would have been justifiable.
As it stand, your rant is pure hypocrisy.
– Gilboa
I’m NOT asking X.org to assume ANYTHING about the S3 Trio. I’m simply asking for them to actually ASK what the GPU supports. If non-X based systems can do it, why can’t X-based?
http://blogs.msdn.com/virtual_pc_guy/archive/2005/05/09/415814.aspx
This does not cause a problem on other platforms as we have removed the 24-bit entries from our ROM – which most operating systems probe to determine possible displays.
If the ROM claimed that it supported 24-bit, but didn’t, it would be a bug. Apparently they did have such a bug once, but that’s been fixed already.
Edited 2006-10-30 16:29
Repeating the same point over and over again doesn’t really serve your purpose – far from it.
As long as there are no real S3-Trio64 cards that have no 24bit support, X.org shouldn’t waste one second fixing Microsoft’s own bugs.
(And -again-, Linux isn’t officially supported by VPC 2004… Which makes your point even weaker.)
– Gilboa
You still don’t seem to realize it’s NOT a bug. The virtual graphics card doesn’t claim to support 24bit.
If missing features are classified as bugs, then there are tons and tons and tons of bugs in Linux.
My patience is running thin.
The original part is 24bit capable.
The original part specs call for 24bit support.
VPC 2004 doesn’t follow the Trio64 specs.
VPC 2004 doesn’t even officially support Linux.
How hard can it be to understand it?
DONT
USE
VPC2004
TO
RUN
LINUX
THEIR
LINUX
SUPPORT
IT’S
BUGGY!
Got it?
– Gilboa
s/IT’S BUGGY/IS BUGGY/g
I hope you do realize that if people stopped using any OS that’s not officially supported by the hardware vendor (physical or virtual), Linux would lose 99% of the userbase.
By CORRECTLY probing for what modes are supported, OTHER operating systems that are not officially supported by Virtual PC can run under Virtual PC without any problems.
ASSUMING that the (virtual) hardware supports everything because the specs says it does, and using that information to FORCE the virtual hardware to run an unsupported mode, is the bug here.
How hard is THAT to understand?
You’re right! (For trying to force install an unsupported OS under VPC)
Microsoft is right! (For failing to emulate the S3 Trio64).
X.org and Fedora are wrong. (For not fixing Microsoft’s bugs)
How could I have missed it?
Thank you master. Now I see the light.
Now go find someone else to play it. You are boring me.
Ba-bye
– Gilboa
As an additional reply…
What do you think happens when Average Windows User decides to try out a Linux distribution, and because he/she don’t want to go through the hassle of reinstalling in case he/she don’t like Linux he/she decides to try it in Virtual PC?
Virtual PC because that’s what AWU found before.
Average Windows User tries Linux only because he/she heard you can do everything in a GUI like with Windows. From installing to running programs.
Those pre-install options look scary so AWU just presses enter or F1 or whatever it is for the distro chosen. And the next thing AWU sees is screwed up graphics.
AWU wonders what is wrong, and tries to install Windows in Virtual PC instead to see if it’s VPC or the distro that makes life hard for him/her.
AWU sees that Windows installs without problem in this program called Virtual PC.
Ok, then it’s just this distro that is broken, AWU thinks next and uses Google to find another distro. Only to encounter the same problem during install.
AWU’s conclusion:
Linux don’t work, I stay with Windows.
——
If you subscribe to the notion that it’s the virtual hardware that is buggy, would it be too much to ask for to get a workaround for this “bug”? There exist many workarounds for physical hardware bugs, so why not workaround for virtual as well? Is it because it’s virtual or because it’s MicroSoft?
As an additional reply…
…
AWU’s conclusion:
Linux don’t work, I stay with Windows.
Microsoft doesn’t officially support Linux in VPC 2004. If AWU decided to try it never the less (instead of say, download the free VMWare Player or Server which do support Linux) he shouldn’t blame Linux (or even Microsoft) when things break.
If you subscribe to the notion that it’s the virtual hardware that is buggy, would it be too much to ask for to get a workaround for this “bug”?
Did you ask Microsoft to fix their bug? If so, what was -their- response?
Oh… If Microsoft really wants to support Linux, nothing stops them from adding their own virtualized driver to the X.org tree. (E.g. vmware-vga driver)
There exist many workarounds for physical hardware bugs, so why not workaround for virtual as well? Is it because it’s virtual or because it’s MicroSoft?
A driver should fix hardware bugs.
The virtual machine software should fix virtualized hardware bugs.
It’s as simple as that.
– Gilboa
A driver should fix hardware bugs.
The virtual machine software should fix virtualized hardware bugs.
It’s as simple as that.
Great. Then I just have to make a “buggy” S3 Trio 64 in real hardware, and they will fix this issue. Why didn’t you say so right away?
Let me get it strait, you are using an unsupported product under another product that has a buggy implemntation of the original specs and you are asking X.org to clean up -your- mess?
Somehow hypocrisy sound rather like an understatement when I read your last post.
– Gilboa
I haven’t been able to use XGL with a Radeon X800XT AGP. I’ve tried with radeon and with propietary fglrx ATI driver. Everytime i press the button “Enable Desktop Effects” i recieve the error message “Desktop effects could not be enabled”
Another problem: having livna respository installed, i am unable to update because i recieve this error message:
“totem-xine conflicts with totem”.
And so i am stucked, a bit frustating
check out http://rpm.livna.org instructions on installing drivers.
Totem-xine deliberately conflicts with totem since the Fedora Core totem uses the gstreamer engine and Totem xine engine cannot work in parallel with that.
#yum remove totem
#yum install totem-xine would work if you want to use xine.
Totem-xine deliberately conflicts with totem since the Fedora Core totem uses the gstreamer engine and Totem xine engine cannot work in parallel with that.
The problem is, you get that message even if you don’t have totem-xine installed. Totem-xine acts as an update for totem; it isn’t, it shouldn’t.
That’s because fedora uses aiglx and not xgl. And aiglx requires driver support. So you can´t do anything about it until ati releases better drivers.
It seems that this release would have needed much much more time. The installation process shows erratic beaviour, anaconda crashes a lot, installation methods other than local media do not work properly, etc. These are only some of the pains I´m currently going through.
I guess I will make it work somehow. For me, it will be worth it and it’s fun for me to find bugs and work-arounds. But I would never recommend FC6 to anyone else than die-hard FC fans.
Yes a bit bumpy is the ride.I don´t mind perse otherwise i would have installed CentOS.
Anaconda seems to have the same lvm bug FC5 also had.Am i the only one who uses raid0 lvm’s?
… I have two machines with LVM on SWRAID0. Didn’t really have any problem with this configuration.
(Same goes for LVM over SWRAID1 and SWRAID5)
Can you elaborate?
– Gilboa
[/i]Can you elaborate?[/i]
Yes,i have stored the exception on floppy.I can send it to you if you wish.
Though it’s not happening all the time that’s rather awkward.
Please create a ticket under Anaconda in bugzilla.redhat.com and attach the exception log.
– Gilboa
Edited 2006-10-30 06:44
I was quite pleased with how stable FC6 test 1 and 2 were to both install and use, but for some unfathomable reason, the Fedora folks decided to overall Anaconda in a *major* way for test 3 (surely that’s what test 1 and 2 should be used for?) and both test 3 and the pre-FC6 (aka “test 4” but Fedora bizarrely refused to call it that) releases were still smarting from quite nasty Anaconda bugs.
They seemed to have mostly smoothed them over with the FC6 final release – if you think about it, the installer is actually the component that needs testing the most, because Fedora don’t respin FC6 (e.g. after a month to include updates – e.g. FC6.1 or whatever), so any Anaconda FC6 bugs won’t be fixed for 6-8 months when FC7 comes out. Bugs in any non-installer software can be easily patched with yum of course.
Maybe there’s a case for an FC 6.5 version to come out 3-4 months after the initial FC 6? This would just be a snapshot of FC 6 + released updates up until the 6.5 release. Would be nice if they started using Delta ISO mechanisms for such updates too (yes, I filed a bug on that).
here’s a guide to getting mp3/java/xine/mplayer/windows-codecs up and running very quickly with FCR6
http://www.linux-noob.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=2533
cheers
anyweb